:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/47595681/usa-today-8894164.0.jpg)
Post-Game Impressions
We tried hard. However, again the offense came-off as inexplicably inefficient. Jared Goff is slowly notching additional interceptions to his total, deviating away from the 9:1 ratio dreamed by Tony Franklin, now standing at a much lower but still respectable 2:1 ratio. It didn't look like we executed well throughout the game. Besides the second drive were it all clicked together on offense (13 plays for 87 yards, 8 runs and 5 pass attempts).
Cal went into the locker-room with the game within reach, USC was slowed down on nearly of its drives except for the two scoring ones, with the Cal defense exhibiting good coverage and tackling in the secondary. One of the most troubling issues however was our inability to contain the backside cutback lane during runs by the RBs. Every once in a while the space between the RG and LG would present a large hole for USC's RBs to exploit as the flow of the blocking scheme went left. Besides that we played very well on defense, enough to hold an explosive USC team to a winnable margin (20 points).
On offense one development I really enjoyed was the employment of a 3 WR, 2RB split formation. With both Khalfani Muhammad and Daniel Lasco in the backfield they provided good pass-protection on passing-plays where they would stay back to help with any free rushers. In the run game this formation now allows for the outside/inside zone running game to go either way since both RBs are skilled runners and blockers in the run game. I can imagine that this one was one of the reason we were able to produce big chunk yardage at the beginning of the game.
Post-Week 8 Numbers for Cal (5-2, 2-2 Pac-12 North)
| S&P+ Overall | S&P+ Offense | S&P+ Defense | |
| California | 41 (+2) | 23 (+3) | 60 (+3) |
There wasn't a lot of movement on the aggregate statistical side of the S&P+ formulation. It looks like Cal's offense will continue to be an overall very good offense with the defense solidly in the average range. A deeper look into the sub-components of the statistics:
| Offense | Defense | |||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | |
| Explosiveness | 1.22 | 83 | 1.16 | 27 |
| Efficiency | 48.90% | 10 | 44.80% | 92 |
| Field position | 30.1 | 67 | 30.6 | 91 |
| Finishing drives | 4.69 | 79 | 4.76 | 76 |
Again we can see the flaws and strength of Cal football continuing. The offense struggling with trying to find a way to make big plays despite being able to make good progress with yeoman yards. Our field position begins to comeback down to earth once defense's high take-away numbers regressed to the mean. When we look at the defensive numbers we can see a troubling trends where 15.2% of the tackles are made by the safeties. This would indicate that the LBs are not making the necessary tackles on RBs to prevent them from getting into the secondary while as CBs maybe letting the receivers after the catch a tad too long.
| Name | Pos | Tackles | % of Team |
| Damariay Drew | S | 42 | 9.10% |
| Hardy Nickerson | LB | 38.5 | 8.30% |
| Kyle Kragen | DE | 36.5 | 7.90% |
| Jalen Jefferson | LB | 32.5 | 7.00% |
| Darius White | CB | 30 | 6.50% |
| Stefan McClure | S | 28.5 | 6.10% |
| Darius Allensworth | CB | 24.5 | 5.30% |
| Cameron Walker | DB | 21 | 4.50% |
| Michael Barton | LB | 16.5 | 3.60% |
| James Looney | DT | 16 | 3.40% |
| Luke Rubenzer | S | 16 | 3.40% |
| Devante Downs | LB | 14 | 3.00% |
| Jonathan Johnson | DE | 13 | 2.80% |
| Puka Lopa | DE | 8.5 | 1.80% |
| Mustafa Jalil | DT | 8 | 1.70% |
| Khari Vanderbilt | S | 8 | 1.70% |
| Nathan Broussard | LB | 8 | 1.70% |
| DeVante Wilson | DE | 7.5 | 1.60% |
| Jake Kearney | LB | 7 | 1.50% |
| Tony Mekari | DT | 7 | 1.50% |
| Raymond Davison | LB | 6.5 | 1.40% |
| Todd Barr | DE | 6 | 1.30% |
| Trey Turner | S | 5.5 | 1.20% |
| David Davis | DT | 5 | 1.10% |
| Daniel Lasco | RB | 4 | 0.90% |
Despite his high totals, Hardy Nickerson has moments when he is faced in a 1-on-1 situation and is often times a step behind the opponent unable to make the tackle in open space. Often times he is in the right position to make a tackle but with one move he is grasping for the player's ankles. Is it anticipation of body movement? Is it maybe the fact that he is physically outmatched in space?
| Offense | ||
| Avg. | Rk | |
| Passing S&P+ | 131.7 | 7 |
| Passing Success Rate | 52.10% | 3 |
| Passing IsoPPP | 1.36 | 92 |
| Adj. Sack Rate | 126.1 | 34 |
When we look at the passing offense's statistics we can see a very efficient offense that is lead by a QB who can make quick and accurate throws for short, dirty, yards when needed. However, the explosiveness meter still shows the fact that we can't either stretch the field more often than an average CFB team or we can't convert quick passes into large YAC.
