"Seriously, John, Farve just isn’t that good." 

I didn’t listen to the radio broadcast, instead spending the waning moments before I finally got my Sayid fix following the game online.  But I’m pretty sure that the radio broadcaster was Al Michaels and that his call went a little something like this:

..Eleven seconds, you’ve got ten seconds, the countdown going on right now! Randle, up to Anderson…five seconds left in the game…Do you believe in miracles? YES!!!

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, well, stunningly, unbelievably, incredibly, incomprehensibly, incomprelievably, stunnedibly Cal upset the #9 team in the nation, Wazzu.   Here’s the box score.  I can’t really comment on the game, anything more than what stattracker told me.  Anderson had a big game with 27 points, making up for his disappointing effort after Stanford.  I believe Ragnarok listened to the radio broadcast and might be able to lend more insight. 

Yet, for some reason, I’m making this post.  The California Golden Blogs:  Ensuring the wrong people make the basketball posts since 2006! 

All I know is this is vintage Braun.  Winning just enough games to keep his job and give fans hope.  Losing enough games to destroy that hope in as emotionally devastating a manner as humanly possible.

But for a few nights, at least, celebrate!  As far as Eastern Washington is concerned, we are the best basketball team!  Unless Gonzaga is in Eastern Washington.  They might be, I went to California public school, my geography is poor.

Anyway, Saturday, Cal heads to northwest Utah to take on UDub.  Should be fun!  Until then, GO BEARS! 

Yeah, we haven’t written anything about this game so far, and my guess is, you don’t care that much.  Many of you have probably written this season off, and possibly the rest of Braun’s tenure.  Possibly some of you are actively rooting for a complete collapse, hoping that will finally lead to Braun’s ouster.  Whatever your reasons for apathy or outright hostility, here’s one more:  the game’s not even on TV.  I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed.

It used to be that the Washington road swing was relatively kind to Cal.  From 2001-06, Cal was 7-5 in the Evergreen State, with 5 of those wins coming against Washington State.  Only once did the Bears come home winless (the disappointing ‘03-’04 squad).  However well UW was doing, you used to be able to pretty much count on a win against the Cougars, and road splits in the Pac-10 are valuable commodities.

Then, of course, Wazzu got a lot better last year, and the Bears were swept up there for only the second time this decade.  This year doesn’t seem much more promising.  Washington State is 17-2 and ranked 9th in the country, and with good reason:  they lead the country in defense, holding opponents to 53.9 ppg.  They may not be world-beaters on offense, but they play their system to near-perfection, and everyone buys into it.  If this game’s score is in the 50s, the Bears have no chance; if it gets up into the 70s, perhaps they pull it out.  I doubt it.

The Bears, on the other hand, don’t all seem to be on the same page.  Part of that is youth, with only Hardin and Vierneisel classified above sophomore status.  Jerome Randle, in particular, represents some of the Bears’ struggles:

"Personally, I’m not a halfcourt point guard," Randle said. "But I have to do whatever I have to do for the system. I have to buy into the system.

"I create as I go. If I see an opening, I’m just going to go for it. I’m not scared to do anything. Coming down the court full speed, that’s what I’m better at. And, hopefully, if we defend, I’ll be able to do that."

Should Randle take more heed of Braun’s coaching?  Sure.  Should Braun change his offensive style to suit the talents of the players he has?  Absolutely.  Braun recruited all these guys, and if they’re not working in his system, whose fault is that?

Randle’s breakneck pace is certainly something I’d like to see more of, although with perhaps a pinch fewer turnovers.  If he can use his speed to break down the Coug’s tough transition defense, the Bears might actually have a shot in this game.

You know, I expect this game to be close.  Whatever their flaws, these Bears are a talented bunch, and I expect at some point that will shine through.  Basketball players will make basketball plays, if not perhaps with the frequency one would like.  In fact, all of the Bears’ losses this year have been relatively close ones, and only against UCLA did the Bears fail to hold a second-half lead.  Here are the 7 losses:

@ Kansas State : L 82-75
Game was tied at 69 w/ 2:37 left.  Only 5 of the Wildcats’ last 13 points came on field goals.

Utah : L 67-65
Game was tied at 65 with 0:05 left.  Awkward last-second shot gave the Utes the game.

UCLA : L 70-58
The Bears got as close as 2-points w/ 14:15 left in the second half.  In fact, considering the Bruins jumped out to a 13-2 lead, you could say they essentially played them even after that.  Still, it was always clear that UCLA was the better team.

@ Oregon : L 79-70
Though their last lead was 56-54 w/ 7:19 left, the Bears were as close as 3 points with less than 4 minutes to go.

Arizona State : L 99-90 in 2OT
Obviously, a 2 overtime game is close.  The Bears actually had the last shot in both regulation and the first overtime, but couldn’t end the game in either case.

Arizona : L 79-75
The Bears let a second-half lead slip away, but this was still a tie game with 0:48 to go.

Stanford : 82-77
Though the game was last tied at 51 with 9:27 left, the game was still as close as 3 points with only 2:18 to go.

I bring these games up not to make excuses for the losses, but to point out how close the Bears are to beating good teams.  They have yet to be blown out, and only UCLA demonstrated that they were definitely better better than Cal.  This is not a team with no hope (*cough* Oregon State *cough*), and if the Bears can figure a few things out, they might surprise a lot of us.

That said, even if the game was on TV tonight, I’d still watch the season premiere of ‘Lost’ instead.  Can you blame me?

(TwistNHook Edit:  Look, Hydro’s post here is really really cool.  Make sure to read that.  But I just wanted to bring your attention to another thing thats really really cool.  This post from Yahoo Sports.  Marshawn is in there!  And Mickey Pimentel!  And Justin Duchererererererererer!  Also, on another note, Leon Powe had an amazing night the other night.  Double double!  Ok, back to your regularly scheduled HydroTech Post!)

Alright Bears, signing day is only a half of a week away.  Since my last recruiting post, which didn’t seem that long ago but was around 3 weeks ago, the Bears have picked up a few more commitments. 

When I last left off, Cal had just picked up a commitment from Kendrick Payne, a defensive tackle from Texas (Scout profile; Rivals profile).  At the time he didn’t have any film.  Now he does.  Here are my thoughts:  The first thing which really stands out to me his outstanding play-recognition skills and awareness.  He seemed a step ahead of the OL in his recruiting videos.  OL was going to cut block?  He gracefully side-steps the cut-block and is in the backfield in an instant.  Run is going away from him?  He pianos sideways easily, bypassing his blocker and makes the tackle even though he’s a back-side defender.  His also maintains a great awareness for the ball location while locked up on his blocker.  So often, it seems like some players lose focus on the ball and only concentrate on their blocker when engaged but Payne doesn’t.  He also is fairly quick too.  Of course, he’s only 260 pounds right now.  So when he puts on 30 more pounds and up to a Pac-10 playing weight he might be a touch slower.  But still, his mobility reminded me a bit of Brandon Mebane.  Also, Payne is a midyear student and is already on campus, hitting the books, and the weights. 

The next commitment was Aaron Tipoti, a DE from Hawaii (Scout profile; Rivals profile).  He’s around 6′1" to 6′3" and anywhere from 230-250 pounds.  He’s Tosh Lupoi’s first recruit - I believe, as since Lupoi has probably been assigned to work the state of Hawaii now that Delgado is gone.  His recruiting videos are limited, but here are my thoughts: Tipoti seems to do best off the end at defensive end than inside.  Against guards, it seems as if his efforts might be stymied more.  But off the end, he does an pretty good job attacking the edge.  He seems to use his hands pretty well in order to free himself.  In case you didn’t know, Delgado was huge on teaching the DL martial arts hand techniques to keep the OL’s hands off of them.  Lupoi definitely got lots of training in the martial arts from Delgado and Lupoi is surely going to pass it off to all the Cal DLmen.  Tipoti seems very athletic too.  He’s definitely got a DE body and gets a good drive out of his legs. 

