Jeff Tedford Explains Isi Sofele Over C.J. Anderson

The reason Isi Sofele was on the field instead of C.J. Anderson at tailback is because the Bears wanted to run an "outside zone" play, which, according to Tedford, has "cutback potential." Tedford said missed blocks were the reason the Bears didn’t score, not because of Sofele. He said Sofele is better equipped to handle the outside zone play than Anderson. "The outside play can go in or bounce out," he said. "Isi has the most experience with that play and has a little bit better speed to be able to execute that play. That’s why he was in there."

John Breech of CBS Sports has the full quote.

Media: Might you guys think about putting a bigger back in down in goal line situations or is Isi someone you're going to stick with?

Tedford: With that run, it was an outside zone play, it wasn't so much a downhill play, it had cutback potential, as you saw when we ran blast right up the middle, we put C.J. in on the blast play [in the first half] and C.J. did what he was supposed to do, he plowed over somebody.

On the outside zone play that we ran down there, we just missed the block, a guy came off the blocker or Isi squirts right in there. Isi broke the first tackle, the nose guard, Dom overreached the nose and the nose came behind him and tried to get his legs and he broke that tackle and then the next guy on the edge came off of a block and got back inside and that's the guy he ran into.

There was a big hole there, we just have to sustain our blocks, so that wasn't so much Isi. The plays that we run, we're going to put certain guys in. The blast is downhill and C.J. went in for that. But the outside play that could go in or bounce out, Isi has had the most experience with that play and has a little bit better speed to be able to execute that play, so that's why he was in there.

To revisit our debate on the plays at CGB, go here.

8 months ago Avinash Kunnath 33 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Why continue talking about this 1 play?
How about we make a list of the top 15 plays that led to Cal’s loss and discuss those crucial moments just as well. I could care less about this play, either the execution or call of it, than I do about the fact that QB Price was able to step up into the pocket and convert long passes down field. How come there wasn’t a “spy” LB, for instance, that drilled his ass after he avoided the DE’s rush past him to the outside. Maybe we had a spy, but Price ran away from him.

There were lots of thing Cal could have done differently, better, to win this game. 3 other plays at the end failed, too.

by concordtom on Sep 27, 2011 12:26 AM PDT reply actions

Because even with all the previous errors, the fact of the matter is that Cal was still in a position to tie the game during this final drive. The game was on the line, and there was a questionable decision made. There is going to continue to be a lot of attention on that one play.

by mrjpark on Sep 27, 2011 1:46 AM PDT up reply actions

Yup.

California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!

by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2011 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions

That makes me think of a great post that I’d never, ever have time for but one of the people who rewatches the game might: a Top 15 and a Bottom 15. The best 15 plays of the game (including great blocks/looks etc not just nice catches), and the worst 15 plays of the game (whiffs, bad tackles, drops etc).

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 Sep 27, 2011 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions

That’s a cool idea, Spazzy. I’ll look into it. 15 each is too many to be practical, but maybe a top 3/bottom 3 could work.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 27, 2011 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions

.

Or maybe something like “x number good plays” and “y number bad plays.” I guess what I have in mind is not a collection of Sportscenter highlights, or conversely the total fuckups, since we all see and remember those…more just “good” and “bad” plays that we might otherwise miss.

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 Sep 27, 2011 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions

I’m over it; really we should have been blown out if we didn’t manage a couple of turnovers. I bet Tedford’s questioning the two outside zone run plays? Are these good calls? Also, were these the 25% of the plays that Tedford didn’t call? I doubt it, given the crucialness of those calls.

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

by carp on Sep 27, 2011 6:09 AM PDT reply actions

really we should have been blown out if we didn’t manage a couple of turnovers.

Huh? Were you watching the same game?

Cal: 457 total yards
Washington: 409 total yards

Cal: 24 first downs
Washington: 21 first downs

Cal: 76 total plays
Washington: 59 total plays

If we had a little better luck in the red zone, we would have won. I don’t think we were outplayed, let alone “should have been blown out”, and I don’t think it’s fair to discount the turnovers; those were good plays by our defense, who made some good plays on the ball to strip it and create the turnovers. They weren’t fluke mistakes by the Huskies.

California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!

by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2011 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions

emphasis mine

If we had a little better luck in the red zone

Of all the reasons we lost, I think luck has to be at the very bottom of the list.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 27, 2011 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions

I blame Andrew Luck for everything!

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 27, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions

What a bad joke.

California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!

by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions

fine, pick a synonym to replace it

~~luck~~ fate/fortune/success/outcomes

I don’t think using one of those other words would change my overall point.

California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!

by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2011 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions

I think you miss my point. Claiming that this loss was out of our control is false, in my opinion. There are reasons we lose games like these, and it’s not just random chance.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 27, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Then if we are going to be a terrible red zone team, it will replicate itself over the course of the season.

by sycasey on Sep 27, 2011 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Aside from my unfortunate selection of the word “luck” to mean “outcome” (or perhaps I should have said “execution” instead), I don’t think I claimed that at all. What I said was that, overall, in a big picture sense, we played well enough to win. Our offense consistently gained plenty of yards to be successful and win the game, and we weren’t “outplayed” in any sense. We just shot ourselves in the foot a couple of times with crucial mistakes.

