A Look Back at What Went Wrong: Part III
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.
Hydro, good analysis as always. I love that you always take a tempered approach to things and are always willing to play the devils advocate, even when risking a mountain of hate mail.
You’re definitely right that the turnovers, mistakes and penalties were a big part of the loss. The conservative play calling would have paid off without those mistakes. But I stick with my analysis that he was stubborn (and as an aside, don’t go using my “newly patented” word
). Part of the reason to establish the run is to keep the defense honest and I think that UCLA was not playing the pass game honest. At that point you have to pass to keep them honest and Tedford played it by the book despite that. Particularly after the Bears were trailing (a big difference between the Oregon game mentioned in the article (the other difference being the strength of that Oregon defense in comparison to the 2007 Bears)), it was necessary to deviate from what is supposed to be right.
I will give you this, the trying to run the clock out on the final in field-goal range possession was a reasonable goal… I would have tried to get a couple of first downs before worrying about that.
Comment by Ken Crawford — October 24, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
I generally agree, Hydro, but Ken is right: stubbornly running by the book–every time–seems foolhardy with a defense so keyed to stop the run. Even a single play-action pass on one of those first or second downs would have been nice.
Then again, it is interesting to note that the two plays that absolutely killed the Bears in the 4th quarter–the holding penalty and the pick-six–were both pass plays.
Comment by California Pete — October 24, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Ken, I’m glad we can peacefully disagree on whether JT was truly “stubborn” or not. I will concede though that UCLA’s D was not being honest, and that more “down-field” passing (as opposed to screens) might have been effective in taking advantage of their aggressive D and keeping them honest. The more I think about this the more I see both sides to the argument and I really can’t say that I can take a side. Part of me feels like more down-field passing would have helped. But then part of me likes the idea of just pounding the ball away and having faith in our players.
Comment by HydroTech — October 24, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
CA Pete, you once again bring up a good point about play action. I don’t have my notes with me right now so I can’t see how many play action plays we ran but I think it might have been a few too few. And yes, isn’t it quite ironic that a lot of what went wrong during that game happened during passing plays (3 INTs, Holding penalties).
Comment by HydroTech — October 24, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Fantastic posts. As always, I appreciate your play breakdown. However, on behalf of all us who feel that science, logic and rational arguments are tools of the devil, let me say this:
I think everyone saw the Utah and Notre Dame games UCLA played and thought our team should be able to score at least 50 on their “overrated” defense. We shouldn’t have been in a comeback situation with time running out. Why couldn’t we score at will? Utah did. I don’t understand foozball.
Even if we eeked this one out on a final play, I’d still be in the “that game sucked” boat.
Comment by CalBandGreat — October 24, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
I disagree with your analysis and Tedford’s attitude. Maybe if the run had had previous success, you stick with it even after a couple (or several, or numerous, as was the case) stuffs. But the run had been stopped all_day_long. What was the average gain going into that final (and previous) drive? Like 2.3/carry?
I am sorry, but this is Tedford’s most discouraging coaching to date. “It should work” followed by “It didn’t work” (times 12) followed by “But it really should work this time” just does not cut it for me. Isn’t one of the definitions of insanity repeating the same thing but expecting a different result each time?
Comment by Bay Area Bear — October 24, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
CalBandGreat, as for our inability to score at will, I think it comes down to coaching and the players. Great players can overcome sub-par coaching, and great coaching can overcome sub-par player performances. Utah and Notre Dame might have won (I am speculating because I didn’t see those games) from a mixture of bad UCLA coaching, sub-par UCLA player performances, good Utah/ND coaching, and good Utah/ND player performances. Sometimes teams just play great one weekend and don’t the next. That’s football. Tedford has made many comments before about how the team can have a great week of practice but come out flat on Saturdays and other times they’ll have poor practices but rise to the occasion on gameday.