Next, Cal got a commitment from a local prospect, Chris Little, a safety out of Oakland (Scout profile; Rivals profile).  He’s a decent sized prospect at 6′2" and still might be growing.  His videos are a pretty tough to see but my thoughts nonetheless: First, he’s a thick guy.  The recruiting services has his weight around 210 or so, and he surely looks it.  He is taller and thicker than everyone else in his videos but he also maintains good speed too.  He seems to be a pretty solid tackler and looks to be able to provide ample run support by closing in on the run fast. 

Cal continues its tradition with great offensive centers by picking up a commitment from Dominic Galas (Scout profile; Rivals profile).  He’s rated as about the #10 center in the country if you average the rankings from Scout and Rivals.   Galas was originally an Oregon State commitment, but Cal has pursued him hard and won his allegiance.  My thoughts on his videos: Well, he can definitely take on defensive players who are bigger and heavier than he is.  In his videos he was consistently moving out defenders who outweighed him.  Galas gets a nice low pad level on the defenders, gets under their pads, and moves them right out of the play.  While watching some one on one clips, what really stood out to me is Galas’ great positioning.  Aside from one clip, he didn’t really get himself out of position or give the defender leverage on either side.  He played tough against DTs that were bigger, heavier and possibly stronger.  What also struck me about Galas, and which may be the most important attribute, is his demeanor.  He’s all business.  While other players seemed to be trash-talking and looking for some banter in return, Galas didn’t say anything back.  He comes across as very business-like and serious.  Galas’ serious attitude reminds me of former Cal workaholic Byron Storer and current Cal center Alex Mack.  In fact, that’s one thing that all of Cal’s recent centers seemingly all have in common, a great work ethic.  That must be something that Coach Michalczik looks for in his players. 

Finally, Cal’s latest commitment is Josh Hill, a CB from Texas (Scout profile; Rivals profile).   Hill is from the same highschool as Kendrick Payne.  In fact, the two are teammates.  So not only is Cal starting to tap Texas for recruiting talent, but it gets two solid looking prospects from the same team, and the same side of the ball.  Remember the last DT/CB duo Cal recruited?  Just a bunch of nobodies named Brandon Mebane and Daymeion "Dante" Hughes.  Could this be the next NFL duo who are former highschool teammates and college teammates?  Maybe.  My thoughts on Hill’s recruiting videos: he seem to do just fine in man coverage.  There is a lot of video of Hill blanketing his WR and breaking up the ball.  On deep balls he locates the ball well and breaks up the play.  He shows good awareness at spotting WR bubble screens and getting to the ball carrier.  I don’t really like labeling players based on highschool video but he definitely seems like a playmaker.  His speed is good too, and he can run down players from the opposite side of the field.  Being 6′0 to 6′1" gives him decent height to match up against taller WRs.  All in all, a solid player.  Seems like there might be a little Dante Hughes in him. 

Alright, signing day is about 5 days away.  I think some of the other bloggers are going to be running a few recruiting related articles over the next week.  Notice I didn’t talk about star ratings at all in this post?  I think Ragnarok is going to talk about dem stars.  And we here at the CGB have a little recruiting story of our own that I think Twist is going to share.   

It’s been a couple days since our latest excruciating loss, and ordinarily I’d be progressing fairly well (past fetal position cuddling with my blankey and on to random muttering, say), but I still can’t shake the fact that without atrocious officiating (21 fouls in the second half….21 fouls…21…), Cal would have won the game.  I understand getting hosed in an out of conference road game (Kansas State, for example), but when it happens at home, to your arch rival…frustrating.  I think one of the great draws of sports is absolution of responsibility; we fans can root and criticize without any accountability or duty.  If Cal wins, we feel great and connected to something bigger than ourselves; if Cal loses, we probably still feel awful, but at least it wasn’t our fault.  The flip side to the coin is that you’re completely and utterly helpless, and it’s all the worse when it’s the refs, and not the opposing team, deciding the game.  Anyways, there was more to the game than the refs (still - 21 fouls!!!), so lets take a look back.

I walked in as Randle drained a deep three to make it 14-13 Cal - a good sign!  Over the next several minutes Stanford outscored Cal 11-1 - not so good.  Cal and Stanford traded similar possessions (working the shot clock for quality shots, few turnovers and fast breaks), but Stanford’s shots rimmed in while Cal’s rimmed out.  To slow down Stanford, BRAUN MADE A SUCCESSFUL STRATEGIC DECISION (emphasized due to rarity) by switching to a 3-2 zone.  The 3-2 (3 perimeter defenders, 2 inside defenders) takes away the outside shot at the expense of defensive rebounding.  Using the 3-2 for the remainder of the half, Cal closed to within one at 31-30 and left the floor to resounding applause.

The elephant in the room was Brook Lopez.  As Cal successfully forced Stanford into contested outside shots and secured defensive boards, you couldn’t help glance over at Lopez, sitting on the bench with two fouls, and fear what was coming in the second half.

We didn’t have to wait very long.  In what would be a persistent theme, Lopez scored 6 quick points and drew a foul on DeVon to open the second half.  After being held scoreless in less than 5 first half minutes, Lopez finished with 23 points and fouled out Kamp and Hardin in the process.  It was frustrating to watch seemingly every Stanford possession unfold exactly as the previous iteration: Johnson holds the ball on the right wing, who passes to Lopez on the right block, who sinks a four footer or lays it in.  If he misses, a foul is called.  If he misses the second free throw, his poofy-haired brother retrieves the ball (Robin Lopez had 10 offensive rebounds) and the cycle repeats.

Buzz cut for smooth offensive moves, Poofy hair for Eurotrash rebounding intimidation.

Stanford’s offensive strategy certainly wasn’t ingenious or tricky, but Cal (with, yes, a big assist from Mr. Libbey) seemed helpless to stop it.  A little ball pressure on the entry pass would have helped a lot - Braun’s great decision to go to the 3-2 zone with Brook on the bench kept Cal in the game, but the lack of ball pressure he ordered in the second half probably sealed it for Stanford.  The way Cal’s guards were playing off Stanford’s wings, I could have had half a dozen assists feeding Brook in the low post.  It also didn’t help that Cal could not prevent Brook from setting up shop 4 feet from the rim.  Hardin has an upper body that would make triangle man jealous, but it’s readily apparent that his lower body leaves a lot to be desired (see, isn’t being a sports fan fun?  I can leg press about 30 pounds and here I am criticizing Hardin’s physique).  After having Hardin play Brook straight up for the first couple possessions of the half and watching Brook practically waltz to the rim, Braun had to order double teams for the rest of the game.  It helped, but wasn’t enough as Stanford scored 51 points in the half.

On the other end of the floor, Randle did a great job beating whatever body Stanford tried at point guard (he drew four fouls on some scrawny back-up in less than 10 minutes), but as usual, it wasn’t the offense that cost Cal the game.  When you let Mitch Johson, perhaps the worst starter in the conference (I’d take Vierneisel over him in a heartbeat), go for 16 points and 7 assists, you’re doing something wrong.  The most cathartic activity I found in the aftermath of the game was debating unconvincing Stanford fans on the merits of Johnson and Randle (for the bear insider thread, click here.  A summary so you don’t have to: Johnson sucks and has inflated statistics because of the 7′0 moster with a shaved head).

Mitch Johson: terrible player, uglier than Sam Cassell.

