Chat Room
Go Back   The Bear Insider - Covering Cal Sports 24 x 7 > The Public Place where "CyberBears" Growl > Football
Reload this Page Offensive Play Calling
Notices
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#1) Old
efa911 efa911 is offline
Active Bear
 
Posts: 127
Join Date: Jul 2008
Offensive Play Calling - 09-03-2011, 05:30 PM

Much improved....moving the QB around. Spread option looks good. Much more dynamic than before. Offensive scheme matches team skill sets.

Execution: O-Line play needs to get better.

Maynard needs to tighten up his reads, throws, and slow down a little, but seems to be settling in. Starting to not stare down receivers so much.
Reply With Quote
  (#2) Old
pappysghost pappysghost is offline
Golden Bear
 
Posts: 6,533
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 06:50 PM

I totally agree. We've implemented a lot of positive changes.

We actually looked more like a spread team today than the old I formation. Zach is a weapon on that read option play.

I was happy to see us integrate some of the Oklahoma ideas where you line up and get a look at the defense and then look to the sideline for the call. I think that makes a lot of sense.

I thought Sofele did pretty well, but I'm suprised we don't have someone better. He can't run through tall grass.

It's hard to say until we start playing Pac 12 opponents, but I think we got a lot more offense than last year and the defense looks like it could be a little better too. I think we could go bowling again. I see a showdown with BYU in the Vegas bowl. I'd take that right now.
Reply With Quote
  (#3) Old
CalBearsRoll CalBearsRoll is offline
Real Bear
 
CalBearsRoll's Avatar
 
Posts: 684
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappysghost View Post

I was happy to see us integrate some of the Oklahoma ideas where you line up and get a look at the defense and then look to the sideline for the call. I think that makes a lot of sense.
I thought this was Oregon-esque. The quacks get penalties regularly for their gimmicks/ miss-comms and this must have been one of the most penalized games in recent memory for us. If its gonna cost us 50 yards per game, we need to cut that shet out. Do it right or not at all.
Reply With Quote
  (#4) Old
Tree Cutter Tree Cutter is offline
Real Bear
 
Tree Cutter's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,521
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Francisco
09-03-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by pappysghost View Post

I thought Sofele did pretty well, but I'm suprised we don't have someone better. He can't run through tall grass.

I was disappointed that a better RB rotation wasn't implemented, I know its the first game of the season, however, I would've liked to have seen more Anderson and CDJ. CDJ had the one play where he was wide open and couldn't quite catch-up to Maynard's pass; before the next play he gets pulled.
Reply With Quote
  (#5) Old
pappysghost pappysghost is offline
Golden Bear
 
Posts: 6,533
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBearsRoll View Post
I thought this was Oregon-esque. The quacks get penalties regularly for their gimmicks/ miss-comms and this must have been one of the most penalized games in recent memory for us. If its gonna cost us 50 yards per game, we need to cut that shet out. Do it right or not at all.
It was definitely Oregon-esque, and since they've had the best offense in the Pac 10 for like forever I think that's a good thing. A QB that can run the read option play and throw some is the way to go. We got NFL quality wide outs and a decent defense. We gotta clean up those penalties no doubt, but at least there is hope this year.
Reply With Quote
  (#6) Old
pappysghost pappysghost is offline
Golden Bear
 
Posts: 6,533
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 07:22 PM

I second that.
Reply With Quote
  (#7) Old
davetdds davetdds is offline
Loyal Bear
 
davetdds's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,727
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Alameda, CA
09-03-2011, 07:25 PM

It wasd a great game isi was great. Maynard looked good out there. I f you were there it was like we were toying woth them
Reply With Quote
  (#8) Old
OdontoBear66 OdontoBear66 is offline
Loyal Bear
 
Posts: 4,988
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalBearsRoll View Post
I thought this was Oregon-esque. The quacks get penalties regularly for their gimmicks/ miss-comms and this must have been one of the most penalized games in recent memory for us. If its gonna cost us 50 yards per game, we need to cut that shet out. Do it right or not at all.
Oregon-esque is not looking quite as good tonight. Maybe Cal-esque will be the flavor of the year. Go Bears
Reply With Quote
  (#9) Old
CalBearsRoll CalBearsRoll is offline
Real Bear
 
CalBearsRoll's Avatar
 
Posts: 684
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 07:26 PM

I like that we have those options designed to our QB's strength. Not sure how varied our offense will look without those options and once we plug in Bridg or another pocket passer. But thats neither here nor there. In the time being, we cant kill our own drives in an attempt to "mimmic a gimmick" just for the trendiness of it.
Reply With Quote
  (#10) Old
jesterno2 jesterno2 is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 1,047
Join Date: Dec 2010
09-03-2011, 07:31 PM

I didnt see the Wazzu game in which they crushed Idaho St., or the ASU game against Davis, but I gotta say that besides Stanfurd we were the most impressive PAC12 team this first week, despite all the mistakes.

I'll give Oregon some leeway since they are playing a top 5 team in the country, but they didn't look good and who knows what other off the field issues are going to plague them this year.
UCLA looked sloppy in their loss to Houston.
nothing needs be said about the OSU game.
USC barely pulled that win off against MN, although the Barkley-Woods combo looks really impressive.
Utah didn't blow out Montana St.
AZ (at halftime) is not blowing out N. AZ.

i thought our win was very satisfying against a traditionally strong team, and with maynard showing a lot of potential, our WR corps looking loaded, and our defense looking just as nasty as last year, i like our chances going into conference play this year based on how everyone has looked so far.
Reply With Quote
  (#11) Old
Calcoholic Calcoholic is offline
Loyal Bear
 
Calcoholic's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,977
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 07:32 PM

My only problem with the play calling was sticking with the inside run game when it was going nowhere all day.
Reply With Quote
  (#12) Old
calumnus calumnus is offline
True Blue Golden Bear
 
Posts: 12,113
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcoholic View Post
My only problem with the play calling was sticking with the inside run game when it was going nowhere all day.
EXACTLY. Look at our first down plays--we continually ran up the middle for nothing. Fortunately Maynard is a guy who can make plays--but if we mix up the plays better, we will do better.
Reply With Quote
  (#13) Old
clipman clipman is offline
Active Bear
 
Posts: 157
Join Date: Nov 2008
09-03-2011, 09:00 PM

Agree, other than the running up the middle with Isi, I thought the playcalling was good. I would have liked to see some more running back rotation as I'm not sold on Isi - a couple of nice runs, but little else and I think he had a couple fumbles. CJA had one nice run if I recall.
Reply With Quote
  (#14) Old
JSC 76 JSC 76 is offline
Loyal Bear
 
JSC 76's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,489
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-03-2011, 09:26 PM

I noticed that a couple of pages have been ripped out of the playbook: no WildBears, and no end-arounds to WR's. Nobody carried the ball except running backs (and Maynard).

And we better get used to the phrase "Sofele dropped in the backfield".
Reply With Quote
  (#15) Old
CubanPete CubanPete is offline
no bear
 
Posts: 481
Join Date: Aug 2011
09-03-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by efa911 View Post
Much improved....moving the QB around. Spread option looks good. Much more dynamic than before. Offensive scheme matches team skill sets.

Execution: O-Line play needs to get better.

Maynard needs to tighten up his reads, throws, and slow down a little, but seems to be settling in. Starting to not stare down receivers so much.
Agree with all of this. Unfortunately on the Maynard part, it takes a long time for QB's to stop staring receivers down at the college level, if they ever do.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Ad Management by RedTyger