Comment by HydroTech — October 24, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Bay Area Bear, I don’t blame you for disagreeing. The reasoning set forth in this analysis -while solid in a vacuum where UCLA’s Defense’s tendencies and yards per carry averages do not exist- are reasonable. But as I conceded earlier, as soon as you bring up those two points, the logic seems weaker and makes you scratch your head. I felt the same way watching the game. But as I re-watched the game and thought about the situations more and thought about what Tedford might have been thinking, I think I began to understand that what his biggest fault may be is not his “stubbornness” but his faith in his players. We all read that comment that something like he’d expect the run to produce on the 8th try even if it hadn’t worked the first 7 times. Obviously that statement can be interpreted as stubborn, but it is also just a coach having faith in his players. While I understand the counter argument to “faith in the players” is that a great coach will know when to call it quits and put his team in the best position to win by minimizing their weaknesses and playing to their strengths, I also understand Tedford’s actions as just challenging the players to perform- to rise to the occasion and be the better team in the clutch.
One last thing. Cal’s running plays in the fourth quarters were for these gains: 13, 1, 0, 9, 7, 1, 4, 1. This is a 4.5 yard per carry average. This average is much better than the overall game average which suggests either our running game was becoming more effective as the game went on or UCLA’s D was tiring out. One thing I will bring your attention to though is that those run results are very inconsistent. There are batches of minimal gains (0 and 1 yard gains), then a few good runs (13, 9, 7, 4 yard gains). Obviously I think we’d prefer to see more consistency with a running attack. My point here is that while Tedford did run quite a bit more in the 4th quarter than in the others, he might have done so because it felt like our running game was finally breaking through. I mean, after the O rips off a 13, 9 and 7 yard gain, immediately after those plays, if you were coach Tedford, you would have to admit that the thought that the run was finally working would have crossed your mind. If not, then I guess (and this is not an insult) you’re just a little more pessimistic than Tedford who seems to be optimistic.
Comment by HydroTech — October 24, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
CA Pete, my notes show we ran 3 play action plays against UCLA. For a team with a reputation of running the ball more so than passing it doesn’t quite seem right to only playaction three times. While I’m not Tedford so I can’t really say with certainty why there were so few playactions, I would assume that Tedford either (a) just made a mistake in not calling them, or (b) thought UCLA’s D wouldn’t be affected by them. With UCLA blitzing a lot throughout the game and LBs in “hug” techniques, if Cal is to playaction then the ball must be thrown quickly. Perhaps Tedford thought the pocket wouldn’t hold long enough to playaction pass down field.
Comment by HydroTech — October 24, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
Hydro,
I do see your point. It makes sense…it really does! But imho the evidence in real actual life overrode it. And as you said, it is not the job of the coach to make his players fulfill their dreams and reach for the stars, it is the job of the head ball coach to jest up n win the dern futbaw game.
My biggest problem with it is that even with Tedford’s 2nd half strategy working in full effect, I don’t really see how that put us in position to Win the game with a capital W. It seemed, at best, to put us in position to fire up the powerboat engine, rev it up to 10k, speed across the lake of fire with hell demons closing within feet of us, narrowly miss the crocodiles-with-machine-guns moat, and use the waterski ramp at 300 mph to triple jump out of the atmosphere and into the safety of the mother ship just as the hatch closes.
Comment by Bay Area Bear — October 25, 2007 @ 12:26 am
Couldn’t disagree more with this post. The analysis is plain wrong. More passing plays were obviously needed the minute the safeties started moving up to the line of scrimmage and stuffing the run. Everyone knew what was coming, even people in nursing homes. Continuing to run simple power plays up the middle with someone as small as Forsett wasn’t only stupid, it was suicide. Why not put Montgomery in if you want to run it right up the middle a million times? Did we learn nothing from last weeks goal line stuffing of little tiny Forsett? I don’t know what the hell has happened to Tedford’s so called genius in the last two weeks, but it is definitely alarming.