Cal plays at the Washington schools this week.  You could take the positive approach, and conclude that the odds will catch up to Cal and they’ll be forced, seemingly against their will, to win a damn game.  Or you could take the negative approach, and conclude that if you can’t win at home in the Pac, how are you going to win on the road?  In Braun we trust… 

Well, I’m here to try and make a post about the 2008 Senior Bowl and the resulting performances of our Bears. 

Because I don’t have NFL Network, and thus couldn’t watch the game, I give you my thoughts from mere stats and a brief TIVOing of the SportsCenter highlights.

First off, the stats.

Lavelle "The Hawk" Hawkins had 63 yards on 3 catches and 1 touchdown (21 yards per catch).  He also had a 33 yard kickoff return.

Justin "Tex" Forsett ran for 27 yards on 9 carries (3 yards per rush).

Thomas Decoud had 4 tackles. 

Okay, obviously Hawkins had a great game.  In case you didn’t watch the game or see the Sportscenter highlights, I’ll try and summarize the touchdown play.  North has the ball (meaning Hawk is on offense) on the South’s 36 yardline.  The North offense is going from right to left.  21 personnel is in on the play.  The tight end is left of the OL and Hawk is playing flanker split to the offense’s left and at the bottom of your imaginary TV screen.  The play is a pass play with Hawk running a go-route (runs straight up the sidelines).  Michigan’s Chad Henne is the QB and drops back.  He chucks a deep 52 yard pass (true distance estimated via Pythagorean Theorem) into the left endzone.  The ball is badly under thrown.  The CB covering Hawk turns to the interior of the field to locate the ball, but doesn’t do so in time, and thus doesn’t see that the ball is badly under thrown and overruns the pass.  Hawk had already located the ball, realized it was under thrown, puts on the brakes and body catches the ball in the bread-basket.  Touchdown!

While Hawk’s catch was definitely great, Chad Henne’s pass sucked.  Although, had the ball been thrown further down the field, the CB covering Hawk would have been in prime position to swat/intercept the ball.  Furthermore, the CB covering Hawk might have actually been able to defend the play by not looking for the ball, and face guarding Hawkins.  But what do I know?  DBs are always supposed to turn and find the ball (sarcasm).  [The notion of face guarding in the Senior Bowl brings up the interesting question of whether they play with college rules or NFL rules in the game]

Now, Forsett had an okay day.  Three yards per rush is just okay in the NFL.  Of course, a RB’s production is highly dependent on his OL.  Speaking of which, Forsett was stopped on a critical 4th and 1 play.  Now I’m sure many fans are probably thinking something along the lines of "see, this is exactly why a 196 pound runningback shouldn’t be in on short yardage plays!"  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  In case you didn’t see the failed 4th and 1 conversion, I shall illustrate it for you again.  Once again, North is on offense going from right to left.  They are on the South’s 13 yardline (yes, South’s 13 yardline and going for it on 4th and 1 instead of kicking a field goal).  It’s 21 personnel in I-Formation.  Tight end left of the OL.  Forsett is in the backfield with his FB in front of him.  It’s a straight iso play up the middle.  But the TE does his best "I suck at blocking and thus will let my defender by and then fall on my butt" impression.  Quite literally, he does exactly that.  He sort of blocks his defender, but it looks more like a love tap and a slight caress of the buttox.  Then he allows the defender into the backfield who is able to get his left arm on Forsett and spin Forsett around and stop his forward momentum.  And then then TE quite literally does a spin himself and falls on his butt.  No lie.  Craptacular blocking, buddy.  Good job.   By no fault of Tex’s, he’s stopped on the 4th and 1.  Everyone else on the OL blocked out their dudes, but the TE whiffed his block and thus led to Tex getting stopped too.  So no, getting stopped on 4th and 1 has nothing to do with Tex’s size or weight as it does with his TE’s and OL’s blocking ability. 

As for Decoud’s sort of quiet day of four tackles.  Um, not much to be said here.  Obviously it’s tough learning a new system so quickly.  And maybe the plays called put Decoud away from the ball.  I really don’t think you can interpret much about only having four tackles.  Or at least, no real conclusion can be inferred from merely four tackles.  Obviously the more tackles, the better.  But having so few doesn’t mean Decoud had a bad game.  

Anyways, that’s that. 

Most people seem to think that Hawk and Tex made the most out of the senior bowl.  The Chicago Tribune says: 

The best wide receiver in the game probably was Lavelle Hawkins from Cal. In addition to showing good speed, Hawkins appeared to have a complete game… Two running backs who helped themselves were Matt Forte from Tulane and Justin Forsett from California. Forsett is only 5 feet 8 inches, but he showed quickness, toughness and the ability to read defenses.

Todd McShay of ESPN, even wrote a semi non-idiotic post for once (ESPN Insider Account needed for full article).  He lists Forsett as the #4 RB at the Senior Bowl, Hawkins as the #2 WR at the Senior Bowl, and Decoud as the #1 safety at the Senior Bowl.  Here are a few excerpts:

"Forsett and Washington were the other three standouts during the week. Choice is the best pure runner, Forsett is the shiftiest and Washington displays the most complete set of skills. However, all three lack elite speed and come with durability baggage…"

"Hawkins was solid early in the week and had a phenomenal showing during Wednesday full-pad practice. He is in position to compete for a spot in the first two rounds…"

"Of the pure safeties, DeCoud had the most complete skills and Griffin looked more athletic than his size would indicate. Additionally, Zibikowski showed he can be a valuable special teams player and adequate reserve on defense. That said, it’s unlikely any of these safeties will come off the board in the first two rounds."

Well, not the most flattering reviews of our Golden Bears by Todd McShay but better than his opinion of the Bills’ decision to draft Marshawn "Money" Lynch.   

First of all, congratulations to both the furd and Cal women.  I did not see the women’s game (I followed it intermittently on gamecast), but a 20 point victory that was a blowout all the way is an achievement.  Good job furds.  To the Cal women, you are still in sole possession of 1st place despite the setback, with all of the road games against top Pac-10 opponents in the books.  Take care of business the rest of the way the conference is yours.

As for the men’s game…WOW.  Wow.  I think I’m still shaking with rage.  For those of you who do not know Dave Libbey, tonight was a great introduction.  He is a referee, and a notorious one at that, even by Pac-10 standards.  You see, little Dave wanted to be a basketball player.  He tried very, very hard, worked on his game with obsessive zeal but despite his efforts, he could not become an impact player.  Now all grown up, Mr. Libbey affects games all the same, but he is not an undersized small forward, nor a great three point shooter.  No, he is what I call an impact referee.  Instead of simply letting the game flow and calling fouls when applicable, Mr. Libbey likes to insert himself into the game.  He likes to dictate the tempo of the game, the style of the game, the emotion of the game.  He is a narcissist, the absolute worst quality in a referee.  The players are the ones who should decide the game but Mr. Libbey likes the attention on himself, when he should be an observer.

Tonight, Mr. Libbey and his crew decided the game by calling 21 fouls (21 !!!!!!!!!) on Cal in the second half.  You might say, "But CBKWit, surely many of those fouls occured in the waning minutes, as Cal tried to extend the game."  You are right.  5 of those fouls did come within the last 70 seconds.  That leaves (only) 16 fouls over the first 19 minutes of the second half.  Stanford was in the double bonus (10+ fouls on Cal) halfway through the second half.  They shot 19 more free throws than Cal, at Haas!

Every time Brook Lopez touched the ball, it was a foul or a bucket.  The refs made sure of this by calling fouls after the play if Lopez happened to miss, a particularly infuriating tactic (witness Hardin’s last foul, after he scored 4 straight points to pull Cal within 2).  On the other end, Randle did a great job drawing obvious fouls on whichever terrible furd point guard tried to guard him, but all of the contact by the furds in the lane was somehow admissible.  Not once did you hear a whistle as the furds pulled us or went through us for offensive boards.  As time expired, all I could do was laugh.