Anyway, if you look at the red zone issues, without Maynard’s fumble and (I believe) Galas’ bad snap, which, to be sure, were execution issues, not luck, we could well have won the game. If even one of those drives results in a touchdown, I think it changes the game quite a bit.

California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!

by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions

In this case, the concept of “luck” as atoms is using it does not have anything to do with whether or not it was in the teams control. It’s more about how close the outcome was to its expected outcome.

by Missing Barry on Sep 27, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh thank you, you said it so much more succinctly. :)

California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!

by atomsareenough on Sep 27, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions

fair enough

while I’m glad we didn’t get blown out, I do not think it is coincidental that we lost our last two to the huskies under ironically similar circumstances. The colorado game gave us hope that we might be able to execute down the stretch, but UW shows we’re not consistent yet. I hope we improve.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by CBKWit on Sep 27, 2011 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions

another way to look at this, is we got all, longer time of possession, and that AND +2 in the turnover margin and still gave up 31 and lost by 8. The only time they stopped Price was when they sacked him twice and got him to fumble once. I thought he was aerially carvin them up like Kaeppernick did moreso through the ground. I think we did get Udub to punt a couple times.

If those two turnovers turned into scoring drives, and they certainly looked like they could, Cal would have lost by 22 or 45-23.

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

by carp on Sep 27, 2011 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions

that cup really is half empty for you, isn’t it?

by fiatlux on Sep 27, 2011 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions

It really could use to be topped off. I have good feelings about Oregon tho. We’re even taking 3 days off work next week to drive up to Oregon and “do this right.”

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

by carp on Sep 27, 2011 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions

uh-oh. I’m a realist. I don’t “fear” this Oregon team, but it’s a road game against a great team. I hope this doesn’t mean you’ll come back even unhappier than now…

by fiatlux on Sep 28, 2011 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions

So, if Cal played worse defense, and the Huskies played just as well on defense, the Huskies would have won by more. That’s hard to disagree with.

California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!

by atomsareenough on Sep 28, 2011 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, didn’t Cal fumble just as often as them? The turnover battle could have easily gone the other way…

I actually don’t even think Cal recovered one of the fumbles the refs said we did.

by Missing Barry on Sep 28, 2011 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions

But, agonizing over one play, particularly a crucial and unsuccessful one, is what being a Cal fan is all about.

Worrying about blown coverages leading to a 70-yard TD by UW? Dull. Dissecting all the failed red-zone opportunities? Unsatisfying.

But one last set of downs that ended the game with a loss for Cal? That’s Old Blue lifeblood right there, buddy.

Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.

by SoCal Oski on Sep 27, 2011 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

recd for living the nightmare.

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

by carp on Sep 27, 2011 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions

Great. Now, let us never speak of this again.

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 27, 2011 7:25 AM PDT reply actions

At least it makes more sense that the plays were intended to go outside, rather than run Sofele into the middle. I’m still not a big fan, but it makes more sense to call these.

by sycasey on Sep 27, 2011 7:30 AM PDT reply actions

/cal runs outside zone play

//WHY DIDN’T THEY JUST RUN STRAIGHT DOWNHILL
///cal runs off-tackle power
////WHY DOES TEDFORD ALWAYS RUN IT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE LINE

"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

by AERose on Sep 27, 2011 7:43 AM PDT reply actions

Something I've learned while on the Internet:

Everyone’s a critic, and you can’t please everybody.

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

by Swamphunter on Sep 27, 2011 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions

FIRE TEDFORD HE HAD WURST PLAYCALLING IN WWII !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY TEDFORD SEND RANGERS TO POINT DU HOC WHEN THAR NO 88’s THERE?
WHY TEDFORD SEND 30 CORPS INSTEAD OF CJ ANDERSON TO RESCUE BRITISH 1ST AIRBORNE?
WHY TEDFORD NO SEND CJ ANDERSON TO PUNCH THROUGH AT OMAHA AND UTAH BEACHES?

Alright, and after it's all over, you say "Ooh, what a lovely tea party"

by Redonkulous Bear on Sep 27, 2011 9:28 AM PDT reply actions

Y U NO USE CJ ANDERSON

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 Sep 27, 2011 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions

I wanna comment on that zone read 'reasoning' quoted above.

And, I don’t wanna cuz you guys seem pretty upset still and I don’t want to stir something even unintentionally.
So, I’ll just continue doing my stretches and taking my vitamins and getting a good night’s sleep. Hey, did you hear? Our classes are finally starting. Panic. We’re behind every one else.

"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY

by Famous Duck on Sep 27, 2011 7:43 PM PDT reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Golden Bears Football Schedule

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