/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57624975/usa_today_10391113.0.jpg)
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9690073/1104_Cali___Ore_St.0.jpeg)
Cal marched down the field and kept the ball away from OSU. The defense stymied the OSU run game (on a big play basis) and kept the passing game inviable by suppressing the passing offense to a 27% success rate.
California Golden Bears, 5-5 (2-5, Pac-12 North), Overall #89 (Up by 12)
Cal Overall
Category | Offense | Rk | Defense | Rk |
---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Offense | Rk | Defense | Rk |
S&P+ | 26.1 | 87 | 29.1 | 77 |
Points Per Game | 32.4 | 80 | 32.7 | 67 |
Cal has a 52.6% chance of being a 6-6 or better team. What is interesting that Cal has a 23% chance of beating Furd and a 39% chance of beating UCLA. Yet looking at both of the team’s statistics and via the eye test the game ought to be much wider.
Offense
Cal Offense Overall
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
---|---|---|---|
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
Success Rate | 40.50% | 80 | 40.30% |
IsoPPP | 1.11 | 90 | 1.17 |
Avg. FP | 30.4 | 48 | 29.5 |
Pts. Per Trip in 40 | 4.4 | 75 | 4.41 |
Cal Offense Detail
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
---|---|---|---|
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
Rushing S&P+ | 95.2 | 88 | 100 |
Rushing Success Rate | 43.20% | 65 | 42.40% |
Rushing IsoPPP | 0.83 | 92 | 0.91 |
Adj. Line Yards | 92.2 | 111 | 100 |
Opportunity Rate | 37.00% | 84 | 38.90% |
Power Success Rate | 63.20% | 93 | 68.20% |
Stuff Rate | 20.80% | 89 | 19.10% |
Passing S&P+ | 98.3 | 74 | 100 |
Passing Success Rate | 38.50% | 89 | 40.30% |
Passing IsoPPP | 1.34 | 98 | 1.47 |
Adj. Sack Rate | 103.6 | 64 | 100 |
Cal relies on 3 wideouts and a running back for the bulk of the passing game. With the running back being also the centerpiece of the running game I can safely say that Cal’s capacity to score enough points in this game will rely on the play of a former walk-on, fellow bookworm, Haas student: Patrick Laird, MVP.
Cal RBs
Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Rushes | Yards | TD | Yards/ Carry | Hlt Yds/ Opp. | Opp. Rate | Fumbles (Lost) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Rushes | Yards | TD | Yards/ Carry | Hlt Yds/ Opp. | Opp. Rate | Fumbles (Lost) |
Patrick Laird | RB | 6'0, 200 | JR | 139 | 796 | 7 | 5.7 | 5.5 | 41.70% | 3 (2) |
Vic Enwere | RB | 6'0, 245 | SR | 98 | 352 | 5 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 32.70% | 0 (0) |
Ross Bowers | QB | 6'2, 200 | SO | 21 | 68 | 2 | 3.2 | 2 | 38.10% | 9 (4) |
Tre Watson | RB | 5'11, 205 | SR | 17 | 83 | 0 | 4.9 | 2.1 | 52.90% | 0 (0) |
As Laird is the only person on the team with more than 1000 yards from scrimmage, the team relies on his performance to move the ball downfield. All eyes should be on Laird the next two games, whether Cal produces or not will depend on a guy who would’ve been happy with 30 carries on the season. Ain’t this the most Berkeley story though? In the most inspirational way possible.
Defense
Cal Defense
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
---|---|---|---|
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
Success Rate | 46.10% | 112 | 40.30% |
IsoPPP | 1.09 | 35 | 1.17 |
Avg. FP | 31.6 | 112 | 29.5 |
Pts. Per Trip in 40 | 4.19 | 50 | 4.41 |
The Cal defense relative to the offense is marginally better. With the focus being on stopping the Bryce Love’s march towards a 2000 yard season. All signs point towards Cal not shutting down the back, but trying their best to frustrate Love and Shaw and put the game on the QB’s shoulders on key downs.