When drilling down into the catch rates of our top 10 receivers by targets we can see another trend.
| Player | Pos. | Targets | Catches | Yards | TD | Yds/Catch | Yds/Target | Catch Rate | Target Rate |
| Kenny Lawler | WR | 68 | 42 | 527 | 9 | 12.6 | 7.8 | 61.80% | 22.00% |
| Stephen Anderson | TE | 45 | 31 | 373 | 1 | 12 | 8.3 | 68.90% | 14.60% |
| Bryce Treggs | WR | 40 | 24 | 381 | 3 | 15.9 | 9.5 | 60.00% | 12.90% |
| Darius Powe | WR | 36 | 27 | 269 | 3 | 10 | 7.5 | 75.00% | 11.70% |
| Trevor Davis | WR | 26 | 21 | 398 | 2 | 19 | 15.3 | 80.80% | 8.40% |
| Maurice Harris | WR | 24 | 20 | 231 | 3 | 11.6 | 9.6 | 83.30% | 7.80% |
| Khalfani Muhammad | RB | 18 | 13 | 110 | 1 | 8.5 | 6.1 | 72.20% | 5.80% |
| Raymond Hudson | TE | 9 | 5 | 63 | 0 | 12.6 | 7 | 55.60% | 2.90% |
| Kanawai Noa | WR | 8 | 5 | 68 | 0 | 13.6 | 8.5 | 62.50% | 2.60% |
| Vic Enwere | RB | 8 | 6 | 12 | 0 | 2 | 1.5 | 75.00% | 2.60% |
| Chad Hansen | WR | 6 | 5 | 48 | 0 | 9.6 | 8 | 83.30% | 1.90% |
We can see that Kenny Lawler, Stephen Anderson, and Bryce Treggs all dominate Goff's target list gathering nearly 50% of all of Goff's targets up to this point in the season.
| Total Targets | Total Catches | Catch Rate | |
| Top 3 | 153 | 97 | 63.40% |
| Top 5 | 215 | 145 | 67.44% |
| Top 10 | 282 | 194 | 68.79% |
When we look at the catch rates by top targets we can see that as per the chart the top 3 receivers, Lawler and Treggs specifically, skew the data downwards due to their very low catch rates. This maybe the product of two things: 1) Goff looks to his most trusted receivers to make plays when under pressure often times throwing balls into extremely tight windows, or 2) defenses have keyed on the two as Cal's key playmakers. I am of a belief that it is a little column 1) and a little column 2). An encouraging fact remains that both Treggs, Lawler as well as Trevor Davis can gain very good yardage on average per reception showing that they remain explosive players with the ball in their hands.
Post-Week 8 Numbers for Oregon (5-3, 3-2 Pac-12 North)
| S&P+ Overall | S&P+ Offense | S&P+ Defense | |
| Oregon | 60 | 21 | 97 |
Oregon has not been able to return to the dominance on offense and defense from 2014. Furthermore, the shuffling at the QB position due to the injury to Vernon Adams. However, the defense continues to be porous:
| Offense | Defense | |||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | |
| Explosiveness | 1.33 | 35 | 1.26 | 74 |
| Efficiency | 46.40% | 26 | 45.00% | 98 |
| Field position | 33 | 17 | 30.8 | 95 |
| Finishing drives | 5.09 | 45 | 5.29 | 111 |
By dominance I mean Oregon being top 10 in the nation in every offensive category. On defense it looks very bad, especially in the match-up against Cal's efficiency, Oregon will have to find a way to stop the Cal WRs from catching the quick routes. Furthermore, Oregon's red-zone defense looks quite abysmal.
