Film Study: The Chip Kelly vs. Clancy Pendergast Chess Match
Stereotypical warning from author to readers: I'm not an expert. Blah blah blah. Read and rely on my statements below at your own risk.
---------------------
As a casual football fans, you'll sometimes hear the announcers talking about the "chess match" between a team's offensive coordinator and the opposing team's defensive coordinator. I'm sure most of us imagine both coaches expertly dissecting the unfolding plays with their eyes, contemplating what the opposing team is doing, looking down onto their offensive or defensive playsheet, and calling some other play in response to what just happened. The very next down, both teams line up against each other and execute another play. And another play. And another play.
To your casual fan, these are just plays, after plays, after plays. They may not seem all that different than each other. It may seem like nothing is really going on out there. In fact, it may seem like there is no "chess match" going on at all.
Is there a chess match going on?!?!
Absolutely. Let me try and illustrate it to you.
With every chess game there is an opening move. In our situation we are looking at the chess match between Oregon Head Coach Chip Kelly and Cal defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast (I know Oregon's offensive coordinator is Mark Helfrich, but Oregon's current offense is Chip Kelly's child and I'm pretty sure he's the one calling the plays too). Therefore, the opening move is to be made by the offense.
THE OPENING MOVE BY CHIP KELLY
What is Chip Kelly's opening move?
It's the zone read.
No surprise there. The zone read -- and its many variants -- is the staple run play of the Oregon offense. I've already covered what the zone read is in the past so I won't do it again here. (Note: you can read about the zone read in some of my previous posts here, and here).
THE RESPONSE BY CLANCY PENDERGAST
Now, how does Cal's defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast respond to Oregon and its zone read offense?
It's Cover Zero.
What is Cover Zero (Cal might call it "zero coverage"). It's a defense based on man to man principles. Every defender (more or less) has one offensive player to defend. It's a true 11 on 11 defense. Even the QB is covered by somebody -- typically, the QB is often not really covered by a defender. In most cases, a safety is the defender who is assigned the task of defending the QB.
Is Cover Zero a good defense to play against Oregon's offense? In my (amateur) opinion, yes. Why? As we saw in the 2009 Oregon vs. Cal game, playing zone coverage didn't really work so well. Oregon just flooded Cal's zones, and playactioned our poor linebackers to death. Zone defense is a rather reactive defense whereas Cover Zero is a more proactive defense. Cover Zero has strict assignments whereas zone defenses don't always have strict coverage assignments. With a Cover Zero defense, there should be absolutely no confusion as to which defender is covering which offensive player.
In my opinion, Clancy Pendergast's choice to defend against Oregon with Cover Zero was a great decision.
THE COUNTER-ATTACK BY CHIP KELLY
So Chip Kelly sees how Cal is defending against its offense. Now, Chip Kelly needs to counter-attack somehow.
How does he do it?
Watch the video below to see how Chip Kelly counter-attacks the Cover Zero defense (Special thanks to Avinash for providing the video):
Do you see it?
Okay, if you didn't see it, it's okay. It's a little hard to see. But let's dig into it and see EXACTLY what Oregon was trying to do.
Above is the pre-snap picture of the play. Oregon is in an 11 personnel set (1 back, 1 TE, 3 WRs) with a "trips" formation (3 WRs to one side of the offense). Cal is playing in its 3-3 nickel defense. If you watched the above video, you'll know that Oregon runs a zone read on this play.
What defense is Cal playing? We already know it's Cover Zero.
Let's quickly break down how we know it's Cover Zero.
On the trips side of the formation ("trips" means the side with 3 WRs), Cal is clearly playing man coverage. I've shown this with yellow lines connecting the DBs with the WRs that they are covering. How do we know it's man coverage? (1) Because all the CBs are to one side of the formation, as opposed to having a balanced defensive formation with a CB on each side of the defense. (2) The shallow depth of the CBs suggests man coverage. (3) Cal's middle slot DB is up close and personal with the middle slot WR and intends to jam him -- you typically don't jam on zone coverage. (4) the CBs are squared up on the WRs instead of playing outside leverage like Cal DBs do when playing zone.
