Tedford’s Evolution of the Offense: Part I: The Tedford/Cortez Years
I’m bad at intros. I never know how to start things. I always try to think of some nice smooth way to start a post without it being awkward but I never am successful. So I’ll just jump right in and tell you what this post is about.
This is the first of four posts that will chronicle how Tedford’s offense has changed since he’s been here.
Many of you have probably been following Cal Football long before I. I came to Cal in 2002. Lucky me. I came in with Tedford. I’ll be honest. Back then I didn’t follow the Cal Football team to the extent that I do now. In 2002 I merely watched. In 2003 I watched with an deep interest. In 2004 I watched with a purpose. It was in 2004 that I really started to take note of the Cal offense. Maybe it was because I had watched Tedford’s offense for 3 years. Maybe it’s because that’s when I realized I wanted to document what one of the greatest offensive minds in college football was doing and how he was changing things from year to year. So from that point on I’ve been sort of following the Cal Football offense. I guess it’s my hobby. When I’m in class and the professor is blabbering about something called caveat emptor, I’m thinking about Tedford’s personnel and formational tendencies. Xs and Os run through my mind. I draw up how Cal’s run blocking might take on a 3-4 defense, or a 4-3 Under, or a 5-2. I ponder why Tedford doesn’t do a certain type of run from shotgun any more. Or why Tedford likes to run a strong-I now instead of a regular I-formation. My friends at school make fun of me. They can tell when I’m thinking about football. I stare into space looking at the walls the ceilings pondering things. My female friend will whisper to me, "HydroTech, are you footballing?" I won’t respond. Often my friends will have to snap their fingers in front of me to get my attention. "Uh yeah, I was footballing. Is it that obvious?" They’ll nod.
So I hope to show in this post and the following three how our offense has changed. I hope to show what additions I’ve seen to the offense over the years. Most of what I will show are just new formations which have popped up over the years but there will be a few new blocking schemes which I’ve noticed too. What I show certainly isn’t all-inclusive. Afterall, I am lacking a lot from the 2002 and 2003 seasons. But I’ve definitely noticed a lot of changes, as I’m sure many of you readers have too. Cal has been through quite an offensive evolution in the past few years. We went from the Tedford/Cortez years, to the Dunbar year, to the Tedford year, and now to the Cignetti year(s).
This first post is about the Tedford/Cortez years - that’s 2002-2005.
[EDIT: The following photos are from screen captures of TV broadcasts.]
So I guess the first thing I need to do in order to show how the offense has changed is to show how it started out. It started out with a very traditional pro style offense. Lots of the same stuff you’d see on TV when watching NFL games. Lots of 2 back formations, lots of 2 TE formations, lots of 2 back and 2 TE formations.
Below is an example of the Strong-I formation. This formation features 2 WRs, 1 RB, 1 FB and 1 TE. The FB lines up behind the guard on the side of the TE. This formation has been used a lot more frequently lately but I believe we did use it back in the Cortez days. This is a popular formation to run out of since it features strength on one side of the offense. The strength of the offense is formed by putting the TE and the FB to the same side. In the picture below the strength is to the offense’s right.
[photo redacted]
Below is a photo of an Ace formation. This formation uses 2 WRs, 2 TEs, and 1 RB. Tedford has always used personnel sets with 2 TEs in it. Sometimes the TEs will both be to the same side of the offense. Other times they won’t. Some times the TEs will both be on the line of scrimmage (LOS) and sometimes one won’t. In the picture below the second TE is off the LOS. This formation gives the offense balance when it places a TE on the LOS on both sides of the offensive line (OL). The offense can run in either direction. In the picture below, the second TE is off the LOS probably for motion or blocking purposes. Because the offense has traded a second TE for the fullback, the offense does not have a lead blocker on running plays (unless they pull a guard or something).
[photo redacted]
In the picture below, we again see the Ace formation. But this time both TEs are on the LOS. This brings about that balance I was talking about. The offense is equally distributed to both sides of center and are just as much of a threat to run right or left.
[photo redacted]
In the picture below, the offense is in a Weak-I formation. This formation is "weak" because it places the fullback behind the guard on the opposite side of the TE. In this case, the TE is to the QB’s left and the fullback is to the QB’s right behind the right guard. Additionally, the offense has put both WRs to one side as "twins." In this photo they are to the same side of the TE.
[photo redacted]
In the picture below, the offense is in a Strong-I formation but unlike the previous Strong-I photo (the first photo) this time the offense has twin WRs to the opposite side of the TE instead of 1 WR on each side of the offense. So the TE and fullback are to the QB’s right, and both WRs are to the QB’s left.
