The lack of explosiveness under Wilcox is such a huge problem. Cal cannot expect to compete for a Pac-12 title if we can't generate chunk plays. We had so many 8 play, 50 yard drives end in 0 or 3 points because we can't finish drives or we just run out of momentum because it's hard to sustain an offense all the way down the field on 0-10 yard plays.
Exactly, it's good not to have many -10-0 yard plays, but depending on 0-10 yarders puts a undue strain on the offense. Each play in a drive is another possible point of failure, and inability to just get a 1st down on 1st or 2nd downs kills a lot of our momentum.
Add in the need for the offense to be in the 0-10 yard area of the opponent it means we struggle to score 6.
So the offense basically sucked last year, as it has every year under the Wilcox era. And that was with all those seniors manning the skill positions and Garbers scrambling from the pocket that kept a lot of drives going. Imagine how it's going to be next year with a ton of inexperience and perhaps a quarterback who is not as mobile as Garbers. (If it's Plummer, he didn't run much at all at Purdue). Ooops, I forgot....Our head coach turned down the Oregon job. Everything is going to be A okay.
The offense was better than previous seasons (it averaged out to mediocre) because the drives did move the field, they just usually didn't have finish power (hence our scoring output only going slightly up).
I think the offense performed poorly because of three games where we got hammered. UNR, WASU and UCLA. Take those out of the sample set and tell me how we look. The common denominator in those three games was the piss poor play of the offensive line and more specifically the total break down of pass protection schemes. If your O-line can't give the QB enough time to throw a ball to a one on one receiver in press coverage, then you have a big problem. Its also a reason why big plays were not as many in number as they should have been. Real simply, the let down in 2021 was our o-line.
You didn't mention the USC game, where Cal went 3 for 10 on third downs and scored 17 points against a USC team that coughed up 61 to UCLA a few weeks earlier. So I am thinking about a 2022 season that will have the same O line coach, the same head coach and an O line less Mettaur. We all know the definition of insansity, and I think it applies here. I am guessing you different. If so, how?
The overall offense showed better than previous seasons because of huge numbers against terrible and historically bad Colorado and Stanford teams. Otherwise, it seemed every bit as futile as previous seasons. And there is nothing more frustrating than watching a team that can't close the deal in the red zone or close to it.
Piotr, I am curious how you account for different schemes vs. different opponents in your analysis. It's hard to determine any sense of consistency with an offensive playbook as varied as Musgrave's that can be uniquely adapted for any opponent. If we still had Sonny Dykes offense with 33 plays and ran the same plays against anyone and everyone, then it's far easier to do an analysis that has a sample size to be meaningful. Without reviewing tape and looking at down, distance, situation and the defensive front, it's very hard to tell how many times we ran the same play in the same situation, let alone the same play. Musgrave's system is so complex that they can run out of different sets, run different personnel groups for different situations, and they can adjust blocking schemes by customizing for opponents. I think trying to find consistency in the first real year in Musgrave's complex system is a tough thing to do. My sense of things is we could find out more by analyzing each player on a play by play breakdown and get an idea of our player strengths and weaknesses and how that helped or hurt us over the season. I'm just playing devils advocate and thinking outside the box.
Is there anyway to contact anyone who runs this site or any writer?
I can only find a generic Rivals tech support, and can't find any general email for communications to this site. I've even tried to message the site via social media with no response
Sorry I said Rivals. I didn't mean that but I have the same problem with Rivals (no apparent way to communicate with anyone at the site ... only can reach tech support
My first suggestion is to add: How to Contact us (for general topics). I think that's standard on most sites. I spent several minutes trying to find it without success since it wasn't obvious for me
Is there a way to send a message to the people managing this site as a group, instead of individual writers? I just have some suggestions that might help keep this site interesting to attract and retain memberships. For example, I just joined and giving this site a one year trial before deciding to renew
Thanks... but when I go to twitter I don't see anyway to message the main twitter account (I can only comment). Other twitter accounts has an email icon you can click on to send a message?
If you have a twitter account you can DM any of us using the mail looking button on our profile. In terms of emails you can email us at writeforcalifornia@gmail.
Who says that it's a large share of the audience that doesn't grasp what he's analyzing? I hated Evans Hall and every mathematical equation within its building, but this non-math writer can look at the world through graphics, statistics, and plot points. I think that's a wild assumption to think that Berkeley alums aren't able to take a moment to understand a quantitative analysis of a topic. Maybe if we were Arizona State, you'd have a better argument.
I, for one, am completely impressed by this level of technical analysis, in part because I can just barely follow it. I think it's super cool to see another mind at work in ways I can understand only with effort and work. If I merely wanted the same-old-same-old, I could watch TV--they're great at making idiots feel like geniuses, football week in and football week out.
The lack of explosiveness under Wilcox is such a huge problem. Cal cannot expect to compete for a Pac-12 title if we can't generate chunk plays. We had so many 8 play, 50 yard drives end in 0 or 3 points because we can't finish drives or we just run out of momentum because it's hard to sustain an offense all the way down the field on 0-10 yard plays.
Exactly, it's good not to have many -10-0 yard plays, but depending on 0-10 yarders puts a undue strain on the offense. Each play in a drive is another possible point of failure, and inability to just get a 1st down on 1st or 2nd downs kills a lot of our momentum.
Add in the need for the offense to be in the 0-10 yard area of the opponent it means we struggle to score 6.