I’m interested in hearing reactions from any lurking furd fans.  If the shoe was on the other foot, I’d certainly be happy (a win’s a win), but I’d also be more relieved than excited and willing to admit that we caught a break.  Maybe I’m crazy, and I’m definitely biased, but that was the worst officiated half of any sporting event I can immediately recall.  Furds, your thoughts?  I also think a "worst officiated game" post/thread is in order; it might be therapeutic

We’ll have more of a recap on the actual game within the next 36 hours.  There were other reasons why we lost the game (notably, terrible rebounding and lack of ball pressure on entry passes), but even though I think it’s time for a new coach, I can’t pin this loss on Braun.  Dave Libbey, I hope you’re happy; all I’m thinking about is you.

It is the best of times; it is the worst of times.  Cal plays Stanford twice today.  In the early game, the FIRST PLACE Bears travel to Palo Alto to play the 7 time defending conference champs.  Sounds like a good game, eh?  Most people, myself included, will not see this game.  Instead, we’ll be gearing up to watch our ninth place bears play our Donald Rumsfeld Employing friends at Haas (see, now you have a new reason to hate the furd.  You’re welcome).

It’s telling to examine what’s at stake for our men’s and women’s teams against the Condi Rice Enabling furds (this is fun).  The women will essentially wrap up the Pac-10 title with a win, taking a 3 game lead with half of conference play completed.  You wouldn’t call it a "must-win," unless the entire phrase reads "must win in order to earn a number 1 seed in the NCAA tournament."  The men, on the other hand, must win the late game in order to keep their very slim and fast fadding tournament hopes alive.  2-5 in conference with road games at UCLA, Arizona, ASU, Stanford, and WSU on the horizon does not look promising, especially considering the men were just swept AT HOME by AZ and ASU.  I’m getting depressed just writing this.

Honestly, I am not looking forward to this afternoon; I’m fully expecting a loss to our arrogant rivals (likely even more unbearable now that they temporarily have the Axe) in an sold-out unspired Haas Pavilion.  I signed up for free tickets to the men’s game a couple months ago, when DeVon Hardin was leading the COUNTRY in rebounding and our point guards were dismantling tournment teams like San Diego State and MissouriNevada (hey, if you combine them they might make the tourney).  Fast forward to today: we’d be better off with AJ Diggs running the point and Hardin can only muster ONE rebound (!!!) against undersized, guard oriented ASU.  How many boards will he have against the seven-foot Lopez twins?  0?  -4?  

Across the bay, Boyle’s team will try for their fourth road win in four tries against the top half of the conference.  Throw out the records and standings for a moment - how would we feel if the men’s team had already defeated Arizona, Oregon, and Wazzu on the road?  I’m going with "pretty damn good."  This isn’t to say that Boyle is some superhero goddess like Wonderwoman or Catherine Zeta Jones before Michael Douglas.  Her teams lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament the last two years.  She’s winning games with a core of players (Devanei Hampton, Ashley Walker, and Alexis Gray-Lawson) inherited from the previous coach and her recruting hasn’t been great so far.  Truthfully, I couldn’t care less.  Her team is taking the Pac-10 by storm right now; we can worry about what happens when the aforementioned juniors graduate when it actually happens, and if she doesn’t have players lined up to take their place, maybe some of the (very mild) criticism is warranted.  It’s just fun to have a team that’s dominating in the present, as opposed to one which will dominate in the theoretical future ("next year, with Kamp and Boykin taking Harden’s minutes, Theo healthy, Love, OJ, Bayless, Lopez, and the entire Wazzu team in the NBA, maybe we can finish in the top half of the conference and get past the first round!"  Yes, I have genuinely had this conversation with myself).

It may seem like I’ve given up on the men’s team, and that’s because I have.  Maybe they will pull it out today, and maybe they will steal a game on the road at some point.  Maybe they will even catch fire and earn a 10 seed and first round exit in the tourney.  Maybe It’s time to hire a new coach, but this subject deserves an entire, separate post.  I just know that Boyle’s team, regardless of the outcome today, is in perfect position to win the conference, and that is a far, far, better thing that they do, than Braun has ever done.

 

And I mean that in the nicest way possible, because it’s true.  From Outsports.com:

Being a red-blooded American gay male sports fan, I also notice more than just the players’ performance. Hence, the 2007 Outsports NFL All-Hot Team.

The criteria? Hotness, by my definition. It doesn’t matter how a player did on the field, whether he started or how much he played. As long as he was on an NFL roster this season and looked good he was eligible.

These selections, unless otherwise noted, are all mine. For some positions, I deferred to friends or readers, who were adamant about their choices.

It might not be the most reassuring thing to know that three former Golden Bears made the 2007 Outsports All-NFL Hot Team, along with such luminaries as Cleveland Brown legend Brady Quinn, former amateur USC RB Reggie Bush, and the ruggedly handsome Jordan Gross.

I just don’t see it.

But we know why you’re here, because you love our Golden Bears, both past and present.  Though probably not in the same way as those at Outsports.com do.  So here were the honorees, along with comments.  (Accompanying captions are mine.)

(I’d let him GUARD me any day!  Oh my god that was an awful pun.)

Offensive line

Most lineman leave me cold, being a bit too bulky, so I will defer to longtime contributor Jim Allen, who watches the games with me and named these as his faves:

Jordan Gross (Carolina); Leroy Harris (Tennessee); Chris Massey (St. Louis); Jon Runyan (Philadelphia); Chris Snee (New York Giants); Todd Steussie (St. Louis); Joe Thomas (Cleveland); Todd Wade (Washington); and Casey Wiegmann (Kansas City), who Jim notes is “still listed as single in his late 30’s. Hmmm."

(Maybe things like this explain why Fujita gets a lot of attention for a mediocre linebacker.)

Linebacker

Scott Fujita (New Orleans): One look at those arms and that handsome face makes Fujita a perennial all-pro on this team.

(Look at that beaming smile!  Matt is one Colt who’s had something to be thankful for in the wake of the Colts’ loss on Sunday!)

Defensive back

Matt Giordano (Indianapolis): A pity that he shaved his head, but this Colt safety is one of the best-looking guys in the league and maybe the fastest player on the team.

Frankly, I’m shocked Tom Brady isn’t on this team every year, but that might be because he’s taken.

Once again, HydroTech really got me thinking.  I thought his post on Monday was excellent, and I wholeheartedly agree with his basic premise.  However, I’d like to take this line of thought a little bit further/down a different direction.

Using the Median

This post began as a comment I was going to leave on Hydro’s post, but it sort of grew wildly out of control, which brings us to today.  Specifically, I was reading through his comparisons of the run average vs. pass average of various opponents of Cal last year, and I was struck in particular by his use of our game vs. Colorado State:

Colorado State on the other hand averaged 3.7 yards per rush attempt and 10 yards per pass attempt (CSU should have passed more).

This is true, at least according to official statistics, and his conclusion is certainly accurate, but I think the statistics can sometimes be misleading.  Specifically, you’ll remember that at the end of the game, when Colorado State desperately needed to catch up, they completed a couple of long bombs for 44 and 67 yards, respectively.  That’s more than a third of the day’s passing yards right there in two passes, which certainly skews the average up.  On most passing plays, this kind of yardage is exceedingly unlikely, and I think to include them in a simple average (the mean) gives a misleadingly rosy picture of the passing game.

