A Look Back at What Went Wrong: Part I
A Look Back at What Went Wrong: Part II

4th Quarter Thoughts:

I think what hurt Cal the most in the 4th Quarter was the holding penalty on our 4th to last possession (the first drive set above).  That stopped what could have been a scoring drive.  If anything people should be more frustrated with the turnovers, and team penalties than Tedford’s playcalling. 

As for running on 1st and 2nd down on the 3rd to last and 2nd to last possessions (the 2nd and 3rd drive sets above) the only one where I think we could have passed was on 2nd down of the 3rd to last possession (notice I didn’t say "should").  That situation was a 2nd and 3 at Cal’s own 18.  An incomplete pass sets up a manageable 3rd down attempt and might take advantage of an aggressive UCLA defense.  But then again, a run isn’t bad either since UCLA’s D might be expecting pass since it’s 2nd down and short. 

Running on 1st and 2nd down on the pick-6 drive were the right calls.  You want to run the clock and score a touchdown.  Passing risks stopping the clock and scoring too quickly (allowing UCLA time to re-score).  If you think that Tedford should have passed, read this article that was so graciously passed along to me by a friend.  And even if you don’t think Tedford should have passed, read that article anyways because it’s interesting and insightful into JT’s playcalling decisions.  Anyways, being risky has its benefits.  But it also has its faults.  Sometimes being risky works.  Sometimes it doesn’t.  Right now I think most Cal fans are frustrated because JT didn’t take a risk and it didn’t pay off.  Had his conservative playcalling worked, there would be a lot less criticism, right?

Anyways, I don’t think it’s fair to say that he got stubborn in the 4th Quarter.  Bottom line, based on the down&distance and situations, his run/pass playcalling was just fine (I’m talking about whether he chose to call a running or passing play, I’m not talking about keeping the run/pass ratio balanced).  He did what the book says you should do.  He was trying to win the game but our players in the trenches got out-played.  Like I said before, I think there are more influential reasons as to why we lost the game then merely the playcalling (such as turnovers, penalties, player mistakes).

Alright.  After finishing up this analysis I feel like a lot of people are going to agree with the Devil’s Advocate arguments or just hate me, but mostly just hate me because I wrote something which stuck up for Tedford.  Please spare me the "HydroTech, you’re an idiot" posts unless you actually have some facts to show me.  Remember the purpose of this post was for me to play Devil’s Advocate here.  I’m just trying to provide some thought on why Tedford might have called what plays he did in order to balance out all the bashing of Tedford on why he didn’t call what plays he should have.  If I missed something, or didn’t address an argument, feel free to say so. 

Anyways, I hope this provided some food for thought and people consider both sides of the argument before making a statement about Tedford’s playcalling abilities and/or his "stubbornness."  Oh and by the way, please read that article I linked earlier.  Once again, here it is.  Pretty good read.

And now we enter the doldrums of the season…

• Pitchfork Nation has got you covered for the most part, with links on Erickson’s improvement over Dirk Koetter at ESPN.com from Todd McShay, some injury information on guys coming back this week against our Bears, and an article on how the Sun Devils are very unproven.  Amen to that, brother.
• Scout.com has Dennis Erickson post-practice comments from this past Tuesday…you may want to read the question about what he first liked about Keegan Herring.
• Rudy Carpenter says he’s been looking forward to this year’s game against our Bears after the way the team played last year.
• Another article from Scout.com which says the Sun Devils’ biggest problem so far as been their offensive line…but will our Bears able to take advantage?
• And finally, let’s not forget about our favorite former Pac-10 cheerleader.

A Look Back at What Went Wrong: Part I 

1st Down Playcalling

From what I’ve seen, the JT critics are really hanging their hats on this one.  For the most part, I think the gist of their arguments is that Tedford ran too much on first down (and maybe the entire game). 

Well, let’s see.  Devil’s Advocate argument: the stats show that on 1st downs, Tedford ran the ball 12 times and passed the ball 16 times (this doesn’t count the first and goal in the 3rd Quarter and the final drive’s 1st and 10 down because those were special situations).  That’s 57.1% pass on first downs.  Hmm… seems like the "Tedford ran too much on 1st down argument" is pretty much rumor, speculation, and fiction.  Things not looking so great for the Tedford critics already…  Oh, and Tedford passed the ball 34 times and ran the ball 30 times (57% pass, 43% run) throughout the entire game.  Usually the percentages are the other way around with more runs than passes –meaning in this game Tedford passed the ball 17%-12% more than usual.  Once again, things not looking so great for the Tedford critics…

Anyways, I’ll pause for a moment to let the JT critics amend their argument.  I assume they’ll now say that Tedford got too conservative and ran the ball too much in the 4th Quarter, specifically the last two possession before Longshore’s pick-6.   Well let’s have a look at those 4th Quarter drives and see what happened (playcalling evaluation must be taken in context), and whether the playcalling was questionable.  Below are my much abbreviated notes from the game.