[photo redacted]
Below is a photo from this year’s spring game of a 3 WR set. The QB is in shotgun, which is something Tedford and Cortez rarely did pre-Dunbar. So just imagine the QB under center and the RB 7 yards behind the QB.
[photo redacted]
Here is an actual screen capture from 2003 of a 3 WR set from under center (shown below). Note there are two WRs to the QB’s right and 1 TE and 1 WR to the QB’s left. This is more or less just an Ace formation with the offense subbing that 2nd TE for a 3rd WR. The offense is probably hoping to get that slot WR (the one standing directly on the hash marks) to be covered by a slower safety or linebacker.
On occasion, Tedford and Cortez liked to move around the runningback in the backfield too. Below is a picture of a 3 WR set with the RB not directly behind the QB. In this picture, the RB is in a "strong" position because he’s to the side of the strength (the side with the TE).
And Tedford and Cortez even occasionally went with 4 WR sets from under center. Of course, the big threat here is that you have 4 really fast guys on the field all of whom are catch specialists. This is mostly a passing formation since you have so few blockers but Tedford and Cortez would get tricky and sometimes run out of this personnel set and formation. In the picture below, notice how there are 2 WRs on each side of the OL. I cannot remember, but it’s possible that Tedford and Cortez put 3 WRs to one side and only 1 WR to the other - that’s just another way to vary the formation but keeping the same personnel set.
Finally, Tedford and Cortez also used very strong running formations with 2 backs and 2 TEs. In the picture below, there are TEs on both sides of the OL along with 1 FB and 1 RB in the backfield. Obviously, this is a pretty threatening run formation with all those blockers instead of WRs.
Anyways, that’s how things started off under Tedford/Cortez - as a pro-style offense. All those TV color commentators always used the words "pro-style" when describing Tedford’s offense, and well, it’s a pretty honest description. There’s nothing too radical or "gimmicky" here (although, nothing in football is really "gimmicky." Often, the term "gimmick" is used to denigrate an unconventional offense that is very successful in its unconventional ways but as long as the offense is legal then ’sall good). The Tedford/Cortez offense had no shotgun zone reads, no Air Force-like triple options, no wishbone formations, no bunch or stack formations. I wouldn’t say the offense was vanilla since there was plenty of variety, but it certainly wasn’t Rocky Road.
But then in 2006 things really changed. That year Tedford brought in spread offense genius Mike Dunbar and the Cal offense definitively made a move from the pro-style to the spread end of the spectrum.
Part II to be continued in a few days…
yo Hydro… just love these types of posts… i actually learn something useful… keep it up man.
one request… can you identify the WRs and RBs in the first couple of pictures… this is the first time I’m seeing our new guys line up for real and I want to see how tall they are compared to the CBs and the QB…
I’m guessing the nearest WR in pict #1 is Calvin with those long locks…. who are those other guys? Which one is Nyan and which one is Ross?
Comment by danzig — April 16, 2008 @ 5:13 am
Interesting stuff. The comparison of Spring Ball with the 2003 offensive sets are nice, and I’m looking forward to seeing the comparison to 2006 and 2007 sets. Hopefully along with just comparing offensive sets you’ll be able to do a breakdown of efficiency, scoring, etc. That would really put some meat on these bones. I know, we Old Blues always demand more. Go Bears!
Comment by SoCal Oski — April 16, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Danzig, I’m glad you feel like you’re learning something. My original concern with this series of posts was that there would be a lot of show-and-tell and not enough actual explanation and analysis. I am currently trying to add some more “meat to the bones” as SoCal Oski suggests. As for naming the WRs and RBs… wow. I feel a little useless. Aside from picking out Calvin - due to his hair, I cannot identify the other players just based on these pictures (and since their numbers aren’t clearly visible). Ross is slightly thicker than Boateng, and a tad shorter, I believe, but that’s about all I can provide. Other than that, I’m sorry I can’t be more useful.