On Cal's left side of the formation, Cal safety #11 (Cattouse), is lined up outside of the Oregon TE. This doesn't appear to be man coverage but it is. The reason why the safety is lined up on the outside of the TE is because the safety has outside-containment responsibility should this be a run play and the ball carrier bounces the ball to the outside. It's much easier to redirect the ball-carrier back towards the middle of the field by playing outside the blocker rather than heads up or inside the blocker. So even though the safety might not look like he's playing man coverage, he is.
What's the rest of the coverage? Well the rest of the coverage is merely Cal safety #17 (Conte). What is he doing? He's playing the QB.
How do we know this? We look at his alignment. I've drawn a long yellow line down the middle of the field from where the QB stands. I've also drawn a shorter line from Conte's feet over to the division line. Conte is playing to the defense's left. This is significant for a few reasons. First, if Cal was playing Cover-1 (one deep safety), then Conte would be aligned either in the middle of the field or more towards the trips formation on the defense's *right* side. But Conte is on the defense's *left* side. He's on the left side because his job is to guard the QB on a zone read play if the QB keeps the ball. And on a zone read play, the QB will always run to the side of the field that the RB is on. Since the Oregon RB is on the defense's left side, Conte can expect the QB to run to the defense's left side.
So clearly, Cal safety #17 (Conte) is playing the QB.
Putting all the coverages together, what do we get? We get Cover Zero. Cal is playing an aggressive man defense with absolutely zero deep safety help (because both of the safeties are assigned to cover specific offensive players rather than sitting back in deep coverage).
So now let's move on to the actual play itself. Oregon starts off putting the inner-most slot player into motion across the formation.
Here's the field just as the QB and the RB are meshing. The responsibility of the motion man is to block the defender who was covering him. Seems obvious enough, right?
Here's the not-so-obvious part. Oregon's TE is going to block Cal safety #17 (Conte), instead of blocking the Cal safety #11 (Cattouse) who is right across from him.
What's going on here? Why doesn't the Oregon TE just block Cal safety #11 (Cattouse) right in front of him? After all, Cal safety #11 (Cattouse) is covering the Oregon TE, so it makes sense that the TE just block the defender guarding him, right?
Not quite.
To explain, I turn to my crappy photoshop drawings in an attempt to illustrate.
So above, I've shown the formation from the offense's point of view.
The defense, as we know, is playing Cover Zero. That means the FS (Conte) is covering the QB, and the SS (Cattouse) is covering the Oregon TE. I've shown these coverage responsibilities with blue lines.
Oregon will have its TE block the Cal FS (Conte). Remember, the Cal FS has the responsibility of defending against a QB run. So what happens if the TE blocks the FS???
NOBODY WILL BE COVERING THE QB.
This is EXACTLY what Oregon wants.
Remember, Cal SS #11 (Cattouse) is covering the Oregon TE. Cattouse doesn't know that the TE is going to block Cal S#17 (Conte). Cattouse just thinks the TE is running a route, and it's Cattouse's responsibility to cover that route so he drops back into coverage and away from the line of scrimmage. I've shown this with a yellow line above.
This, of course, is exactly what Oregon wants. They are HOPING that the person covering the TE (Cattouse) doesn't realize what's going on and drops back into coverage. Because essentially then, that one TE is taking out two defenders (by blocking Conte, and having Cattouse follow him).
That last sentence is so important, I want to say it again: that one TE is taking out two defenders (by blocking the Conte, and having Cattouse follow him).
Remember, Cover Zero is a defense based on man coverage principles. It's a true 11 on 11 defense where every since defender has their own offensive player to cover/block.
Since Oregon had its TE block the FS (Conte), and the SS is also covering the TE, the effect is that the defense basically has two defenders occupied by one offensive player.
In other words, instead of being 11 on 11. All of a sudden, the play is now 10 defenders vs. 11 offensive players. The defense is now down one defender.
So what has to happen on defense for them not to be taken advantage of by this nifty trick by Chip Kelly?
The SS (Cattouse) has to be aware of the situation, and realize that the TE is going to block FS (Conte), and thus he (the SS) and the FS have to basically swap responsibilities. In other words, no longer is the FS covering the QB, but the SS is now covering the QB instead.
Let's go back to the play and see how it unfolds...
