Love this piece and look forward to more. While Auburn is a step up in talent, I do not agree that they will "expose" our weaknesses. Maybe it's just semantics, but I think they will be able to exploit things about our team more readily, as is normal in football, and we will do the same to them. Our coaches, especially on offense, are clearly able to exploit "weaknesses" on opposing teams.
My take is the old simplicity of line play will determine the game. If we can protect our QB, the Spav offense will score and move the ball. If we can more or less limit their run game, and force them to throw, we will limit their long drives and scoring.
All I know is that I'll be there and my best buddy, who since going to Cal in 1986, has never once attended a Cal football game despite remaining in the Bay Area, will attend his very first game with me on Saturday. I hope the house is rocking and we show Auburn a really bad time.
Hugh Freeze was quoted as saying he doesn't expect Memorial Stadium to be loud or cause any trouble like what they face in the SEC. Ok, maybe, but let's show them we aren't sisters of mercy state! I've seen Memorial full and loud, and it's awesome!
It’s a decent flight from Alabama to SFO/OAK, the start time is 9:30pm Alabama time, and CMS can be extremely loud when people are pumped for the game (ask Tennessee). Hugh Freeze is a fucking moron
Yeah, but we haven't had a crowd like that in over ten years. If we want people to stop thinking of Memorial as empty, we gotta stop leaving it empty. Lots of work to be done in terms of Cal marketing.
I meant Auburn is a step up from North Texas. I just assume that! Our Oline was able to really move the pile against UNT, and their coach after the game lamented that we were bigger than them on the lines. I haven't looked at their roster but I have to assume Auburn will have guys the same size as ours or bigger.
I think I posted this elsewhere, but our most effective OL combo was: RT Sessions RG Vatikani C Driscoll LG Wykoff LT Barrett. These are some big nasty bodies that were having fun imprinting themselves as a group on the UNT defense. If I had one comment to them is that they should be careful not to overrun blocks and break down on downfield blocks so that they are in football position at the point of intersection with the defender. If they do these two things they will never get beat.
Yeah, I just watched the game for a second time and concentrated on line play (both sides of the ball). I agree with your comments and frankly feel they need to improve a lot to compete with the top of the conference.
Yeah, I wondered about that too... so I checked PFF's summary of run block grading. Here are some excerpts..
*Blockers can earn positives for creating movement or winning their gap, while negative grades are assigned for poor blocks, with varying levels of downgrades within the system. There are many blocks that fall into the “expected” category and will receive a neutral grade
To earn a positive grade, we are looking for blockers to achieve a decisive win on their given assignment.
The beauty of a play-by-play grading system is not always the final grade, but the construction of that grade ... When combined with crucial information such as run concept, the PFF run-blocking system is a crucial, groundbreaking way to describe past performance and project blocking performance in the future, even in new offensive systems. *
I get two key takeaways... 1) The RB's did a really great job (which we already knew because it happened) hitting smallish holes and get yards after contact 2) certain schemes (run concepts) do not rely on individual brilliance by the line (why couldn't CAL get an O-line that understands that before now??)
Outside references indicate for example that quick hit, zone blocking don't usually get high PFF ratings but can be yardage gainers. I couldn't watch the game (and TV rarely shows enough to really see O-line schemes well IMO) so maybe someone could comment on the blocking schemes and techniques.
Last thought from PFF, successful run plays can produce no credit for even the perfect blocker ... "Down blocks on the front side of “power” generally fall into this category as the blocker is expected to keep the defender in his gap while the defender often wants to stay put to allow his teammates to pursue over the top." When blockers are called on to tie up defenders they won't gain any points. Whenever they do have some fail, they end up with a big negative. Doing your job well but not perfectly can look bad in PFF...
Yeah this is great. I'd love to try to understand the run defense scoring too... but generally speaking it seems best to take PFF with a grain of salt. I remember it used to always underrate Evan Weaver too because it was heavily weighted towards his weakness, pass defense.
This may sound weird, But I consider this an average game.They were supposed to do what they. did to this team. Cal is loaded offensively and the defense is bend but don't break. Auburn is a significant step up. They will expose Cal's weaknesses.
Auburn will be better than UNT but their defense is suspect and they aren't yet set on a QB. Their D gave up 5.9 yards per rush to UMass...I think our running game is a strength and is substantially better than UMass'.
I agree, our strength is the running game. Extraordinary improvement thus far with the OL to make the space for Ott and Ifanse to do their wonderful work. Pass protection was good too. Looks to be a good game this Saturday night. I bought a gold long sleeved shirt for the occasion. Go Bears!
Good point about Greatwood. Yes, the McClure and Musgrave hires were so bad in retrospect. It makes you wonder about Wilcox's judgment. Hopefully he got it right with the current group of coaches.