Here’s Cal’s first drive in the 4th Quarter:

Situation: Cal 21, UCLA 20
Time: 15:00 minutes left, 4th Qtr
Cal’s 22    1st and 10    21 personnel    Running play
Cal’s 35    1st and 10    21 personnel    I-Formation, Running play
Cal’s 36    2nd and 9     21 personnel    Weak-I, max protect pass
HOLDING PENALTY
Cal’s 27    2nd and 18   21 personnel    Weak-I, dummy audible, run
Cal’s 27    3rd and 18    20 personnel    Shotgun, split backs, run
PUNT

Thoughts by play: [PLAY 1] I suppose the JT-critics won’t argue about a 1st down rushing play that goes for 13 yards.  Anybody want to say that was a bad playcall because it was a run regardless of its result?  Is a run on first down too predictable?  If you think the answer is yes, you might want to go re-read this post from the top.  [PLAY 2] Another 1st down rushing play.  It goes for a yard or so.  Bad playcall?  Devil’s Advocate argument: Not really.  Especially since the previous play just went for 13 yards you might as well try it again until the defense can stop you.   And just because it didn’t work doesn’t make that play alone a bad playcall.  [PLAY 3] A pass play!  JT critics would be happy!  But there’s a holding call.  Devil’s Advocate argument: this one penalty might have cost us the game.  No really, it might have.  [PLAY 4]  I believe this play was a designed run play.  It appeared as if Longshore "audibled" but I believe he didn’t.  Why I think this?  Well, without going into details of how our signals work, Longshore gave dummy signals.  Why?  UCLA was geared up for the run.  They had 7 men in the box, with 1 LB in a down position and the other two LBs creeping up on what looks to be a blitz.  Longshore gave dummy signals to try and trick the UCLA D into thinking Cal was audibling into a pass play.  UCLA’s D didn’t care and still played the run.  Maybe Longshore should have taken a timeout here to change the play but in a close game like this you really want to keep those timeouts at all costs.  So who is at fault for this 0 yard gain play?  Devil’s Advocate argument: nobody’s fault.  It’s just dumb luck that UCLA’s D was playing the run and we called a run play.  Remember, Tedford calls plays prior to the defense showing what the defense shows.  Just because the D stacks the box doesn’t mean that Tedford should have passed.  Tedford doesn’t change the play after what the defense shows so he just rolls with what he calls.  There is no way for Tedford to have known for a fact prior to that play that UCLA would play the run and thus call a pass play.  And as for the argument that Tedford should have called a pass play in the first place, no.  Still a lot of game left.  Cal has the lead.  Don’t want to risk an interception in our own territory.  [PLAY 5] A run play on 3rd and 18.  Devil’s Advocate argument: Obviously Tedford would rather just give up on this drive and play the field position game than risk a long low percentage pass and interception in our own territory.  This is a by-the-book playcall.  It’s what most coaches would probably do.  Afterall, Cal does have the lead, and there is plenty of time left in the 4th Quarter.  There is no need to get risky and turn over the ball so close to our own endzone.  [DRIVE THOUHTS]  Devil’s Advocate argument: nothing wrong with the playcalling here.  Just because the second play only got one yard doesn’t make it wrong (or at least not based on the result of the play).  What really killed this drive was the holding call.  It forced us into a second and long situation where the UCLA D was geared up for the pass.  The second most influential factor that killed the drive was just the dumb luck that UCLA was playing the run when we ran the ball on 2nd and 18.  Other than that, nothing was really wrong with the playcalling here.