Instead of using the mean when trying to determine the yards per attempt, I think we should be using the median.  (For those who don’t remember their pre-algebra statistics, click on the links for basic Wikipedia articles.)  In this way, we can diminish the effect of extraordinary passing plays without discounting them entirely.  When you’re calling a specific play at some point during a game, you’re only dealing with a single, discrete event; you can certainly hope that the passing play will go for 50+ yards, but you’re more interested in what the "average" ( i.e. routine) play will go for.  In the case of Colorado State that day, the median passing play went for 6 yards, meaning that half the plays went for less than 6 yards, while half went for more.  In calling a generic passing play, CSU can reasonably expect that that play will go for about 6 yards, and they know that it’s equally likely to go for more or less than that.

Sacks Occur on Passing Plays

In the course of coming up with the median values for Colorado State, I ran into another of football’s statistical oddities that I think skews these results towards passing plays.  Namely, that sacks count against a team’s rushing yards total.  Now, while this makes a certain sort of sense (the ball was never actually passed), it really messes you up when you’re trying to predict the expected outcome of a certain play.  Virtually all sacks occur on plays that were designed for a forward pass (I can’t think of a single time where a quarterback was sacked before he had a chance to hand off, but I suppose it has happened).  Anyway, being that sacks occur on passing plays, I added them into the passing statistics when I was counting up Colorado State’s plays.

I swear I was going to pass!  I was getting to it!  I just needed a bit more time! [Photo from mybearterritory.com]

In the CSU game, Cal sacked the quarterback 5 times for a total loss of 25 yards, as well as CSU’s only fumble on the day.  Combined with interceptions and incomplete passes, sacks add to the increased risk/increased reward proposition of attempting a forward pass.  Adjusting for sacks, our new (mean) averages for running plays/passing plays are 4.7 yards per rush / 8.2 yards per passing attempt.  It still looks like Colorado State should have passed more (35 passing attempts vs. 36 rushing attempts), but not as dramatically as the statistics HydroTech cited above would suggest.  The resulting median averages remained steady, with the median rush resulting in a 3 yard gain, and the median passing attempt resulting in a 6 yard gain.

Assessing Risk/Reward on a Per-Play Basis

Of course, while I think the median gives us a better tool for predicting the outcome of a passing play, one number can only take us so far in informing play-calling.  After all, while I might get 82 yards from running 10 passing plays, I won’t get a chance to run those 10 passing plays unless I pick up this 3rd and 4 I’m facing.  And while the odds say that my median passing play nets me 6 yards, which would be enough to get the first down, what I *really* want to know is, what are the odds I pick up 4 yards or more?

Colorado State’s distribution of results following running or passing plays make for what I think is an interesting case study.  Let’s look at the results from running the ball first.  The first thing I noticed is how low-risk running the ball was for them; in handing off 36 times, CSU never turned the ball over and never lost yardage.  If all the Rams needed was a yard, they had an 86% chance of picking it up via the run.  Two yards was less automatic, but 61% is still a decent play, especially considering the negligible risk involved.  Big plays were unlikely, however; only 4 (11%) of them went for 10 yards or more.

CSU Rushing vs. Cal
Turnovers	0%
Lost Yardage	0%
No Gain	14%
1+ Yards	86%
2+ Yards	61%
5+ Yards	31%
10+ Yards	11%

Passing, on the other hand, was almost an all-or-nothing proposition for the Rams.  Lots of bad results (sacks, interceptions, incomplete passes) and lots of good ones (10 passing plays went for more than 10 yards) but very few small gains in between.  Also, notice that while CSU averaged around 10 yards per passing attempt, less than 30% of their passing plays actually resulted in gains of 10 or more yards.

CSU Passing vs. Cal
Turnovers	9%
Lost Yardage	14%
No Gain	20%
1+ Yards	57%
2+ Yards	57%
5+ Yards	51%
10+ Yards	29%

All Plays are not Created Equal

Of course, we’re still being rather simplistic in lumping all plays together into just two categories, either a run or a pass.  One could imagine (given enough data) coming up with charts like the ones above for each of the plays in a playbook.  For example, a deep pass play might result in some big gains, lots of incomplete passes, a couple interceptions and some sacks.  Conversely, a quick out to the sideline will result in far fewer sacks and interceptions (and probably incomplete passes), but most of the gains will be for much less.  Some plays, by their design, will have radically different result distributions than others.

Furthermore, I haven’t even touched on the subject of special situation play-calling, such as goal line rushing.  The same inside handoff that might gain an average of 4 yards in the middle of the field might only net 1 or 2 inside the 5 yard line, as virtually every defender is playing the run.  If we really want to get an accurate expectation of a particular play, we would have to separate out these special situations and consider them on their own.

Even if coaches don’t actually keep charts like the ones I’ve discussed for each of their plays, I’ll bet most of them have an innate sense regarding each play, analyzing its risk vs. return before calling it.  In fact, I’ll bet that’s how some playbooks are winnowed down, with the plays having poor risk/return ratios being dumped in favor of more promising schemes.

See here?  That play had a 72% chance of picking up the first down!  What happened?

The Intricacies of Play-Calling

What I’ve been discussing here is not a guide-book for play-calling.  It is merely another tool in an arsenal of which I’m only beginning to realize its complexity.  Besides the run/pass balance that HydroTech talked about yesterday, coaches will run counters to their previous plays, and even counters to their counters, as discussed here.  Coaches must consider down and distance, time left in the game, and opposing defensive tendencies, always trying to do what the defense is not prepared for.  Somehow, an offensive coordinator must reconcile all of these differing and often conflicting needs into a single play which gives the offense the best chance to succeed and, ultimately, score.  Then, once that play is over, he has to do it again.  And again.  It’s a fascinating dance, one that’s all the more intriguing the more you know about it.

In Summary

Colorado State should have passed more.  Not only were they the underdog, and so should have been more tolerant of risk, but our pass defense sucked that day.  Despite burning our secondary time and again, they still ran more than they passed, and it would have been more extreme if not for a ton of passing on their last two touchdown drives.  Given our defensive performance, Cal was actually rather lucky to escape with a win.

A few quick blurbs from ESPN regarding Lavelle Hawkins and Justin Forsett:

(Photo credits: mybearterritory.com)

• Bryant wasn’t the only North receiver to impress scouts Tuesday. California’s Lavelle "The Hawk" Hawkins continues to turn heads with his consistency. He runs smooth, crisp routes, knows how to separate from man coverage and does an excellent job of plucking the ball on the run. He shined during the one-on-one periods, beating defenders all three times he lined up. He used quick feet to beat the jam at the line and also displayed the top-end speed to beat Boston College CB DeJuan Tribble down the sideline for a deep reception. One of his more impressive plays came during the team period. After slipping out of his break, Hawkins was able to recover and do a nice job of going down low to make the reception on a curl route.

 

(Photo Credits: mybearterritory.com)

• Justin "Tex" Forsett (California) and Chauncey Washington (U$C) had the best showings of the North running backs. Forsett runs hard and has shown an extra gear when he breaks through the line of scrimmage. Washington did an excellent job of catching the ball out of the backfield during seven-on-seven and team sessions. He also showed a second gear when he broke into the open field. He has some durability issues and off-the-field baggage, but he still stands to gain from this experience if he builds on the momentum from Tuesday.

[[EDIT: [Note: At the urging of TwistNHook, this analysis post doesn’t have now has pictures.  Instead Furthermore, it talks about numbers, ratios, algebra, and equations.  Please give it a chance as I think it is well worth the time and thought.] ]]

Run?  Or Pass?  That is the question.