| Offense | Defense | |||
| Avg. | Rk | Avg. | Rk | |
| Rushing S&P+ | 126.5 | 11 | 84.1 | 113 |
| Rushing Success Rate | 50.00% | 12 | 45.70% | 98 |
| Rushing IsoPPP | 1.16 | 29 | 1.19 | 103 |
| Adj. Line Yards | 122.6 | 10 | 90.5 | 105 |
| Opportunity Rate | 45.40% | 6 | 41.90% | 106 |
| Power Success Rate | 59.10% | 103 | 70.80% | 92 |
| Stuff Rate | 16.20% | 24 | 16.20% | 102 |
We can see that in terms of the running game, Oregon has the case of being a Jekyll and Hyde with the possession of the ball the elixir that flips the switch. Oregon's rushing defense has been abysmal across the board, with no redeeming statistic to hang its hat on. One of the most significant statistics is the fact that with its inability to generate run pressure on the line of scrimmage we will have another match-up of weakness against weakness in the Cal running game. When looking ex-ante into the Cal v. UCLA match-up the same scenario unfolded where Cal was unable to run the ball against a weakened UCLA team. Will the same happen again for Cal? I sure hope not however I remain skeptical. The reason for Oregon's rushing prowess can be contained in two words: Royce Freeman.
| Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Rushes | Yards | TD | YPC | Opportunity Rate | Fumbles (Lost) |
| Royce Freeman | RB | 5'11, 230 | SO | 166 | 1109 | 11 | 6.7 | 46.40% | 2 (0) |
He is having an amazing season being able to rack-up substantial yardage and touchdowns despite being the player that the opposing defenses were keying onto when the QB position was being evaluated. Freeman has had the workload of nearly all of our Top 3 RBs combined (166 v. 183) in purely rushing situations not including the 21 targets for 18 catches he has with Oregon.
Therefore, the key for Cal's defense is to stop Freeman for <5 YPC and few catches. If we can contain, not stop, Freeman we will have a very good shot at killing-off the Oregon offense whose passing game depends on Freeman being a viable rushing threat. This is due to the significant drop-off between the Oregon offenses' ratings on passing downs (#14 overall v. #54 overall).
| Name | Pos | Tackles | % of Team |
| Joe Walker | LB | 40.5 | 8.70% |
| Rodney Hardrick | LB | 38 | 8.20% |
| DeForest Buckner | DL | 34 | 7.30% |
| Arrion Springs | DB | 31 | 6.70% |
| Tyree Robinson | SS | 30.5 | 6.60% |
| Tyson Coleman | LB | 27 | 5.80% |
| Charles Nelson | WR | 25.5 | 5.50% |
| Reggie Daniels | DB | 25 | 5.40% |
| Christian French | LB | 20.5 | 4.40% |
| Torrodney Prevot | LB | 18.5 | 4.00% |
| Juwaan Williams | SS | 17.5 | 3.80% |
| Alex Balducci | DL | 17 | 3.70% |
| Tui Talia | DL | 16.5 | 3.60% |
| Ugo Amadi | CB | 14 | 3.00% |
| Glen Ihenacho | DB | 13.5 | 2.90% |
| Johnny Ragin III | LB | 11 | 2.40% |
| Henry Mondeaux | DL | 10.5 | 2.30% |
| Chris Seisay | CB | 10.5 | 2.30% |
| Danny Mattingly | LB | 9 | 1.90% |
| Jimmie Swain | LB | 8.5 | 1.80% |
| Khalil Oliver | DB | 6 | 1.30% |
| Kirk Merritt | WR | 5 | 1.10% |
| T.J. Daniel | DL | 3 | 0.60% |
| Jalen Jelks | DL | 3 | 0.60% |
| Ty Griffin | DB | 3 | 0.60% |
We can see here that unlike in Cal's situation most of the tackling, when it is done in the case of Oregon, is done by the top two LBs and their star defensive player DeForest Buckner who has 11 TFLs and 6 sacks for the season. Another significant figure in this statistic is the fact that only 10.4% of the total tackling is done by the safeties. We can deduce that either the solid tackling by the front is the reason for the low total or the fact that the tackling done by the safeties is bad. I am inclined towards the latter argument due to the fact that in terms of stopping explosive run plays Oregon has been unable to generate the necessary secondary stops.
Cal's main weakness in the passing game: the lack of an explosive component, seems to match well for Oregon that despite its inability to stop efficient passing play has been very good at snuffing away explosive passing plays. This could indicate good coverage by CBs and tackling as evidenced by Arrion Springs' high tackling total.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this game will boil down to being able to stop Royce Freeman and letting our run-game dominate the weak Oregon rush defense. I would caution against optimism since UCLA also exhibited these symptoms and Cal was unable to execute upon them. Furthermore, the match-up between Royce Freeman and Hardy Nickerson remains a concern, will we have a more athletic but also technically raw LB key on him on each play (Devante Downs perhaps).