Cal Defense Detail
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
---|---|---|---|
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
Rushing S&P+ | 93.6 | 93 | 100 |
Rushing Success Rate | 50.20% | 124 | 42.40% |
Rushing IsoPPP | 0.81 | 26 | 0.91 |
Adj. Line Yards | 95.3 | 82 | 100 |
Opportunity Rate | 42.40% | 112 | 38.90% |
Power Success Rate | 81.60% | 126 | 68.20% |
Stuff Rate | 16.10% | 104 | 19.10% |
Passing S&P+ | 106.4 | 43 | 100 |
Passing Success Rate | 42.00% | 81 | 40.30% |
Passing IsoPPP | 1.44 | 64 | 1.47 |
Adj. Sack Rate | 104.6 | 59 | 100 |
One good sign for Cal is the fact that the leading tacklers on the team are not DBs but ILBs and OLBs. Which means that the team gets the LBs to the right gap, albeit considering the poor success rate prevention on the run game this could be an issue with players still learning their run assignments but being able to get there a step or two late.
L.Stanfurd Junior College, 7-3 (6-2, Pac-12 North), Overall #26
Furd Overall
Category | Offense | Rk | Defense | Rk |
---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Offense | Rk | Defense | Rk |
S&P+ | 33.1 | 28 | 26.3 | 56 |
Points Per Game | 41.6 | 32 | 26.8 | 34 |
Stanfurd is a good team.... when they have Bryce Love. On defense they are an above average team with not much to showcase besides being reliable.
Offense AKA the Bryce Love Show
Furd Offense
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
---|---|---|---|
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
Success Rate | 39.00% | 102 | 40.30% |
IsoPPP | 1.46 | 3 | 1.17 |
Avg. FP | 33.4 | 8 | 29.5 |
Pts. Per Trip in 40 | 4.92 | 28 | 4.41 |
Furd Offense Detail
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
---|---|---|---|
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
Rushing S&P+ | 109.7 | 47 | 100 |
Rushing Success Rate | 39.30% | 92 | 42.40% |
Rushing IsoPPP | 1.61 | 1 | 0.91 |
Adj. Line Yards | 102.7 | 60 | 100 |
Opportunity Rate | 38.30% | 75 | 38.90% |
Power Success Rate | 72.00% | 49 | 68.20% |
Stuff Rate | 19.70% | 72 | 19.10% |
Passing S&P+ | 103.8 | 58 | 100 |
Passing Success Rate | 38.50% | 86 | 40.30% |
Passing IsoPPP | 1.28 | 112 | 1.47 |
Adj. Sack Rate | 182.1 | 13 | 100 |
Stanfurd runs the ball 63% of the time. Cal remains poor in the way it stops the efficient run. Yet, it can shut down the big play capacity that the Furd run game leads the nation with Love carrying the rock. If Cal can limit Love’s explosive production and force Furd to keep driving the ball without depending on a big play, there is a chance Cal can force Furd to play out of its scheme. Especially considering the fact that Furd isn’t not efficient on the ground.
Furd RBs
Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Rushes | Yards | TD | Yards/ Carry | Hlt Yds/ Opp. | Opp. Rate | Fumbles (Lost) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Player | Pos. | Ht, Wt | Year | Rushes | Yards | TD | Yards/ Carry | Hlt Yds/ Opp. | Opp. Rate | Fumbles (Lost) |
Bryce Love | RB | 5'10, 196 | JR | 181 | 1622 | 12 | 9 | 13.9 | 41.40% | 1 (0) |
Cameron Scarlett | RB | 6'1, 213 | JR | 59 | 291 | 6 | 4.9 | 7.2 | 27.10% | 0 (0) |
Trevor Speights | RB | 5'11, 204 | SO | 25 | 89 | 0 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 28.00% | 0 (0) |
Dorian Maddox | RB | 5'10, 199 | SO | 12 | 37 | 0 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 16.70% | 0 (0) |
Keller Chryst | QB | 6'5, 234 | SR | 11 | 50 | 1 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 45.50% | 2 (1) |
K.J. Costello | QB | 6'5, 217 | SO | 10 | 100 | 3 | 10 | 5.6 | 80.00% | 1 (0) |
Unlike McCafferey, Love is not featured in the passing game at all which allows Cal to key on him more than the multidimensional NFL RB for the Panthers.