Going back to the play, we can see the Oregon TE trying to get to Cal FS #17 (Conte) shown by the yellow vision cone. Unfortunately for him, his efforts are hampered by the fact that the Cal SS #11 has recognized the run play and is engaging the TE to stop the run.
And here's where it gets more obvious that the TE is really trying to block the FS instead of the SS in front of him. Here you can clearly see the TE lining up his sights on the FS (Conte).
And BOOM. The money shot. The Oregon TE smashes the Cal FS (Conte) breaking the FS's coverage (broken red line). Fortunately, Cal's SS #11 (Cattouse) saw that the QB kept the ball on the zone read and has basically taken over the coverage responsibility of the FS (shown with a yellow line).
Watch this play again, now that you know what Oregon is trying to do. Specifically, watch that Oregon TE on the end of the LOS as he attempts to work his way to the Cal FS but is hampered due to the Cal SS:
Pretty cool, huh?
Oregon chooses to block their zone reads like this on purpose because they know that a lot of teams will play Cover Zero against them.
I must note that this isn't the cleanest play to choose to illustrate what Oregon is trying to do. I'm sorry. Cal's SS #11 (Cattouse) does a great job stymieing the efforts of the Oregon TE in blocking the FS (Conte). But I chose this play for that very fact. Cattouse, whether because he knew what Oregon was doing (very likely), or because he was just so concerned about the QB keeper on the zone read (as he should be) was very quick to attack the run and get in the way of the Oregon TE.
Let's watch another play. In the play below, you'll see Oregon do the same thing, but this time instead of using a TE to block the FS (Conte), they'll use a WR.
(Hint: the WR who blocks the FS (Conte) is at the bottom of the screen).
Did you see it? The Oregon WR at the bottom of the screen bee lines towards Cal FS #17 (Conte) to take him out. Unfortunately for the Oregon WR, a few things go wrong. First of all, Cal CB #1 (Williams) gets in the way of a clear path to Cal FS #17 (Conte). Second, the Oregon WR doesn't even really get a hand on Cal FS #17 (Conte) although you can see the Oregon WR desperate trying to grab Cal FS #17 (Conte) as he runs by. Nevertheless, the Oregon WR slows down the FS enough to allow the Oregon QB to get the first down, but he (the Oregon WR) also draws Cal cornerback #1 (Williams) far enough off the line of scrimmage to create a void of defenders to stop the QB run.
That's the whole one offensive player occupying two defenders concept.
Remember, a Cover Zero defense hopes to have the following match-ups which results in 11 defenders vs. 11 offensive players:
5 Offensive Linemen + 1 Runningback = 3 Defensive Linemen + 3 Linebackers
3 WRs = 3 CBs
1 TE = 1 SS
1 QB = 1 FS
As you can see, all 11 offensive players are defended by a defensive player.
But since Oregon is using a TE (or WR) to occupy both a CB/SS and the FS, the following match-ups result:
5 Offensive Linemen + 1 Runningback = 3 Defensive Linemen + 3 Linebackers
3 WRs = 3 CBs
1 TE = 1 SS + 1 FS
1 QB = [no defender]
Here, 11 defenders are only covering 10 offensive players. That's what Oregon is trying to accomplish.
Conclusion:
Let's recap:
Chip Kelly's opening move: Zone read
Clancy Pendergast's response: Cover Zero
Chip Kelly's counter-attack: blocking the FS with either a TE or WR
There is your chess match. It does exist. It is happening. It's always happening even though the plays which are unfolding before your eyes look no different than before.
Now, the final question which is probably on your mind is: "What can the defense do to counter the offense's attempts to block the FS?"
I'm no expert, but my answer to this question is to have the SS/CB (whomever is covering the TE or WR who is attempting to block the FS) swap coverage responsibilities with the FS. In other words, the FS will now cover the TE/WR who is attempting to block him, and the SS/CB whom would originally be covering the TE/WR is now instead covering the QB. This solves the problem of the offense gaining the 11 vs. 10 advantage.
I've drawn out a picture below:
Remember, originally, the FS would cover the QB, and the SS would cover the TE (shown with the blue lines connecting these players). If the defense just swaps the coverage of the FS and the SS, so that the FS is covering the TE, and the SS is covering the QB (shown with the gold colored lines), then the problem of gaining an 11 vs. 10 advantage is solved.
