It is interesting what expectations do to reactions. The Seattle/UW media has been decrying how the Dawg D has become awful, when as noted here, it has regressed, but only to somewhere near normal/mid-pack. Which is not awful, and still better than some, just not as good as the history that dominates their memory.
Think that shut down will come sooner than later. If so, I may flip over to the Sac State/Montana game - two Top 10 teams in the FBS. Troy Taylor has the number two offense in the FBS while platooning two quarterbacks and showcasing a running back from the Sacramento burbs who leads the conference in rushing. The man is going to end up in a higher place somewhere....why not Cal?
It's hard to optimize in all phases, especially with roster limitations. Sonny had a huge disproportion of the roster that were offense players, hoping to find enough that excelled. We know that in any scheme, some of the players will ultimately be better than others, and it takes numbers to have enough so that the usual percentage who ultimately excel is sufficient. And fewer numbers makes the unit more susceptible to severe falloff due to attrition (injuries, illness, etc.).
I was referring to Washington fans being upset by their D's decline.
Yes, Sonny sort lost by attrition. You gotta' wonder, especially when it comes to secondary, that some of the abundance of O players could have been switched to D, so they did not simply ride the bench.
Been thinking about how the offense could change and have an idea. Look at this formation - https://youtu.be/LpBJGpJFP3c?t=147 (should bring you to 2:27). Have #81 block the wide side DE immediately. Bring #4 (or #34 preferably) in motion to behind either guard with the notion that some interior lineman will lose his battle and so this TE is here to support that. That's 7 to block 4, 5, or 6 pass rushers. Send #6 out in a plug or middle route. Finally both Z & X have full route tree options. If it's zone, #13 waits for anticipates Z or X getting between. If it's man, then one of them is clearly going to get open or not. In the latter, just throw it away and back to the huddle.
Normally for a tailback screen to work, you need to wait for the D linemen to get past the blockers, but not long enough that they get to the QB. So one second may be too long for us.
More seriously, I don’t think there is a RB screen in Musgrave’s playbook. Just the WR ones that are always blown up.
Cal’s secondary doesn’t have the statistical advantage of playing against the Cal passing game. WSU, AZ and CO’s secondary rankings are artificially inflated.
Thanks for the write-up and Go Bears. Let's get this season turned around!
It is interesting what expectations do to reactions. The Seattle/UW media has been decrying how the Dawg D has become awful, when as noted here, it has regressed, but only to somewhere near normal/mid-pack. Which is not awful, and still better than some, just not as good as the history that dominates their memory.
And that should be more than good enough to shut down our offense.
FCS, sorry.
Think that shut down will come sooner than later. If so, I may flip over to the Sac State/Montana game - two Top 10 teams in the FBS. Troy Taylor has the number two offense in the FBS while platooning two quarterbacks and showcasing a running back from the Sacramento burbs who leads the conference in rushing. The man is going to end up in a higher place somewhere....why not Cal?
Yeah, I am inclined to think that this level of D would have made us play-off contenders under Sonny.
But, I get the fan reaction, as it coincides with a decline in results.
It's hard to optimize in all phases, especially with roster limitations. Sonny had a huge disproportion of the roster that were offense players, hoping to find enough that excelled. We know that in any scheme, some of the players will ultimately be better than others, and it takes numbers to have enough so that the usual percentage who ultimately excel is sufficient. And fewer numbers makes the unit more susceptible to severe falloff due to attrition (injuries, illness, etc.).
I was referring to Washington fans being upset by their D's decline.
Yes, Sonny sort lost by attrition. You gotta' wonder, especially when it comes to secondary, that some of the abundance of O players could have been switched to D, so they did not simply ride the bench.
Been thinking about how the offense could change and have an idea. Look at this formation - https://youtu.be/LpBJGpJFP3c?t=147 (should bring you to 2:27). Have #81 block the wide side DE immediately. Bring #4 (or #34 preferably) in motion to behind either guard with the notion that some interior lineman will lose his battle and so this TE is here to support that. That's 7 to block 4, 5, or 6 pass rushers. Send #6 out in a plug or middle route. Finally both Z & X have full route tree options. If it's zone, #13 waits for anticipates Z or X getting between. If it's man, then one of them is clearly going to get open or not. In the latter, just throw it away and back to the huddle.
Go Bears
Well, the word that the Cal offense is truly offensive is out...
https://www.uwdawgpound.com/2022/10/20/23412977/opponent-offense-preview-cal-golden-bears
Come on Bears, prove them wrong!
BEST SOLUTION FOR CAL = I SECOND AFTER SNAP PLUMMER THROWS SCREEN PASS TO JAY OTT!
Normally for a tailback screen to work, you need to wait for the D linemen to get past the blockers, but not long enough that they get to the QB. So one second may be too long for us.
More seriously, I don’t think there is a RB screen in Musgrave’s playbook. Just the WR ones that are always blown up.
I am surprised to learn Cal' defensive secondary is ranked 11th in the PAC-12.
Thanks, again, Chris. Insightful and thorough analysis.
Cal’s secondary doesn’t have the statistical advantage of playing against the Cal passing game. WSU, AZ and CO’s secondary rankings are artificially inflated.
LOL. Inflated by us. OMG, that hurts.
Lack of a pass rush is a factor.
Yeah, we can't just "Gamble" our way to a pass rush. LOL.
Yes, some of the opposing Qbs have had enough time to shower and shave.