Comment by HydroTech — April 16, 2008 @ 9:39 am
SoCal Oski, I do want to add more meat to the bones, as you suggest, but I am hesitant to make any grand conclusive comparisons in offensive efficiency or scoring. There are many factors each year which can influence those stats (such as talent, the defenses, the offensive coordinator, etc.). Nevertheless, I think I will make some comparisons based upon the “yards per pass attempt” stat, and the “yards per rush attempt” stat. I believe those stats are the most accurate for measuring offensive efficiency rather than, for example, QB rating (which heavily rewards for TDs, and the amount of TDs thrown is overly dependent on how much the team throws. A better stat would be “TDs per pass attempt,” which would be very easy to calculate, and would average out success based on a “per attempt” basis such as “yards per pass attempt.”). While “yards per pass attempt” and “yards per rush attempt” are still very much subject to talent from year to year (e.i. Longshore’s bigger “yards per completion” in 2006 than 2007 due to defenses NOT double teaming Jackson as much, and Marshawn Lynch’s own talent causing himself to get game-planned week in and week out and thus probably hurting his production), I still think a comparison can be made and I will make one. I hope to meet the high demands of an Old Blue! Go Bears!
Comment by HydroTech — April 16, 2008 @ 9:58 am
I think I have an old post around with data from the 2002-2007 season in an Excel spreadsheet…might be worth digging up. I have no idea what I named it though.
Comment by yellow fever — April 16, 2008 @ 10:53 am
http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/10/04/crunching-the-numbers/
Frankly, I’m sad no one ever commented on that post.
Comment by yellow fever — April 16, 2008 @ 10:54 am
I like how that spreadsheet ends with the 07 Oregon game.
Let’s keep it that way.
Comment by TwistNHook — April 16, 2008 @ 11:11 am
Is the following a fair summary? The “Pro Style” offense consists of a very standard mix of formations, with 10 players lining up in essentially the same place every play. The variety comes in where the 11th player is placed: fullback (weak, strong, neutral “I”), second tight-end (weak or strong, LOS or set back), or a third wide receiver. The only exception to this pattern is the relatively rare 4-receiver set and/or shotgun QB.
I look forward to seeing how Dunbar’s “spread” mixed things up, especially if you could compare it other famous spread coaches (Urban Meyer, Rich Rodriguez, etc.)
Comment by California Pete — April 16, 2008 @ 11:29 am
California Pete, I think your summary of the “pro style” offense is a very fair and (very) complete description. I couldn’t have done it better myself.
Comment by HydroTech — April 16, 2008 @ 11:33 am
I swear I must have been sitting right next to you during the spring game.
Comment by DeKeith — April 16, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
What makes you say that, DeKeith?
Comment by HydroTech — April 16, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Because DeKeith was never able to get a moment of peace and quiet with me babbling endlessly?
Comment by TwistNHook — April 16, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
Nyan is the receiver with the yellow shirt visible below his jersey.
I have a question about the defense from those pictures, actually.
Do most 3-4 formations have this “pseudo 5-2″ look that’s in every picture, or were we keeping it simple? Against 3 receiver sets and the like, was one of those end linebackers dropping into coverage pre-snap? I know you give up size by brining in the extra linebacker, but with five people on the line like that, how much of a sacrifice is it to lose that size for running plays? I’m trying to learn the details of the formations and strategies, but I have a long way to go.
Thanks!
Comment by Berk18 — April 16, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Berk18, yes, the 3-4 often looks like the 5-2. But the difference is that with the 3-4 you have three down linemen, and with the 5-2 you have five down linemen. Often with the 3-4 defense, the D will blitz one (sometimes more) of the LBs (thereby rushing 4 or more men). The other LBs that don’t blitz will either drop into zones or play man. A 3-4 can still be effective against the run if it has the right personnel. I think the biggest need for the 3-4 are dominant DLmen (especially the nose tackle) who can play two gaps instead of just one.
Comment by HydroTech — April 16, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
I feel like I’m speaking broken Spanglish and you guys are reciting Shakespeare in Japanese. But I’m learning thanks to you, Hydro! These are my favorite type of posts. Preesh!
Comment by CalBandGreat — April 16, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Very educational post! Nice work. It really illustrates just how complex the game of football is and how mentally challenging it must be to be the field general.
A quick question about football rules regarding eligible receivers. I have often seen penalties called when there are not enough men on the line and seem to remember hearing announcers say that the receiver was not eligible to catch a pass “because he was covered up'’ i.e. there was a man on the line of scrimmage lined up to the outside of him in the formation.
In some of the Cal formations it appears that the WR is lined up on the line of scrimmage outside of the TE who is also on the line. In that case, would the TE be eligible to catch a pass?
Comment by Greg — April 16, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Greg,
This article from SMQ does a great job of explaining the rules regarding linemen and eligible receiver rules.