However, this hypothetical defense poses two problems. First, you have to teach your defenders to recognize which of the offense's players is going to block the FS. This isn't entirely hard to do though. Oregon either does it with the TE, or the outer-most WR to the backside of the zone read (the side the QB will run to if he keeps the ball). So the issue just becomes a matter of drilling your defenders into quickly recognizing who that player is. The second problem, is that now the defense has a SS/CB covering the QB, and a FS covering a TE/WR. The SS/CB will be out of position to cover the QB as since the SS/CB will most likely be aligned more to the outside rather than directly up-field from the QB (allowing the QB easier running lanes up-field and to the opposite side of the field). Also, the FS covering a WR a somewhat bad combination too as since the FS will also be out of position and isn't as great as a pass defender as a CB.
And let's just suppose that Cal started playing this hypothetical defense. What does Chip Kelly do in response? Easy. Just run QB-keepers to the opposite side of the SS (the defender who is covering the QB) and use the RB as a lead-blocker. So simple.
So there are counters for everything. Some counters work better than others. Some counters can be nullified with better execution.
Football, despite the never-ending schematic "chess match" which is going on, is also decided by execution (which includes talent). During this particular game, I think Chip Kelly very slightly out-schemed Clancy Pendergast. But it was Oregon's better execution and talent level which ultimately led them to win the game.
70 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great stuff
It worked so well v. Oregon. Why didn’t we do this versus Nevada? No one seemed to “cover” Kapernick and he just killed us. But Thomas we held in check.
No expert here, but I think Nevada gave us plenty of practice against zone-read, running QB type offenses (especially watching them run very well up and down against us) – which may have given the “just got here from the pros” Pendergast some ideas of what works and what doesn’t against a type of offense that isn’t seen at all in the NFL.
Just a guess though.
From watching the game it definitely looked like you guys took Nevada for granted
Not a ton of focus on either side of the ball
There's a difference between...
taking an opponent for granted and not playing them well. My view is we didn’t adjust at halftime to what they were running, but kept crashing the OLB on the RB w/out any regard for the (very talented) QB. All us fans knew that was going to be a tough game (esp. w/out Mikey Mo….he was out for that game, right?), so I’m sure the coaching staff did, too.
Nevada outplayed us, fair and square.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
I say out-schemed, we were winning all the one-on-one match ups, we just kept chasing the wrong guys. Frustrating game, and Mohammed was not there, but I’m not sure his presence would have made a big difference.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
And Chris Ault > Chip Kelly?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
really? One is a guy who’s in the CFB HoF and has developed the pistol, the other has expanded on zone read offense and has his program associated with all kinds of negative things.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
They're two different players,
But from what I’ve seen, Thomas is less of a natural runner. He’s not Dennis Dixon back there. It makes me wonder why LSU only wanted him as a WR – he has a good arm, great composure and leadership (most of the time), but he doesn’t look terribly natural keeping it, and he’s never going to win any sprint competitions.
I also think that the Pistol introduces some other problems since the RB lines up directly behind the QB, therefore eliminating any clues as to which way the play might unfold. It’s clear in Oregon’s spread, which way the zone read might go based on the position of the running back. In the play above, if the RB gets the ball he’s going to his left or up the middle, if the QB keeps it, he’s going to his right. With the Pistol, you have no freaking clue.
by daveman on Jul 11, 2011 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Does the RB always line up behind the QB in the pistol (or at least, the way Nevada runs it)?
The inability of the defense to discern what play Oregon is running based on the formation they see is one of the main reasons the zone option read is so effective. I don’t remember who the opponent was , but during a game before we came to Memorial, we ran the same play 9 times in a row. Or, I should say, we lined up in the same formation 9 times in a row.
