To what extent do you think the passing game troubles v UCLA were a function of it being our first game and our offense having relatively little time to learn and practice a new system? From the video, it looked like the problem was more a matter of execution on our part (e.g. there is a plan for what to do when there are more pass rushers than blockers but we did not execute it well), rather than intrinsic flaws in the scheme. The problem would not seem to be that UCLA's defense is on par with Alabama's, Colorado piled up points against them at will.
This is kind of a topic 1b related to an answer that I gave above. UCLA's got a pretty sophisticated pressure package, and if you've got all of those tools in the pass rush already, it's comparatively easier to gameplan against your opponents protections (rush schemes are more diverse than protection schemes, so the defense has more ability to be unpredictable then the offense does in this area). This is the #1 place where Cal was at a disadvantage having such short notice about this game, because they had to compress a 2+ week scouting, planning, and practicing process into two days. On Cal's long TD drive UCLA hardly did any of this Cover-0/pressure stuff, so when Cal's passing game could actually operate, they had some success, but especially on their first few drives UCLA was able to completely take the Bears out of the game, and I think think that a lot of that is tied to the short preparation time. Other then that there were some basic precision problems that left yards on the field, and yeah, the first game deal factors into that as well.
Appreciate the breakdown of our poor line last week. In typing the headline I know what that analytical head of yours had to be thinking: Cal's protection (or lack there of). I thought the guards were particularly poor especially in dealing of 92 (no matter what his accolades are, 49ers held Aaron Donald nothing of note). Daltoso for him being healthy compared to the rest of the lineman aside from Curhan and Saffell has really had tons of problems from my view despite his versatility, Mettauer could do better but he's young so I'll relent. Backs could also do better in blocking.
Agree about Daltoso. Mettauer per PFF was Cal's best OL last year. He had a rough start to his Sophomore season; let's hope he doesn't have the jinx.
I guess we have to give fUCLA credit because they had no tape of Cal in this new offense and yet completely dominated us. OSU will be a tough game for Cal and they are better than some people are giving them credit for.
Something that I'd go into in a longer video is that UCLA has that diverse pressure package as a big part of their defense, so running with that at a moments notice is something that they can roll with. It's harder to gameplan protections against that kind of defense without a normal breakdown period, so in a lot of ways that was the worst kind of defense that we could've faced, given the circumstances. I can't guarantee that we'll look a lot better against OSU (though I suspect that we will), but I can say that we won't have any schematic excuses for poor performance vs. OSU.
I mean as much as ucla beat our ass I'm the type of person to always criticize our own team over crediting someone else for it. I think Cal should be able to win this game by stopping the run and running themselves, if they claim to be a physical team here's a game to prove it.
There's some good schematic stuff in the UCLA playcalling to set up exactly this kind of approach, but the execution never let it get off the ground. Ideally that's just because they didn't have a DL to practice against, because if we get back to normal and our execution spikes, there's a lot of potential for a diversified run game that can cover up any remaining weaknesses.
The backs also were poor at blocking///
Yeah, the execution angle was a whole problem unto itself. Hopefully some of that is just not being able to truly practice blocking for two weeks.
To what extent do you think the passing game troubles v UCLA were a function of it being our first game and our offense having relatively little time to learn and practice a new system? From the video, it looked like the problem was more a matter of execution on our part (e.g. there is a plan for what to do when there are more pass rushers than blockers but we did not execute it well), rather than intrinsic flaws in the scheme. The problem would not seem to be that UCLA's defense is on par with Alabama's, Colorado piled up points against them at will.
This is kind of a topic 1b related to an answer that I gave above. UCLA's got a pretty sophisticated pressure package, and if you've got all of those tools in the pass rush already, it's comparatively easier to gameplan against your opponents protections (rush schemes are more diverse than protection schemes, so the defense has more ability to be unpredictable then the offense does in this area). This is the #1 place where Cal was at a disadvantage having such short notice about this game, because they had to compress a 2+ week scouting, planning, and practicing process into two days. On Cal's long TD drive UCLA hardly did any of this Cover-0/pressure stuff, so when Cal's passing game could actually operate, they had some success, but especially on their first few drives UCLA was able to completely take the Bears out of the game, and I think think that a lot of that is tied to the short preparation time. Other then that there were some basic precision problems that left yards on the field, and yeah, the first game deal factors into that as well.
Appreciate the breakdown of our poor line last week. In typing the headline I know what that analytical head of yours had to be thinking: Cal's protection (or lack there of). I thought the guards were particularly poor especially in dealing of 92 (no matter what his accolades are, 49ers held Aaron Donald nothing of note). Daltoso for him being healthy compared to the rest of the lineman aside from Curhan and Saffell has really had tons of problems from my view despite his versatility, Mettauer could do better but he's young so I'll relent. Backs could also do better in blocking.
Agree about Daltoso. Mettauer per PFF was Cal's best OL last year. He had a rough start to his Sophomore season; let's hope he doesn't have the jinx.
I guess we have to give fUCLA credit because they had no tape of Cal in this new offense and yet completely dominated us. OSU will be a tough game for Cal and they are better than some people are giving them credit for.
Something that I'd go into in a longer video is that UCLA has that diverse pressure package as a big part of their defense, so running with that at a moments notice is something that they can roll with. It's harder to gameplan protections against that kind of defense without a normal breakdown period, so in a lot of ways that was the worst kind of defense that we could've faced, given the circumstances. I can't guarantee that we'll look a lot better against OSU (though I suspect that we will), but I can say that we won't have any schematic excuses for poor performance vs. OSU.
Could Cindric start at RG?
I'm looking back at the tape for a Patreon thing, and I'm seeing Cindric subbed in at LG after Cal's first TD drive, so...good call.
I mean as much as ucla beat our ass I'm the type of person to always criticize our own team over crediting someone else for it. I think Cal should be able to win this game by stopping the run and running themselves, if they claim to be a physical team here's a game to prove it.
There's some good schematic stuff in the UCLA playcalling to set up exactly this kind of approach, but the execution never let it get off the ground. Ideally that's just because they didn't have a DL to practice against, because if we get back to normal and our execution spikes, there's a lot of potential for a diversified run game that can cover up any remaining weaknesses.
That's exactly what Berk said