Speaking of the passing game... It is mediocre, mostly it depends on having Love as a run threat to be in anyway effective. See the Furd/OSU game:
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9690429/1026_Stan___Ore_St.0.jpeg)
Defense
Furd Defense Overall
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
---|---|---|---|
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
Success Rate | 45.10% | 101 | 40.30% |
IsoPPP | 1.05 | 18 | 1.17 |
Avg. FP | 24.4 | 2 | 29.5 |
Pts. Per Trip in 40 | 4.1 | 41 | 4.41 |
Furd Defense Detail
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
---|---|---|---|
Category | Avg. | Rk | Nat'l Avg. |
Rushing S&P+ | 99.5 | 72 | 100 |
Rushing Success Rate | 47.10% | 104 | 42.40% |
Rushing IsoPPP | 0.83 | 31 | 0.91 |
Adj. Line Yards | 94.3 | 94 | 100 |
Opportunity Rate | 43.90% | 118 | 38.90% |
Power Success Rate | 64.10% | 42 | 68.20% |
Stuff Rate | 14.80% | 118 | 19.10% |
Passing S&P+ | 101.2 | 62 | 100 |
Passing Success Rate | 42.90% | 92 | 40.30% |
Passing IsoPPP | 1.32 | 33 | 1.47 |
Adj. Sack Rate | 112.8 | 44 | 100 |
Furd isn’t effective in defending the efficient play in the air on the ground. Though not at the level that Cal is, Furd’s weakness also lies in this five factor variable. Considering this and the good defense against the big play, the Big Game is going to be a low possession affair where each drive will matter. Furd’s D benefits from the 2nd best FP in FBS. This is the byproduct of the Furd offense being able to get at least a few first downs and win the field position battle by pinning the opponent on the opponent’s 25 yard line avg. It also helps that they have the 2nd best special teams in FBS.
Furd HAVOC
Team | Rk | Nat'l Average |
---|---|---|
Team | Rk | Nat'l Average |
Std. Downs Run Rate | 60.10% | 61 |
Pass. Downs Run Rate | 28.10% | 117 |
Overall Havoc Rate | 14.30% | 93 |
DL Havoc Rate | 3.10% | 100 |
LB Havoc Rate | 3.80% | 69 |
DB Havoc Rate | 5.20% | 93 |
PD to INC | 31.00% | 97 |
Two words: Harrison Phillips, DT for the Furd. Statistically speaking he is their designated game wracker. With 15 run stuffs, 4.5 sacks, and 6.5 TFLs. Coach Greatwood and Baldwin will be keen to gameplan around them.
One encouraging sign is the fact that the Furd defense is not good at producing HAVOC plays. Teams that have had repeat defensive success against Cal have been HAVOC strong teams, which gives Cal a good chance of being able to at least stay on the field and move the chains.
Final Thoughts
All things considered, this game will play out on the field and not on a spreadsheet. Especially a rivalry game like the Big Game there is so much more unknowns that will factor into the outcome of the game. Yet, despite the 23% odds S&P+ gives us, there is a lot of variance to this number, considering the match-ups presented in the data and the BYE week Cal had there is a lot of uncertainty coming into this game than not.
This will be a game of long methodical possessions, the multidimensional Laird against the run offense monster that is Love. The defenses will key on both and whomever is able to overcome the focus and carry the team on the back will give their team the Axe.