The offensive line's overall .poor.play during the entire Wilcox era has been the biggest factor holding the team back. From what I saw the offensive line play against UNT was very good. Given there's a new line coach and OC, it's possible they have turned the corner with the O line. If they have, and they show out vs. Auburn, they can win the game. U Mass ran for over.5 yds/play vs Auburn on the road,.there's no reason Cal can't do the same at home.
The O-line played well when Greatwood was the O-line coach. It was only under Musgrave and McClure that things got really bad. The schemes that McClure ran were worse than Pop Warner.
Yeah, the results would argue otherwise... I comment on run blocking above. Here are some run defense notes from PFF.
"Disruption and finish are two of the easiest ways to earn positive grades in the PFF system. Defeating blocks and then making tackles in and around the line of scrimmage will earn positives, and as with other areas of the grading system, the speed of the win determines the level of the grade.
On the negative side, the worst grades are the ones on which there is a clear lost gap, whether blocked or unblocked, that compromises the structure of the defense."
Results can come from lots of reasons, PFF tries to examine every player to see if they are *making a difference* when it comes to run defense. PFF rewards great plays, not effective plays, because current thinking is that *disruption* is the key to success. I believe this comes from their NFL roots.
Just clogging the line of scrimmage and bottling up the play won't get great grades because it is a slow way to win the battle and disruption/speed of terminating the play is important to high grades. If someone away from the play falls down and leaves a gap then that's a massive failure (I don't know if that actually happened...) even if the play went nowhere overall.
Effective tackling is an important metric. Since we got great on tackling, I'm even more surprised.
Maybe someone else can comment on our disruption quotient...
I hate to tell Knute, but things have changed a bit. Misdirection, creating numerical advantages, yada yada yada, are all now part of game strategy. Coaching and play calling are now as important as attempting to physically dominate your opponent.
From my previous reading (but not verified for this post)... I think Knute already beat you to the punch on every one of those points. True, he never envisioned spread offenses, but his teaching on O-line was incredibly well thought out on misdirection, creating numerical advantages, coaching and play calling. He did rightly believe that once you achieved the first three then the last one was easier (and sometimes permitted calling the same play over and over because... oh, yeah, the other points made it work over and over).
In case you think your points are brand new, try looking up the history of the single wing and the wishbone/triple option.
TO as an example relies on numerical advantage *at the point of attack* (where it counts) by both the O-line (e.g. student body right) and backs (3 of them blocking for each other when appropriate). It also relies on misdirection by sending 3 backs running in the same area to hit any available hole and overload the defense's decision making ability.
These are the same concepts.
Knute could also not imagine the amazing physical improvements in strength and speed (see the NFL) that neutralized these relatively simple implementations. The sophistication of today's schemes is amazing, but the concepts are not new.
My dad played for Clemson in the early 1950's. Having talked football with him for nearly 50 years (he is now dead) I can say with personal knowledge that football has massively changed (mostly for the better IMO) in how it is played, but not in how it is conceived.
A good coach beats you with his guys and then can take your guys and beat you with them. I don't think Knute being magically transported into the 21st century would impart knowledge of current trends and techniques, but given some time to learn I would bet real money he could beat Wilcox with CAL players... (I'm no football coach. Anybody could probably beat me with any players...)
Love this piece and look forward to more. While Auburn is a step up in talent, I do not agree that they will "expose" our weaknesses. Maybe it's just semantics, but I think they will be able to exploit things about our team more readily, as is normal in football, and we will do the same to them. Our coaches, especially on offense, are clearly able to exploit "weaknesses" on opposing teams.
My take is the old simplicity of line play will determine the game. If we can protect our QB, the Spav offense will score and move the ball. If we can more or less limit their run game, and force them to throw, we will limit their long drives and scoring.
All I know is that I'll be there and my best buddy, who since going to Cal in 1986, has never once attended a Cal football game despite remaining in the Bay Area, will attend his very first game with me on Saturday. I hope the house is rocking and we show Auburn a really bad time.
Hugh Freeze was quoted as saying he doesn't expect Memorial Stadium to be loud or cause any trouble like what they face in the SEC. Ok, maybe, but let's show them we aren't sisters of mercy state! I've seen Memorial full and loud, and it's awesome!
My youngest son and I will be there in section T, row 34. We will be the ones wearing gold.
I don't have gold wear. I will look to buy some before the game in Berkeley.
Gold hoodie for me oldenone
It’s a decent flight from Alabama to SFO/OAK, the start time is 9:30pm Alabama time, and CMS can be extremely loud when people are pumped for the game (ask Tennessee). Hugh Freeze is a fucking moron
Yeah, but we haven't had a crowd like that in over ten years. If we want people to stop thinking of Memorial as empty, we gotta stop leaving it empty. Lots of work to be done in terms of Cal marketing.