So the offense basically sucked last year, as it has every year under the Wilcox era. And that was with all those seniors manning the skill positions and Garbers scrambling from the pocket that kept a lot of drives going. Imagine how it's going to be next year with a ton of inexperience and perhaps a quarterback who is not as mobile as Garbers. (If it's Plummer, he didn't run much at all at Purdue). Ooops, I forgot....Our head coach turned down the Oregon job. Everything is going to be A okay.
The offense was better than previous seasons (it averaged out to mediocre) because the drives did move the field, they just usually didn't have finish power (hence our scoring output only going slightly up).
I think the offense performed poorly because of three games where we got hammered. UNR, WASU and UCLA. Take those out of the sample set and tell me how we look. The common denominator in those three games was the piss poor play of the offensive line and more specifically the total break down of pass protection schemes. If your O-line can't give the QB enough time to throw a ball to a one on one receiver in press coverage, then you have a big problem. Its also a reason why big plays were not as many in number as they should have been. Real simply, the let down in 2021 was our o-line.
You didn't mention the USC game, where Cal went 3 for 10 on third downs and scored 17 points against a USC team that coughed up 61 to UCLA a few weeks earlier. So I am thinking about a 2022 season that will have the same O line coach, the same head coach and an O line less Mettaur. We all know the definition of insansity, and I think it applies here. I am guessing you different. If so, how?
We didn't lose to USC in a beatdown like we did to the teams I mentioned.
The overall offense showed better than previous seasons because of huge numbers against terrible and historically bad Colorado and Stanford teams. Otherwise, it seemed every bit as futile as previous seasons. And there is nothing more frustrating than watching a team that can't close the deal in the red zone or close to it.
Watch the Mannings on MNF explain that optimal football is first down second down. Musgrave hasn't gotten the message, or doesn't have the horses.
Read my comment above about our o-line.
Very interesting and a superb job with the numbers.
Piotr, I am curious how you account for different schemes vs. different opponents in your analysis. It's hard to determine any sense of consistency with an offensive playbook as varied as Musgrave's that can be uniquely adapted for any opponent. If we still had Sonny Dykes offense with 33 plays and ran the same plays against anyone and everyone, then it's far easier to do an analysis that has a sample size to be meaningful. Without reviewing tape and looking at down, distance, situation and the defensive front, it's very hard to tell how many times we ran the same play in the same situation, let alone the same play. Musgrave's system is so complex that they can run out of different sets, run different personnel groups for different situations, and they can adjust blocking schemes by customizing for opponents. I think trying to find consistency in the first real year in Musgrave's complex system is a tough thing to do. My sense of things is we could find out more by analyzing each player on a play by play breakdown and get an idea of our player strengths and weaknesses and how that helped or hurt us over the season. I'm just playing devils advocate and thinking outside the box.
I'll ask again (I'm new here)...
Is there anyway to contact anyone who runs this site or any writer?
I can only find a generic Rivals tech support, and can't find any general email for communications to this site. I've even tried to message the site via social media with no response
Is there at least a suggestion box?
For starters, this isn't a Rivals site, so that definitely won't help you.
Emails and handles on the garbage platform of Twitter can be found on our Staff Page:
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/introducing-the-staff-of-write-for
Our FAQs also have our support and admin email contacts and Gmail listed:
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/the-write-for-california-faq
Thanks for the response
Sorry I said Rivals. I didn't mean that but I have the same problem with Rivals (no apparent way to communicate with anyone at the site ... only can reach tech support
My first suggestion is to add: How to Contact us (for general topics). I think that's standard on most sites. I spent several minutes trying to find it without success since it wasn't obvious for me
Is there a way to send a message to the people managing this site as a group, instead of individual writers? I just have some suggestions that might help keep this site interesting to attract and retain memberships. For example, I just joined and giving this site a one year trial before deciding to renew
The main twitter handle is really responsive
@writeforcal
Otherwise you can reach
Rob
@rob11hwang
Avi
@avinashkunnath
SGBear
@sgbear
Andy Johnston
@andyjbeastmode
Erik
@erikrjoh
Ruey
@yrueyyen
Nick Kranz
@norcalnick
Piotr Le
@piotrle
{edited to fix Piotr's name)
* Piotr Le
* @piotrle
Thanks... but when I go to twitter I don't see anyway to message the main twitter account (I can only comment). Other twitter accounts has an email icon you can click on to send a message?
If you have a twitter account you can DM any of us using the mail looking button on our profile. In terms of emails you can email us at writeforcalifornia@gmail.
Thanks Rob ... sent an email to that address
You can also find other ways to contact us in the FAQ on the About Us page.
Fiat Lux! Nice shining of light onto the darkness of supposition about why we were so mediocre this year. Go Bears!
the data supports my feelings about the offense. Molasses!
I also feel like that degree of 3-and-outs just saps the life out of the defense. I am impressed more now with the defense's performance!
Technical is the point of the Evans Hall analysis.
Who says that it's a large share of the audience that doesn't grasp what he's analyzing? I hated Evans Hall and every mathematical equation within its building, but this non-math writer can look at the world through graphics, statistics, and plot points. I think that's a wild assumption to think that Berkeley alums aren't able to take a moment to understand a quantitative analysis of a topic. Maybe if we were Arizona State, you'd have a better argument.
I, for one, am completely impressed by this level of technical analysis, in part because I can just barely follow it. I think it's super cool to see another mind at work in ways I can understand only with effort and work. If I merely wanted the same-old-same-old, I could watch TV--they're great at making idiots feel like geniuses, football week in and football week out.