Thing is I love Tedford, I honestly thought he was the second coming. Now I am so torn between my emotions and how to feel about him I am having trouble sleeping. Please Coach, PLEASE!!! Fix it this week, I don’t know how long I can keep myself from saying bad things and I really don’t want to!
Comment by Jack "the kid" LaSazza — October 25, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Jack, it’s understandable that you and other Cal fans would think the reasoning set forth in this analysis is incorrect but I wouldn’t go far as to say the analysis as a whole is wrong. I know most Cal fans wouldn’t agree with some or most of the *reasoning* and *conclusions*, but saying this analysis is flat plain wrong is a bit too all-encompassing and ignores some valid points that I think I brought up and warrant some -at least some- consideration.
Anyways, I know what the arguments are contrary to what most Cal fans are thinking right now but let’s remember that popular opinion isn’t always right (although I’m not saying it isn’t in this case but nor am I conceding the fact that it is). Anyways, I hope you found this analysis at least somewhat thought provoking and helped you reach your unbiased conclusions on Tedford’s coaching abilities.
Also, let’s go easy on Forsett. The Cal Football roster shows Montgomery at 205 pounds and Forsett at 196 pounds. Obviously 205 is greater than 196 but that’s not a huge difference. To say that Forsett couldn’t punch in the ball against OSU merely because of a 9 pound difference seems a little naive of the fact that so much more goes into the running game such as blocking at the point of attack, defensive formations, and non-ballcarrier player performance.
Comment by HydroTech — October 25, 2007 @ 11:48 am
In regards to the power running game, I’d also like to make a couple comments. First, when you need a tough yard or two, often your best option is a fullback, but our fullbacks have had trouble staying healthy this year, so that option hasn’t really been always available.
Also, in regards to our failure to punch it into the end zone against Oregon State, you’ll notice that Oregon State also failed to put it in the end zone against us on 3 straight runs, and when they eventually did get the touchdown on 4th down, it wasn’t on a power running play, but instead because Yvenson Bernard managed to leap *over* the line and across the goal line.
Comment by ragnarok — October 25, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
I don’t think I can argue the run/pass aspect of the playcalling–it’s run vs. pass, only two choices and not much room to argue. The issue I had was with the lack of creativity in the 4th quarter, especially when the playcalling had been pretty creative up until then (the fake-reverse DeSean TD, Stevens TD in the seam).
The fateful pass play was telegraphed like crazy. Tedford has run this play several times this year, and it’s been successful, but by UCLA it was pretty obvious what was coming. The setup: offset-I, twins to the wide side of the field, DeSean mini-motion behind Hawk (so that DeSean can get a clean release off the LOS). Right when DeSean went in motion I knew that Hawk would clear and DeSean would run the out–not because I’m a genius, but because I’d seen it a lot of times before. I’m sure that UCLA was able to scout that play and told their DBs to jump it, since there looked to be safety help over the top.
So it seems that Tedford went back to the well one too many times and got burned. The lack of self-scouting and recognizing tendencies, something Tedford is known for, is what makes that final play so surprising and disappointing.
Comment by Ben — October 25, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Until the last 2 games, I thought our O-line was the strongest unit on the team, even beating out the WRs. The inability to punch it in from the 1 against OSU and the weak running game against UCLA is at least as much on them as it was on Forsett.
Yes, UCLA got blown out by Notre Dame. Why didn’t our offense score like that? Well, they didn’t get 7 turnovers. Why didn’t our D force 7 turnovers? Well, they didn’t get to tee off on UCLA’s third-string, walk-on, non-scholarship freshman playing his first ever game. How many football teams (college OR pro) can win a game if 7 of their possessions end in turnovers?
And a totally different point: how much does Cal miss its starting fullback right now? Can the collapse of the running game be traced to his injury? The fullback plays a huge part as lead blocker in running plays.
Comment by Dave — October 26, 2007 @ 1:43 am