I really hope the crowd is a near sellout and also I imagine a lot of Auburn folks jn the south end zone
When was the last time we had a good crowd? I know mid 2000s was electric at the Memorial Stadium.
In the final year of Tedford era, I remember UCLA 2012 had a really good crowd too.
What game had the best crowd after that?
Maybe the Oregon double overtime game under Sonny when Jordan K had the game clinching interception.
When you said Jordan K, I thought for a second you were referring to our kicker from 2007 team. Kunaszyk's INT was Mike Mohamed-esque.
Great game and an electric crowd. CJ Anderson got the crowd pumped up
Yeah that was an awesome game.
You mean majority Cal fans, correct? Because otherwise OSU.
Yeah. What about Cal fans?
I just meant the OSU game was a good crowd, but that was because there were so many OSU fans. I guess still majority Cal fans, but so many OSU fans.
Why do you think Auburn is a step up in talent?
I meant Auburn is a step up from North Texas. I just assume that! Our Oline was able to really move the pile against UNT, and their coach after the game lamented that we were bigger than them on the lines. I haven't looked at their roster but I have to assume Auburn will have guys the same size as ours or bigger.
Because Auburn is a powerhouse in SEC and North Texas is in ACC that many people often mistake as FCS?
Auburn is a powerhouse in the SEC? Perhaps in the past, but not in the recent past.
The ACC added North Tesxs as well? Everything I see has them in the American (AAC), now and going forward.
Oops. AAC.
I’ll be driving down from Tahoe for the game - meeting my son as well as two alumni from my class - ‘79!! Go Muncie!! Senior moment - I mean Ott!!
More good. The undersigned advocated for Driscoll at center months ago!
https://bearinsider.com/s/3731/cal-ol-brian-driscoll-earns-pac-12-offensive-lineman-of-the-week
I think I posted this elsewhere, but our most effective OL combo was: RT Sessions RG Vatikani C Driscoll LG Wykoff LT Barrett. These are some big nasty bodies that were having fun imprinting themselves as a group on the UNT defense. If I had one comment to them is that they should be careful not to overrun blocks and break down on downfield blocks so that they are in football position at the point of intersection with the defender. If they do these two things they will never get beat.
Yeah, I just watched the game for a second time and concentrated on line play (both sides of the ball). I agree with your comments and frankly feel they need to improve a lot to compete with the top of the conference.
Sincerely question PFF's grading system if 1.5 yd/attempt and something like 40 rushing yards total translates into a "meh" run defense score.
Right? Given that grading, not sure PFF is worth following going forward.
Yeah, I wondered about that too... so I checked PFF's summary of run block grading. Here are some excerpts..
*Blockers can earn positives for creating movement or winning their gap, while negative grades are assigned for poor blocks, with varying levels of downgrades within the system. There are many blocks that fall into the “expected” category and will receive a neutral grade
To earn a positive grade, we are looking for blockers to achieve a decisive win on their given assignment.
The beauty of a play-by-play grading system is not always the final grade, but the construction of that grade ... When combined with crucial information such as run concept, the PFF run-blocking system is a crucial, groundbreaking way to describe past performance and project blocking performance in the future, even in new offensive systems. *
I get two key takeaways... 1) The RB's did a really great job (which we already knew because it happened) hitting smallish holes and get yards after contact 2) certain schemes (run concepts) do not rely on individual brilliance by the line (why couldn't CAL get an O-line that understands that before now??)
Outside references indicate for example that quick hit, zone blocking don't usually get high PFF ratings but can be yardage gainers. I couldn't watch the game (and TV rarely shows enough to really see O-line schemes well IMO) so maybe someone could comment on the blocking schemes and techniques.
Last thought from PFF, successful run plays can produce no credit for even the perfect blocker ... "Down blocks on the front side of “power” generally fall into this category as the blocker is expected to keep the defender in his gap while the defender often wants to stay put to allow his teammates to pursue over the top." When blockers are called on to tie up defenders they won't gain any points. Whenever they do have some fail, they end up with a big negative. Doing your job well but not perfectly can look bad in PFF...
Yeah this is great. I'd love to try to understand the run defense scoring too... but generally speaking it seems best to take PFF with a grain of salt. I remember it used to always underrate Evan Weaver too because it was heavily weighted towards his weakness, pass defense.
This may sound weird, But I consider this an average game.They were supposed to do what they. did to this team. Cal is loaded offensively and the defense is bend but don't break. Auburn is a significant step up. They will expose Cal's weaknesses.
Auburn will be better than UNT but their defense is suspect and they aren't yet set on a QB. Their D gave up 5.9 yards per rush to UMass...I think our running game is a strength and is substantially better than UMass'.