For a long time I’ve been saying that a team’s rush attempts should be fairly equal to a team’s passing attempts.  And, it makes sense.  By keeping a balanced run/pass ratio of 1:1, the other team’s defense has no idea what to expect on any given play.  Tedford has traditionally had about a 60:40 run pass ratio pre-Dunbar.  In the previous years, Tedford’s playcalling has been about 60:40 run:pass in 2005, 60:40 run:pass in 2004, 55:45 run:pass in 2003, and 48:52 run:pass in 2002.  As you can see, as Tedford’s tenure at Cal has gone on, he has moved towards a slightly run-first offense - the approximate 60:40 run:pass years (2003-2005).  The year 2002 was somewhat of an abberation.  Why?  Because that year JT was rolling the dice a lot.  The team wasn’t too talented, it was behind a lot, and had to pass a lot more.  Interestingly, when Dunbar arrived in 2006, the run/pass ratio was about 51:49.  This sort of makes sense too because Dunbar was a spread guy who passed a lot when he was the OC at Northwestern.  So bringing Dunbar into Tedford’s offense dropped the run/pass ratio from 60:40 down to about 50:50.  Did the equal run:pass ratio make the offense better?  Well, aside from the Tennessee game in 2006, I think most people would agree that the 2006 offense was pretty darn good. 

But let me pose a question to you that a friend and I discussed a while ago.  Which offense was better?  The 2004 Cal offense or the 2006 Cal offense?  Here are the 2004 Cal Football stats, and here are the 2006 Cal Football stats.

You can make the decision yourself, but I give you my opinion: I think the 2004 Cal offense was better than the 2006 Cal offense.  Case in point: greater yards per pass attempt, greater yards per rush attempt, greater yards per play, and more points per game.  

But notice, the 2004 Cal offense’s run:pass ratio was 60:40 and the 2006 Cal offense’s run:pass ratio was 51:49.  The comparison of these two years, the two best Cal offenses, goes contrary to my theory.  Remember, my theory is that a balanced 50:50 run:pass ratio is theoretically superior than a biased run:pass ratio.  What gives?

Well, I suppose my original theory of equal runs to passes was a bit of a naive statement.  Afterall, Texas Tech and Hawaii pass the ball a lot more than they rush the ball and yet they seem to do just fine on offense.  And teams like Air Force rush the ball a lot more than they pass the ball and they seem to do just fine on offense too.  What gives?

Let me illustrate an anecdote that illustrates where my thinking went wrong.  

But first I have to get something out of the way.  What’s the best way to determine a team’s rushing efficiency?  Yards per rush attempt (duh).  But what about the best way to determine a team’s passing efficiency?  Is it the QB rating?  Yards per completion?  Yards per attempt?  Completion percentage?  Obviously the question gets a little murkier when it comes to measuring a team’s passing ability.  But I think the correct answer that most football analysts and coaches agree on is yards per attempt.  Why?  Well, yards per attempt essentially incorporates completion percentage, and yards per completion.  Thus teams with a high completion percentage will have a higher yards per attempt, as well as teams who are better at passing (longer passing plays) will have a higher yards per attempt average too.  The QB rating system is flawed because it punishes the QB for drops and interceptions which aren’t the QB’s fault, it punishes the QB for thrown-away passes which shouldn’t count, and gives the QB bonuses for YAC (yards after catch) of which he isn’t entirely responsible.  But most of all it doesn’t measure how many yards are gained per pass attempt.  And we need both systems of measurement for rushing and passing to be in the same units (yards per attempt) so we can compare the two.  So yards per pass attempt is the best way to measure an offense’s passing efficiency. 

Now, back to that anecdote that proves my theory wrong (my theory of having equal rush attempts as pass attempts is superior to a biased offense).  Let’s just say there is a team with a perfect 50:50 run:pass ratio.  Let’s just say they average 12 yards per pass attempt and 3 yards per rush.  Does it make sense that the coach keeps his run:pass ratio at 50:50?  No.  It does not.  If the pass is working better than the run, then you obviously should pass more (in general and excluding special situations such as goalline, two-minute drill, and burning the clock).  This makes sense, doesn’t it?  Why keep rushing just as much as passing when you are getting 9 more yards per attempt on passes than rushes?  (Now, I know the argument is that an offense will get predictable if it deviates from a 50:50 run:pass ratio, but the counter argument to that is: to hell with predictability if the other team knows you’re going to pass (or run) and they can’t stop you!)

So when a team is extraordinarily better at either rushing or passing than the other, it makes sense for that team to do what they are better at even though their run:pass ratio will not be equal.  

It is situations like these where I realized that my notion of equal runs to passes was wrong.  In fact, while doing a little research, I did find that there is another school of thought that says exactly this.  The gist is this: how many times a team should run or pass should be determined by their yards per rush attempt versus yards per pass attempt.  The team should aim to have a slightly greater yards per pass attempt as yards per rush attempt.  Why a "slightly greater" yards per pass attempt than yards per rush attempt?  Because passing is inherently more dangerous due to sacks, fumbles, and interceptions.  Thus in terms of expected value, a team should incorporate the higher risk of loss from passing by having a higher passing yards per attempt than rushing yards per attempt.  How much more is debatable and indeterminate but we shall say probably around 1 to 2 yards more per pass attempt than per rush attempt.  So in algebra terms, a team would want somewhere around X yards per rush attempt and X+1 yards per pass attempt or X+2 yards per pass attempt.  For example: a team would want something like 5 yards per rush attempt and 6 to 7 yards per pass attempt.  A team which has a 5 yard per rush attempt and a 10 yards per pass attempt is holding themselves back by not passing more and rushing less.  Thus the team should pass more until the defense begins to compensate and the yards per pass attempt reduces to about a yard or so over the yards per rush attempt.  

Make sense?   

Another thing to remember is that by passing a lot, the rushing game opens up.  And by rushing a lot the passing game opens up.  So in the previous example where the team had a 12 yards per pass attempt average and a 3 yards per rush attempt average, if the team passed more and ran less, say around 30:70 run:pass, even though the team is rushing less, their rushing average should go up because the defense will compensate to defend against the more frequent passing (thus opening up the rushing game).  So essentially what we strive to obtain, or what is ideal, is a yards per pass attempt that is slightly more than a yards per rush attempt regardless of run:pass ratio because it’s the offense’s effectiveness at the run or pass which dictates defensive reaction moreso than the offense’s tendencies.  Let’s think this through.  For example, let’s just say a team runs the ball 90% of the time but only averages 1 yard per rush attempt and the other 10% of the time that the team passes and averages 25 yards per pass attempt.  What’s the defense going to do?  The traditional notion of defending against the tendency (meaning defending against the run) would seem illogical here because the offense’s running game is so bad that it can’t get a first down whereas its passing game is more deadly.  So the defense will defend the against the pass because the offense averages more yards per pass attempt than rush attempt even though the offense is more likely to run.  So as you can see, I do think it is the offense’s effectiveness at the running or passing game which truly dictates how the defense plays moreso than tendencies.

Reviewing the Playcalling of the Tedford Years 

Now, let’s look at some of the previous years for example in evaluating whether Cal should have ran or passed more.

In 2002, Cal had an abysmal 3.3 yards per rush attempt, and an okay 6.9 yards per pass attempt (stats available here).  While the team did have an unusual (for Tedford) 48:52 run:pass ratio -and it is unusual because Cal passed more than it ran- statistics say Cal should have passed even more than it ran.  Anybody remember Vinny Strang?  And Jesus-in-Cleats Kyle Boller?  Cal should have passed the rock more in ‘02, somewhere until the yards per pass attempt went down to about a yard more than the yards per rush.  My guesstimation would be that it probably would have been somewhere around 5.5 yards per pass and 4.5 yards per rush attempt.

In 2003, Cal had a 4.3 yards per rush average, and an 8.2 yards per pass attempt average (stats found here).  The team’s run:pass ratio was 55:45 run:pass.  So Cal should have passed a significantly greater amount of time than they rushed.  The greater passing would have taken advantage of the superior passing game and opened things up more for the rush.  My guestimation would be that Cal probably should have had a 45:55 run:pass ratio, thus probably bringing the averages for rushing up to around 5 to 5.5 yards per attempt, and the yards per pass attempt down to 6.5 to 7 yards per attempt. 