The quick and dirty upshot? Seven men on the line of scrimmage. No more, no less. The five interior men are ineligible to catch a pass, where as the ones on either end (TEs or WRs) are eligible receivers. So, in the scenario you pose, if a WR lines up on the LOS outside of a TE, he would “cover” (take away the eligibility of) that TE.
Comment by ragnarok — April 16, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Quick question: Why in the hell did Dunbar go to Minnesota? Especially after we creamed them last year…
Comment by RR — April 16, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
RR, I think Dunbar went to Minnesota because he was kindly asked to move on. When Tedford hired Dunbar, he admitted he knew nothing of Dunbar other than he was “the guy” when it came to implementing a spread offense. There was even a quote (which I am too lazy to spend an hour finding) where Tedford said he never even talked to Dunbar prior to hiring him. I think what happened is that Dunbar and Tedford’s ideologies on the *use of the spread* differed. Meaning, Tedford wanted a hybrid offense, like a 50/50 split between new spread formations/plays and traditional “pro-style” formations/plays. But I think Dunbar really wanted more spread plays/formations/elements - like 80% spread and 20% pro-style. I need to do more research and look at my notes, but I believe this theory is somewhat confirmed by the amount of spread used at the beginning of 2006 when compared to at the end of 2006. I’ll see if I can’t do the research and include that stuff in my latter posts.
Comment by HydroTech — April 16, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Thanks for the link Ragnorak, the rule is more clear now. I also never knew the history of the flying wedge, sounds like a particularly deadly tactic.
So my question for Hydro is: why would Cal intentionally line up in a formation where the tight end is ineligible?(Such as the weak I formation pictured above where the two wide receievers are on the tight end’s side.)
Unless it’s a trick play, or something designed to confuse the defense, doesn’t it limit the offensive options by removing the tight end as a possible passing target?
Comment by Greg — April 16, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Greg, if the TE is ineligible then he’s obviously blocking. The offense might do this to get the defense to come down into the box to play the run or to get the defense to shift over to the strong side (the side with the TE). For example, in the picture you reference, picture #4, the offense is in a weak-I with the twin WRs to the side of the TE making the TE ineligible. If you notice the defense, they are playing a 4-3 Under defense, which shifts the linebackers over towards the offense’s strong side and places the SLB over the TE (that’s not a full definition but it’s the basic premise). Doing this helps negate the strength of the offense’s formation. Essentially, the defense has recognized the extra blocker at the end of the LOS (the TE) and is accounting for his presence by responding with a formation change. This is the offense influencing the defense by their formation.
This of course opens up many options for the offense. They can run to the weak side (the side away from the TE). Notice all the green to the right of the offense and how there are fewer defenders on the offense’s right compared to the left. Or they can playaction run to the left (towards the strength) thus giving the illusion of a run behind the strength (the TE) but then send the QB on a naked rollout to the right with the fullback going out to the flat on the right who will catch the dump pass and run up the field towards the open green space.
Or the offense can shift the fullback over from the “weak” position to the “strong” position and thus be in a strong-I formation and run to the strong side. In the latter instance, if the defense hadn’t compensated for the added blocker on the LOS (the ineligible TE), then the defense might give up a bigger gain due to having fewer defenders at the point of attack than the offense. Additionally, the offense might have called a pass play in hopes that the defense comes down into the box to compensate for the ineligible TE and then have the WRs run deeper routes over the defense who was expecting run. I hope that all made sense - it’s sort of the end of a long day for me.
Comment by HydroTech — April 16, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Hydro, first time reader here, but I’m sure not the last time I’ll be impressed! (does that make sense?) Well, it’s a compliment! Very nice work. Perfectly breaks-down all the stuff I try to teach my wife in fits and starts and between beers…nother words, not very effectively. As a matter of fact, it’s done with such clarity I’m gonna refer her here to get the basics! Thanks man!
Comment by CalAlum97 — April 16, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
CalAlum97, I’m glad you liked the post. I hope your wife finds the post useful too. There’s nothing hotter than a woman who is not only a Cal Football fan but also has the willingness to learn and understand the intricacies of football.
Comment by HydroTech — April 17, 2008 @ 3:37 am
“There’s nothing hotter than a woman who is not only a Cal Football fan but also has the willingness to learn and understand the intricacies of football.”
I think we all know the real, unedited version of this quote:
“There’s nothing hotter than a woman who is not only a Cal Football fan but also has the willingness to learn and understand the intricacies of football…and who is Nate Longshore.”
Comment by CBKWit — April 17, 2008 @ 8:29 am
I feel smarter already!
Comment by BearBallCarrier — April 17, 2008 @ 4:12 pm