We are good at running the ball. Auburn is bad at stopping the run. Seems pretty simple, but Musgrave would put together a game plan with 80% passes.
Maybe so, but he aint here no more. Go Spav!
I agree, our strength is the running game. Extraordinary improvement thus far with the OL to make the space for Ott and Ifanse to do their wonderful work. Pass protection was good too. Looks to be a good game this Saturday night. I bought a gold long sleeved shirt for the occasion. Go Bears!
Question about this category model: How do you justify the L games that are in The Good quadrant? Moral victories?
Good point about Greatwood. Yes, the McClure and Musgrave hires were so bad in retrospect. It makes you wonder about Wilcox's judgment. Hopefully he got it right with the current group of coaches.
If I read the box-whisker plot correctly, this is the best tackling game of the entire Wilcox tenure? Is that possible?
The offensive line's overall .poor.play during the entire Wilcox era has been the biggest factor holding the team back. From what I saw the offensive line play against UNT was very good. Given there's a new line coach and OC, it's possible they have turned the corner with the O line. If they have, and they show out vs. Auburn, they can win the game. U Mass ran for over.5 yds/play vs Auburn on the road,.there's no reason Cal can't do the same at home.
The O-line played well when Greatwood was the O-line coach. It was only under Musgrave and McClure that things got really bad. The schemes that McClure ran were worse than Pop Warner.
Interesting piece on ESPN's declining carriage fees for linear:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/espns-melting-iceberg-is-yet-another-challenge-for-disney-analyst-says-47377bcc
Looks like Sam V might be starting also Burrell expected to play.
What about Cindric?
Not sure
Below average run block and run defense grades very surprising.
Maybe because Ott and Ifanse created tons of yards on their own? By avoiding tackles or running through tackles but not going down.
Yeah, the results would argue otherwise... I comment on run blocking above. Here are some run defense notes from PFF.
"Disruption and finish are two of the easiest ways to earn positive grades in the PFF system. Defeating blocks and then making tackles in and around the line of scrimmage will earn positives, and as with other areas of the grading system, the speed of the win determines the level of the grade.
On the negative side, the worst grades are the ones on which there is a clear lost gap, whether blocked or unblocked, that compromises the structure of the defense."
Results can come from lots of reasons, PFF tries to examine every player to see if they are *making a difference* when it comes to run defense. PFF rewards great plays, not effective plays, because current thinking is that *disruption* is the key to success. I believe this comes from their NFL roots.
Just clogging the line of scrimmage and bottling up the play won't get great grades because it is a slow way to win the battle and disruption/speed of terminating the play is important to high grades. If someone away from the play falls down and leaves a gap then that's a massive failure (I don't know if that actually happened...) even if the play went nowhere overall.
Effective tackling is an important metric. Since we got great on tackling, I'm even more surprised.
Maybe someone else can comment on our disruption quotient...
"The essence of football is blocking, tackling, and execution based on timing, rhythm and deception."
Knute Rockne
and speed.
I hate to tell Knute, but things have changed a bit. Misdirection, creating numerical advantages, yada yada yada, are all now part of game strategy. Coaching and play calling are now as important as attempting to physically dominate your opponent.
From my previous reading (but not verified for this post)... I think Knute already beat you to the punch on every one of those points. True, he never envisioned spread offenses, but his teaching on O-line was incredibly well thought out on misdirection, creating numerical advantages, coaching and play calling. He did rightly believe that once you achieved the first three then the last one was easier (and sometimes permitted calling the same play over and over because... oh, yeah, the other points made it work over and over).
In case you think your points are brand new, try looking up the history of the single wing and the wishbone/triple option.
TO as an example relies on numerical advantage *at the point of attack* (where it counts) by both the O-line (e.g. student body right) and backs (3 of them blocking for each other when appropriate). It also relies on misdirection by sending 3 backs running in the same area to hit any available hole and overload the defense's decision making ability.
These are the same concepts.
Knute could also not imagine the amazing physical improvements in strength and speed (see the NFL) that neutralized these relatively simple implementations. The sophistication of today's schemes is amazing, but the concepts are not new.
My dad played for Clemson in the early 1950's. Having talked football with him for nearly 50 years (he is now dead) I can say with personal knowledge that football has massively changed (mostly for the better IMO) in how it is played, but not in how it is conceived.
A good coach beats you with his guys and then can take your guys and beat you with them. I don't think Knute being magically transported into the 21st century would impart knowledge of current trends and techniques, but given some time to learn I would bet real money he could beat Wilcox with CAL players... (I'm no football coach. Anybody could probably beat me with any players...)
I would love for Game Day to come to Berkeley!!
Keep winning and if we can be winning by the time u s c gets here...
Oregon vs Utah looks like a better candidate for College Game Day though