by DuckUntilDeath on Jul 11, 2011 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions
The Pistol formation is the running back lining up directly behind the quarterback (who is himself in the shotgun). That’s the entire basis of the formation.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
This didn’t work so well against Nevada because the Cal defenders weren’t trusting in each other. The Cover Zero ultimately has some defenders defending against offensive players who clearly do not have the ball. It seems crazy, but it’s necessary because sometimes those offensive players do get the ball. But what the Cal players did against Nevada was try to come off their own defenders to make the tackle on a different offensive player, instead of trusting the Cal defender who was assigned to that other offensive player. In other words, Cal was basically using two defenders on one offensive player leaving another offensive player uncovered.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
If Cal played Nevada later in the year somehow, say..November…would you have expected different results cfrom Cal’s defense?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Yes. I think Cal played Oregon so well because the Nevada game was such a learning experience for them — as well as a good live practice against zone read and option teams.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
There also was our game against fUCLA and their version of the pistol which probably helped against the Ducks.
by MV Bear on Jul 11, 2011 12:27 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You should click on it. It's funny.
It’s a flame war version of the Lyles timeline. I made it into a link so I don’t lose it in “Recent Activity.” It’s good whenever I need a laugh.
by DuckUntilDeath on Jul 11, 2011 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions
For as long as I have been reading your analyses (since the old blogsome days), I have always appreciated the clarity and simplicity of your writing. It’s impressive that you can take something as complicated as this and make it easy to comprehend for everyone from the TwistNHooks of the world to the seasoned HydroTechs/Avinashes of the world. Great work, once 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
You may not be an expert...
…..but you play one here on CGB. NICELY done, Hydro!
On the second play, UO gets the first down because the CB doesn’t realize as quickly as Cattouse that it’s a run play. He goes with his receiver for 5 yards after the interior LBs should have been yelling RUN!!!!!!!!!! That’s the mentality of a CB (cover until the whistle) over a safety (cover, hit, do whatever I need to!). If the CB picks his head up, we likely stop that second play at the line.
Great analysis.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
Oregon actually runs a few plays that look like the zone read, where Thomas keeps it, scampers for a bit, and then throws to a wide open receiver (after the DB’s bite on the run).
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Yeah, like they did over and over in 2009.
by MV Bear on Jul 11, 2011 12:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Thanks.
If the CB had stayed put, or been quicker to break off his coverage to take the QB, then we definitely might have stopped the QB on the second play. However, and as Carp points out above, there are plenty of zone read playaction-type of plays that spread teams run. They are designed to look like zone reads and get the defensive backs to bite on the run, while the WRs run right past them. Cal can’t completely disregard the WRs because these types of plays are real threats.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
True, but....
That’s why it’s the interior LB’s responsibility to call the run because they are keying off the offensive linemen. The guards are 1-2 yards downfield while the CB is still on his receiver and the QB is picking his lanes. Go ahead and throw at that point; we’ll take the illegal man downfield penalty.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
Aren’t college football linemen allowed to go downfield on a forward pass? I think they’re allowed up to 3 yards downfield or something.
by Missing Barry on Jul 12, 2011 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Reading this, got to reflecting on what a great series this has been.
Speaking simply of intangibles, nothing ever seems to go right when Oregon heads down to Berkeley. The series as a whole has been the most consistently competitive of any Oregon has had in the last decade. Since ‘06, Oregon has a losing record against Cal – you have to go to USC in ’02 to find another losing record for UO. There have been so many close finishes, and every year there seems to be something memorable – all that happened in this last game, monsoons, Goal-line fumbles, dramatic overtimes, Keith Allen’s butterfingers, stadium lights shutting off, etc. Even the few blowouts (‘06, ’09) have been unexpected and were major turning points for both teams in those seasons. I’m really hoping Oregon can stay good, and you guys can rise above the rest of the division to elevate this game into a rivalry for control of the North each year. It would be infinitely more fun than this year’s supposed UO v. stanfurd setup.
Agreed. All great games. Except for 2009. I fear 2011 will be similar. :(!
The internet's most successful troll!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Well, on the scale of inevitable disaster, it could be worse. At least we’ve got a bye the previous week. Would be even better if Oregon didn’t, but ESPN is a cruel mistress.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
The lights (Cal @ Oregon '03)
traumatizing event…..I pray never to have the pleasure of being in Eugene again. I feel 2007 was its revenge.