In 2004, Cal had an amazing 6.1 yards per rush average, and an 8.5 yards per pass attempt (stats found here).  Those averages are INCREDIBLE.  Both are great.  The playcalling of this year was 60:40 run:pass but statistically could have benefitted from a little more passing than rushing.  A run:pass ratio of 55:45 might have been slightly more efficient of the offense’s abilities. 

In 2005, Cal had a 5.8 yards per rush average, and a 7.2 yards per pass attempt average (stats found here).  The run:pass ratio of this year was 60:40 run:pass.  The amount of yards per pass attempt is 1.4 yards per attempt more than the yards per rushing attempt.  This is just about perfect.  And thus this year was probably the best proportion of run to pass that we’ve seen so far. 

In 2006, Cal had a 4.9 yards per rush attempt, and an 8.0 yards per pass attempt average (stats found here). The run:pass ratio for this year was 51:49.  Dunbar probably should have called more pass plays this year to bring the run:pass ratio to around 40:60.  Now this year is quite interesting.  Especially when compared to 2005.  Marshawn Lynch was Cal’s primary runningback both years.  Yet the averages for Cal’s rush attempts went down from 5.8 to 4.9.  What gives?  Well, obviously OL differences but primarily Marshawn Lynch and his Heisman campaign.  Money entered this year very highly touted as a runner.  Defenses concentrated very hard on stopping him and played the run more than the pass thus opening things up for the passing game.  This led to a lower yards per rush in 2006 compared to 2005, and a higher yards per pass attempt in 2006 compared to 2005.  Dunbar should have taken advantage of defenses keying in on Money and passed the rock more. 

Finally, in 2007 Cal had a 4.9 yards per rush average, and a 7.1 yards per pass attempt average (stats found here).  The run:pass ratio was almost precisely 50:50.  Despite this equality in running plays and passing plays, statistics say Tedford should have called a few more passing plays than rushing plays.  Not a lot though.  Bringing the run:pass ratio to around 45:55 probably would have made the most efficient use of the offense’s abilities. 

Run less with Marshawn?!  I must be crazy!!! 

Individual Games 

Now, I know I’ve been going over entire years to evaluate if Cal should have passed or ran more, but this same analysis can be applied to individual games.  In fact, coaches should be applying these principles to every game.  Afterall, every opponent and its defense is different.  Coaches definitely should be looking at the yards per rush and yards per pass attempts during halftime to see what’s working and what’s not, and making adjustments accordingly.  So let’s look at one game this past year (2007) to apply this theory. 

Well, let’s look at the bowl game.  The statistics show that in the 2007 Armed Forces Bowl Game against Air Force, Cal averaged 5.9 yards per rush attempt, and 11.3 yards per pass attempt (5.4 yard difference).  The run:pass ratio was approximately 56:44 run:pass.  So applying this theory of playcalling, Cal should have passed A LOT more in the bowl game to take advantage of the porous Air Force passing defense.  I’m just guestimating, but a run:pass ratio around 45:55 or maybe even 40:60 run to pass might have been even better.  Cal had 507 total offensive yards that day.  Imagine how many Cal might have had if the playcalling had been more efficient.  Maybe around 550 to 600 total offensive yards. 

Here are a few more quickies:

*In 2007 when Cal played Colorado State, Cal averaged 7.9 yards per rush attempt, and 5.0 yards per pass attempt.  Cal should have ran the ball more to take advantage of its superior rushing game and open things up for the pass on the subsequent fewer pass attempts.  Colorado State on the other hand averaged 3.7 yards per rush attempt and 10 yards per pass attempt (CSU should have passed more).

*In 2007 when Cal played Arizona, Arizona gained 1.1 yards per rush attempt, and 5.0 yards per pass attempt.  Arizona should have passed more (that game Arizona attempted 62 passes and 20 rushes). 

*In 2007 when Cal played UCLA, Cal gained 2.2 yards per rush attempt and 6.8 yards per pass attempt.  Cal should have passed more (that game Cal attempted 34 passes and 30 rushes). 

*In 2007 when Cal played USC, USC averaged 5.0 yards per rush attempt and 6.5 yards per pass attempt - a perfect mix of run to pass.  USC ran the ball 48 times and passed 20 times that game.   

*In the 2007 Big Game, Cal averaged 4.5 yards per rush attempt and 5.4 yards per pass attempt - practically a perfect ratio of run to pass attempts.  On the day, Cal attempted 47 passes and 24 rushes. 

 

For TwistNHook, there was a benefit for playing UCLA.   

Final Thoughts 

So what this theory of playcalling does is redefine "balance."  No longer does the word mean equal rush attempts as pass attempts.  But near equal yards per rush attempt as yards per pass attempt (with slightly greater yards per pass attempt than per rush attempt because passing is inherently more risky than rushing). 

So are coaches who still aim for equality in runs and passes despite glaring differences in the production of the two behind the times?  Or is this new theory of playcalling nothing but bat guano?  The following are a few anecdotes to help you decide.

*In 2007, LSU (12-2) averaged 4.9 yards per rush attempt, and 7.1 yards per pass attempt (2.2 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  LSU had 612 rush attempts and 442 pass attempts on the year. 

*In 2007, Georgia (11-2) averaged 4.5 yards per rush attempt, and 7.1 yards per pass attempt (2.6 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  UGA had 509 rush attempts and 365 pass attempts on the year.

*In 2007, USC (11-2) averaged 5.0 yards per rush attempt, and 6.7 yards per pass attempt (1.7 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).   USC had 517 rush attempts and 416 pass attempts on the year. 

*In 2007, West Virginia (11-2) averaged 6.2 yards per rush attempt, and 7.8 yards per pass attempt (1.6 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  WVU had 628 rush attempts and 265 pass attempts on the year. 

*In 2007, Air Force (9-4) averaged 5.4 yards per rush attempt, and 7.3 yards per pass attempt (1.9 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  AFA had 721 rush attempts and 214 pass attempts on the year.   

*In 2007, Hawaii (12-1) averaged 3.4 yards per rush attempt, and 8.6 yards per pass attempt (5.2 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  UH had 279 rush attempts and 669 pass attempts on the year.  

*In 2007, Texas Tech (9-4) averaged 3.4 yards per rush attempt, and 8.0 yards per pass attempt (4.6 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  Tech had 246 rush attempts and 763 pass attempts on the year.   

*In 2007, Stanfurd (4-8) averaged 3.0 yards per rush attempt, and 6.0 yards per pass attempt (3.0 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  Stanfurd had 446 rush attempts and 424 pass attempts on the year.

*In 2007, Army (3-9) averaged 2.6 yards per rush attempt, and 6.0 yards per pass attempt (3.4 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  Army had 400 rush attempts and 380 pass attempts on the year.   

*In 2007, Idaho (1-11) averaged 4.0 yards per rush attempt, and 5.9 yards per pass attempt (1.9 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt).  Idaho had 474 rush attempts and 392 pass attempts on the year.

Well, for top teams such as UGA, USC, WVU, and LSU, they averaged about 1.5 to 2.5 yards more per pass attempt than per rush attempt.  So maybe the amount that the pass attempt average should be greater than the rush attempt average is actually 1.5 to 2.5 yards (instead of 1 to 2 yards).  

For teams that run a lot, such as Air Force, their playcalling was pretty balanced actually despite the fact that they ran the ball 77% of the time.  So having a "balanced" run:pass ratio can be acheived even by rushing a lot more. 