Here’s the next drive:

Situation: Cal 21, UCLA 20
Time: 10:40 left, 4th Qtr
Cal’s 11    1st and 10    12 personnel    Shotgun, run
Cal’s 18    2nd and 3    12 personnel    Shotgun, run
Cal’s 19    3rd and 2    11 personnel    Screen to Best at WR.
PUNT

Thoughts by play: [PLAY 1] Devil’s Advocate argument: Nothing wrong here.  Could be pass, could be run.  No real right or wrong answer.  Although some coaches will probably say because of the fact that we’re deep in our own territory you should run to move the ball in a safer manner out towards the 20 before risking a pass.  And this play went for 7 yards.  Anyone want to complain about this 1st and 10 run?   [PLAY 2]  Another shotgun run.  Actually, it was the same exact play as before.  UCLA had 8 men in the box, again.  This time it only went for 1 yard.  Does the fact that it only went for one yard make it a bad call?  Devil’s Advocate argument: No.  Remember, you can’t justify or criticize plays based on their after-the-fact results.  That’s cheating.  That’s "hindsight is 20/20".  Tedford calls the plays BEFORE he knows what the defense is doing.  He can’t say with a 100% certainty that they were going to stack the box.  Could it have been a pass?  Sure.  Could it have been a run?  Sure.  Is there a right or wrong answer here?  Based on just down, distance, and field position, no.  [PLAY 3] Screen to Best.  Bad play?  Devil’s Advocate argument: definitely not.  The past two plays UCLA brought the heat.  It’s not totally unreasonable to assume that they’d bring it again on 3rd down.  And in fact, they did.  What went wrong here was that UCLA snuffed it out fast besides just flocking to the Best really fast. [DRIVE THOUGHTS]  Devil’s Advocate argument: This drive was only a yard or less from a 1st down.  Based on the down, distance, and field position, I don’t think there is really anything grossly wrong with the playcalling here.  The 3rd down play might have been a bit "predictable" because Best was in.  I suppose one of the plays that uses Best as a decoy might have worked better, but then again if Best had converted the 1st down the game would have changed and JT critics might not be complaining.  Overall, for this drive I think UCLA out played our players on 2nd and 3rd down and that’s what killed the drive.

Final (meaningful) Drive:

Situation: UCLA 23, Cal 21
Time: 2:54 left, 4th Qtr
UCLA’s 35   1st and 10    12 personnel   Ace, Run
UCLA’s 31   2nd and 6     12 personnel   Ace, Run
UCLA’s 30   3rd and 5      21 personnel   Weak-I, max protect, pass
INTERCEPTION, PICK-6

Thoughts by play: [PLAY1]  1st down and a run.  Bad playcall?  Devil’s Advocate argument: Nope.  Good playcall.  We have the ball in their territory.  The goal is to score a touchdown and run out the clock.  The best way to do that is by running.  This was a by-the-book call and it was 100% correct.  This is what you need to do.  [PLAY 2] Appears to be the same play but the blocking scheme is different.  Bad playcall?  Devil’s Advocate argument:  No.  Same reasoning as the last play.  You want to score and run out the clock.  The best way to do this is by running.  Besides, worst case scenario is that a FG takes the lead.  And even if Cal misses the FG, UCLA has the ball in their own territory AND Cal has all 3 timeouts remaining meaning a defensive stop gets the ball back.  [PLAY 3] It seems obvious that Cal needs to pass now on 3rd and 5.  Tedford calls a max protect play sending out two WRs.  Bad playcall?  Devil’s advocate argument: Only Tedford knows.  Cal pretty much had to pass.  If JT had run the ball and didn’t convert, the JT critics would have slit their wrists on the spot.  Is it a bad playcall just because it got intercepted?  No.  Can it still be a bad playcall?  Yes, but we’ll really never know.  Maybe JT should have sent in 3 WRs.  Maybe it should have been a fade.  Maybe it should have been a never-fails slant (sarcasm).  Maybe it should have been a passing play that focused on the center of the field rather than the outsides.  It could have been a lot of other things and there is still no guarantee it would have worked or even would have been more likely to work.  [DRIVE THOUGHTS] Devil’s Advocate argument: I think we can all agree that Tedford calls what he thinks is best.  He’s not calling the second or third best play for the situation out there.  If he thinks the play will work he’ll call it.  It appears fairly obvious that what he did this drive –specifically rushing on first and second down– was the by-the-book right thing to do.  Of course UCLA played the run.  So what?  Defenses play the run on goallines all the time but it doesn’t prevent teams from calling running plays. 

Basically, I think Tedford put the game in the hands of the players.  The playcall was asking the players to out-play the defense for just one last touchdown scoring drive to win the game instead of Tedford trying to become too fancy, greedy, and risky by passing on 1st and 2nd down.  We’ve seen the idea of Tedford putting the game in the hands of his players many times –most noticably the four goalline run plays against Oregon State.  Tedford obviously has faith in his players to execute and perform up to their potential and his expectations.  Last week against Oregon State, and this week against UCLA, it appears as if they didn’t. 

Part III to be posted later today