"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
by Joe Bandsmen on Jul 11, 2011 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions
ooh
I’m getting better at this football stuff! I figured out what was happening immediately the first time I looked at the video. You and Avi must be doing a good job, Hydro :)
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jul 11, 2011 11:14 AM PDT reply actions
Thanks. Or you’re just getting good at seeing what’s going on. The more you look for stuff the more you’ll see.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Yeah, but trust me, I’ve learned a ton from you guys. Your posts are extremely educational and the way you lay it out really sticks with the reader and lets them build upon it. Thanks again.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jul 11, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Great write-up, but...
Totally disagree with your conclusion.
Oregon had really just one “good” offensive play – the 25 yd TD pass, one play drive after a Cal turnover. Their other score was on special teams. Not sure how you can say Kelly slightly outschemed Pendy, especially given Oregon’s normal scoring abilities.
Thanks
I see your point. But do you really want to say that Oregon only had one good play? They may not have gained gigantic amounts of yardage like they normally do, but they did enough (especially on that last drive) to win the game. Just because a play only gets four yards instead ten yards or doesn’t get a touchdown doesn’t necessarily make it not a good play.
And I came to my conclusion because (from what I could see), Pendergast really didn’t seem to have much of an answer for what Oregon was doing on offense (in regards to this particular Oregon scheme). Pendergast knew they were trying to block the FS and were having some success doing it, but nothing really seemed to change in Cal’s defense to respond to what they were doing.
So while you seem to be judging who out-schemed who based on big plays, I’m looking on a more microscopic level at the actual Xs and Os of what is going on. Perhaps the Xs and Os don’t matter, but I think that’s the better measuring stick for who is winning the scheme battle.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Metrics
I can see your point, but I would say that Pendergast still deserves a lot of credit. Leaving out the possibility that he fiddled with assignments in ways not obvious on TV camera angles, there is a simple explanation for not adjusting: the plan was working. Oregon’s receivers couldn’t reliably beat their coverage, allowing him to commit everyone else to the box. The QB runs that killed the D against Nevada were effectively contained by having a full time spy, while the defensive line did a great job of controlling the line of scrimmage on the frontside. Pendergast did everything you can expect from a defensive coordinator: he gave his players a plan that they could execute that significantly hindered the opposing offense. Oregon’s offense only did enough to win because Cal’s offensive struggles set that bar rather low.
Somewhat related, Chris Brown has a great post from a couple years ago on how Paul Johnson messes with perimeter blocking to create big play opportunities.
by MountainTiger on Jul 11, 2011 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions
First Downs.....
Both plays…hard to imagine Oregon doing things ‘wrong’ when they get first downs on both plays….good analysis but for the Ducks…not Cal….moron
The only time I mentioned the word “wrong” was in the context below:
The Oregon WR at the bottom of the screen bee lines towards Cal FS #17 (Conte) to take him out. Unfortunately for the Oregon WR, a few things go wrong. First of all, Cal CB #1 (Williams) gets in the way of a clear path to Cal FS #17 (Conte). Second, the Oregon WR doesn’t even really get a hand on Cal FS #17 (Conte) although you can see the Oregon WR desperate trying to grab Cal FS #17 (Conte) as he runs by. Nevertheless, the Oregon WR slows down the FS enough to allow the Oregon QB to get the first down, but he (the Oregon WR) also draws Cal cornerback #1 (Williams) far enough off the line of scrimmage to create a void of defenders to stop the QB run.
I never said Oregon was doing things wrong. And it’s quite clear from the above comment that I’m referring to the Oregon WR specifically rather than the team as a whole.
Nevertheless, isn’t it possible that a player can still do something wrong and the play results in a first down?
Can’t football analysis by a fan be regarding plays on which his favorite team didn’t do so well?
Are you the real moron here?
Those were rhetorical questions, but the answer to all three questions is “yes”.
Do you realize you exemplify the stereotypical stupidity that the Pac-10 hates about Oregon fans? If anyone writes one slightly negative thing about how their team isn’t the greatest team on Earth and how they never do anything wrong, you get pissed. Get real. You’re a joke and a disgrace to Oregon fans everywhere.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Take it easy, Hydro
Both of you are a little over the top here
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
You seem to think the title of this post is “How Pendergast outwitted Kelly…” which it is quite obviously not.