And as for teams that pass a lot, such as Hawaii and Texas Tech, their playcalling needed more passes despite the fact that they already pass a lot (because there was a 4.6 and 5.2 yard per attempt difference between pass attempts and rush attempts).  So as good as both of these teams were, maybe they weren’t as good as they could have been since their playcalling was not as balanced as it should have been.  

Now for bad teams such as Stanfurd and Army, who both had fairly balanced run to pass ratios of roughly 50:50, they still sucked.  Why?  Well, they both averaged 3.0 & 3.4 yards more per pass attempt than rush attempt.  Maybe they should have passed more and would have picked up an extra W here and there.   

But even for teams who have a "balanced" offense and are a model of perfection, such as Idaho, you can still be really really bad and lose lots of games.  I think the difference in Idaho as opposed to the top teams such as USC and LSU, is that (1) those top teams have better defenses, and (2) those teams while also having balanced playcalling, just averaged more yards per attempt because of having better players. 

So is this theory of playcalling legit?  I think so.  It’s at least something to really consider.  Just ask yourself: do you really want to keep a balanced run:pass ratio when you get say… 7 more yards per pass attempt than rushing attempt? 

 

"I had a perfectly balanced offense in 2007.  How come we didn’t go undefeated?  Oh well.  We’re still the undisputed 2003 National Champions, and the undisputed 2006 Pac-10 Champions, just like OJ didn’t kill Nicole, and just like I didn’t know that Reggie was illegally taking benefits while at USC, and just like my fan base is full of nothing but humble and friendly fans."  

Can a player head to the NBA in mid-season?  I think we are about to find out.  Ryan Anderson is clearly a great talent.  He is nearly averaging a double double.  He leads the team in both points and boards.  He is currently in the Top 20 of the nation in points average and the Top 20 of the nation in rebounds average.  ESPN.com is having trouble with the 2005-2006 season stats, but if my math is accurate, Anderson is higher in the nation than Powe was that season for boards (although Powe averaged 10.0 boards a game to Anderson’s 9.9).   Regarding points, Anderson is again higher in the national rankings for points than Powe and is averaging .7 more points a game than Powe did.

Of course, it is stil pretty early in the season and things could change (like Anderson joining the Timberwolves).  Then again, the #1 thing that could change would be the season (which started with such hope) disappearing into the abyss.   We have an opportunity to have a solid to great season here.  We don’t have a player like Ubaka 05-06 to complement Anderson.  But Devon was supposed to be the guy.  Now, my understanding is that his game is in shambles and he disappears for key stretches.

Here is the Chron recap and here is the ESPN recap.   I, of course, failed to watch the game due to sheer idiocy.  I checked ESPN this morning to see the time.  Read 8:00 PM and, even though I wasn’t doing all that much at 5 PM, I didn’t realize the game was going.  Looking at the play by play, this seems to be a key stretch:

4:05		64-66	Ryan Anderson made Two Point Layup.
3:44	Chase Budinger missed Two Point Jumper.	64-66
3:44	Jordan Hill Offensive Rebound.	64-66
3:37	Jordan Hill missed Two Point Jumper.	64-66
3:37	Nic Wise Offensive Rebound.	64-66
3:28	Jordan Hill made Two Point Jumper.	66-66
3:08		66-66	Ryan Anderson missed Two Point Jumper.
3:08	Jawann McClellan Defensive Rebound.	66-66
2:50	Jordan Hill made Two Point Jumper.	68-66
2:26	California Full Timeout.
2:13	Jerryd Bayless missed Three Point Jumper.	68-66
2:13		68-66	Ryan Anderson Defensive Rebound.
1:51	Foul on Chase Budinger	68-66
1:51		68-66	Official TV Timeout.
1:51		68-67	Ryan Anderson made Free Throw.
1:51		68-68	Ryan Anderson made Free Throw.
1:31	Chase Budinger made Two Point Jumper.	70-68
1:16		70-68	Patrick Christopher missed Two Point Jumper.
1:16		70-68	Patrick Christopher Offensive Rebound.
1:10		70-68	Patrick Christopher missed Two Point Jumper.
1:10		70-68	Ryan Anderson Offensive Rebound.
1:07		70-70	Ryan Anderson made Two Point Tip Shot.
0:48		70-70	Foul on Eric Vierneisel
0:48	Chase Budinger made Free Throw.	71-70
0:48	Chase Budinger made Free Throw.	72-70
0:27		72-70	Foul on Ryan Anderson
0:27	Nic Wise made Free Throw.	73-70
0:27	Nic Wise made Free Throw.	74-70
0:22		74-70	Jerome Randle missed Two Point Jumper.
0:22		74-70	Eric Vierneisel Offensive Rebound.
0:17		74-70	Foul on Eric Vierneisel
0:17	Nic Wise made Free Throw.	75-70
0:17	Nic Wise missed Free Throw.	75-70
0:17		75-70	Ryan Anderson Defensive Rebound.

Keep in mind that by this point Cal had already pretty much blown a 7 point lead.  But from the 4:30 mark when Anderson scored a basket, they scored 4 more points until :17 second were left.  By then, it seemed to be too late to do anything.  And if you go back a little further, it looks bleaker:

7:07		55-62	DeVon Hardin made Two Point Dunk Shot.
6:51	Nic Wise made Three Point Jumper.	58-62
6:29	Nic Wise missed Three Point Jumper.	58-62
6:29		58-62	Jamal Boykin Defensive Rebound.
6:22		58-64	Jerome Randle made Two Point Layup.
6:14	Arizona Full Timeout.
5:55		58-64	Foul on Harper Kamp
5:41		58-64	Foul on Jerome Randle
5:41	Jordan Hill missed Free Throw.	58-64
5:41	Jordan Hill made Free Throw.	59-64
5:05		59-64	Foul on Jerome Randle
5:05	Jerryd Bayless made Free Throw.	60-64
5:05	Jerryd Bayless made Free Throw.	61-64
5:05	Jerryd Bayless made Free Throw.	62-64
4:59	California Full Timeout.
4:14	Nic Wise made Two Point Layup.	64-64

They basically scored 8 points in 7 minutes at the end there. This might really be a microcosm of Braun’s coaching term at Cal.  When they can play great defense, they can win.  In that 7 minute span (from 7:07-:17), Arizona went from 55-75.  Cal went from 62-70.  When Cal’s D suffers (and I didn’t see the game, so I’m not sure exactly how the D breakdowns transpired), they can’t create sufficient offense to keep up.  How many times have we seen Braun draw up a play and it is "AJ Diggs holds the ball for 95% of the shot clock and then bricks a NBA 3"? 

Sure, AJ Diggs is off assissting mall santas during the busy holiday season and killing men with his bare hands.   But we have a new undersized point guard to take his place.  Can we get Earl Boykins to play point? 

I feel like this team has a lot of talent on it, led by one of the most talented young players we’ve seen since Powe.  I feel like going forward this team is going to be a very talented team.  And I fear that this talent is not going to be used to its full potential by the admittedly very nice Braun.  As a man, I have nothing but nice things to say regarding Braun.  He used to come speak to the band in various settings and seemed extraordinarily nice.  But I don’t judge my b-ball coaches the same way I judge my presidential candidates.  It’s not about who can bomb Iran the quickest! 

It’s about winning games.  Sure, Braun seems able to recruit well (though after seeing him run, we should probably check Max Zhang for dangerous levels of lead).  But that’s not going to win games.  And I feel the talent level on this team should have at least won one of Oregon, ASU, Zona.  Upcoming, we have Stanford (who just knocked off ASU), Wazzu (who are one of the best teams in the country), and UDub (who have Lorenzo’s Oil!). 

Blech, it’s late.  Time for bed.  This basketball season seemed like it might offer a respite from the frustrating football season.  But it might prove equally if frustrating.  Ai!  GO BEARS!