Hydro did a fantastic job of showing two different variations of the zone read versus cover zero in that game. The first play WAS well defended, and ended with positive yardage for Oregon due to an athletic play by Thomas.
Hydro, thanks for the write-up. I have to say I may have enjoyed your breakdown of the 2009 game better, but I am a Duck, so what do you expect? :)
I don't mean to impose...
Easy fellow fowl......this was a pretty damn good good analysis
Cal did a pretty damn good job containing the ducks until the last drive.
Long time Bay Area resident, first time caller
This is really good stuff.
And Cliff Harris was like, "VRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
by DuckUntilDeath on Jul 11, 2011 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Just Asking
What part of the game film does the Oregon FB get tackled on the sideline, pull an envelope out of his sock and hand it to that “Will Lyles fellow” standings by the Duck bench?
by MV Bear on Jul 11, 2011 12:35 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I think it was during one of Cal's brutal defensive line injuries
That being said, the original post was a GREAT write up. Great work Hydro!
by Charlie Offenbacher on Jul 11, 2011 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Defense in USC and Stanfurd games?
I’m liking this series on the defensive breakdown. Can you guys do something on why SC and ’Furd devoured us last year? I figured Pendergast would have had a much easier time with those two “pro-style” teams.
Thanks
nedbear
I'll consider it.
I haven’t watched those games in detail lately. If I have the time and feel up to it I just might do so.
Avinash broke down a few plays against SC that can be searched for but if you want a broader, overall, and quicker perspective of what went wrong, I’ll give you my 2 cents.
- Personnel Groupings. With different combinations of personnel, Furd and SC showed more formations and there was much more to prepare for. Throw in some different looks not shown on tape and it can throw a defense off. I broke down the Oregon game and they used the same personnel 98.9% of the time against Cal. The risk of confusion and thinking on the defensive side of the ball drops when a team does not have to scramble to adjust to offensive substitutions.
- Terrible Offense. They say that a good offense can offset a bad defense and vice versa. It’s no secret our offense was inconsistent even when Riley was playing and absolutely stunk with Mansion in the game. If you can’t move the ball, your bound for my next point:
- Bad Field Position = Tougher Position for Defense. Mansion spotted Furd 3 points by fumbling twice on the opening drive deep in Cal’s territory. Terrible punt return coverage. Terrible kickoff coverage. This put the defense into a bad position, which leads to my next point:
- More Pressure = Defense Feels the Urge to Make Plays. When this happens, defenders tend to make stupid mental errors. Technique errors, not concentrating on their assignments. and on. Against Furd, Kendricks got called for being offsides on a 3rd and 4 that ended up being an incomplete pass on the 2nd drive of the game. The offsides kept the drive alive. Does anybody recall what happened next? 3 plays later, Luck made his highlight scramble and Furd went on to score TDs on their next 4 drives.
- Other Team’s Offense Outplays Cal’s Defense More Often Than Not. Stats never tell the whole story but they can be good indicators of what may have went right or wrong for a team. For the sake of simplicity, looking only at 3rd down conversion % for defense and completely ignoring what happened on 1st and 2nd downs, Cal’s 3rd down defense against Furd, SC, and Nevada was 53% which would have ranked #117 nationally last year. Against the rest of the schedule, Cal’s 3rd down conversion % on defense was 30% which would have ranked #5 nationally. Overall, Cal finished #17 at 34.68%. A team is never going to win 100% of the plays but looking at those 3rd down stats tells me that quickly that Cal’s defense was not getting it done for whatever reason. Favorable distances for the offense (which could indicate failure to stop the other team on 1st and 2nd down), player mistakes, mismatches, blown coverages, overpursuing, bad playcalls, and so on all happened during the Furd and SC games. The evidence is in the film and I have no desire to dig any further.
There is no complex formula nor explanation as to why Cal stunk it up against SC and Furd. It was just little things that added up and snowballed. Cal’s offense was not good enough to carry the team when the defense was struggling. When both sides of the ball are playing bad and special teams is not consistently helping out, it’s a recipe for disaster.
by Cali49a on Jul 14, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

by 







































































