And it is not just Musgrave or Spav. Lots of coaches seem to overdo that.

Is it because they think the speed/athleticism matchups are bad so we need to exploit holes at the LOS (kind of like in basketball you jump into a tall/athletic defender so they can't leverage their arms) to bust one open (as opposed to going wide where the OC does not believe we have good matchups)? Setting up for that one throw over the top that they don't expect (which we never did)? Or the set up for that play action that we have in our back pocket (which we never did)? Can someone that knows Xs and Os please explain this tendency? I think they all know it is predictable and they all know there is a wall there. But I know Spav is not dumb. Why do we keep doing it?

Point shaving?

Spav knows the limitations of the Cal OLine. He is probably thinking the defense could be in a bad alignment scheme and the RB could get lucky. That's what happened with Ott playing AZ. AZ just called a bad defense and no body put a hand on him primarily from defensive spacing. Off has never done that since. We have the worst OLine with the exception of Stanford in the Pac-12

KoreAmBear said:

---

And it is not just Musgrave or Spav. Lots of coaches seem to overdo that.

Is it because they think the speed/athleticism matchups are bad so we need to exploit holes at the LOS (kind of like in basketball you jump into a tall/athletic defender so they can't leverage their arms) to bust one open (as opposed to going wide where the OC does not believe we have good matchups)? Setting up for that one throw over the top that they don't expect (which we never did)? Or the set up for that play action that we have in our back pocket (which we never did)? Can someone that knows Xs and Os please explain this tendency? I think they all know it is predictable and they all know there is a wall there. But I know Spav is not dumb. Why do we keep doing it?

---

I assume it's this:

A running back who takes a handoff in the backfield and then runs around end to the sideline has to have enough acceleration to beat defenders to the corner, in order to gain positive yardage. The defenders have less distance to travel to get to that spot, so the RB (or QB) has to be quite a bit faster than the defender. The only time the ball carrier doesn't have to be super-quick is if the defense is fooled by the run around the end and slow to respond (think of the Garbers run for the winning TD in the Big Game a few years ago).

A lot of fans don't like screen passes to a WR, but I assume the idea there is that you're throwing to a player who is already at the sideline, and the advantage over a run out of the backfield is that the pass will get there more quickly than any RB coming out of the backfield could get to the sideline.

KoreAmBear said:

---

And it is not just Musgrave or Spav. Lots of coaches seem to overdo that.

Is it because they think the speed/athleticism matchups are bad so we need to exploit holes at the LOS (kind of like in basketball you jump into a tall/athletic defender so they can't leverage their arms) to bust one open (as opposed to going wide where the OC does not believe we have good matchups)? Setting up for that one throw over the top that they don't expect (which we never did)? Or the set up for that play action that we have in our back pocket (which we never did)? Can someone that knows Xs and Os please explain this tendency? I think they all know it is predictable and they all know there is a wall there. But I know Spav is not dumb. Why do we keep doing it?

---

defense has to work hard to stop runs in the middle.

Through the game the defense should get tired faster (reaction vs initiative). That reduces their pass rush, their run defense, their ability to get outside, their ability to ignore the threat of play action, etc.

It's why Tedford teams would "run up the score" with huge runs up the middle late in the game, but would run into a wall at the start.

BTW, anyone notice Jott doesn't put in his mouth guard if he isn't going to get the ball? Really makes play action with him blocking seem useless.

LunchTime said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

And it is not just Musgrave or Spav. Lots of coaches seem to overdo that.

Is it because they think the speed/athleticism matchups are bad so we need to exploit holes at the LOS (kind of like in basketball you jump into a tall/athletic defender so they can't leverage their arms) to bust one open (as opposed to going wide where the OC does not believe we have good matchups)? Setting up for that one throw over the top that they don't expect (which we never did)? Or the set up for that play action that we have in our back pocket (which we never did)? Can someone that knows Xs and Os please explain this tendency? I think they all know it is predictable and they all know there is a wall there. But I know Spav is not dumb. Why do we keep doing it?

---

defense has to work hard to stop runs in the middle.

Through the game the defense should get tired faster (reaction vs initiative). That reduces their pass rush, their run defense, their ability to get outside, their ability to ignore the threat of play action, etc.

It's why Tedford teams would "run up the score" with huge runs up the middle late in the game, but would run into a wall at the start.

BTW, anyone notice Jott doesn't put in his mouth guard if he isn't going to get the ball? Really makes play action with him blocking seem useless.

---

Man we had better "jot" this down (that he is tipping the play) as well as note an edge blocker missing his assignment every FGA (as spotted by another poster). Someone put the list together and send it through a burner account email to Wilcox. Send him this week's lookalike thread as well.

In general there is nothing wrong with it.

4 yards and a cloud of dust will get you all the first downs you need and both Ott and Ifanse averaged just under 4 yards per carry although overall rushing it was just 2.8.

It also helps keep the defense fresher versus 3 incompletes in a row, minimizes risk of turnovers, and eats up game clock.

As was said above, running to the outside isn't a good idea against a fast defense. I would have liked to see Ott have more receptions. He was only targeted 3 times.

Overall, QB play was a bigger problem but to be fair Sam Jackson was not 100% and Wilcox said so before the game.

Good observation. Reminds me of the Cowboys Robert Newhouse who tipped opposing defenses by not using his mouthpiece on pass plays. Whole league knew it for a season and a half before the Cowboys found out.

KoreAmBear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

And it is not just Musgrave or Spav. Lots of coaches seem to overdo that.

Is it because they think the speed/athleticism matchups are bad so we need to exploit holes at the LOS (kind of like in basketball you jump into a tall/athletic defender so they can't leverage their arms) to bust one open (as opposed to going wide where the OC does not believe we have good matchups)? Setting up for that one throw over the top that they don't expect (which we never did)? Or the set up for that play action that we have in our back pocket (which we never did)? Can someone that knows Xs and Os please explain this tendency? I think they all know it is predictable and they all know there is a wall there. But I know Spav is not dumb. Why do we keep doing it?

---

defense has to work hard to stop runs in the middle.

Through the game the defense should get tired faster (reaction vs initiative). That reduces their pass rush, their run defense, their ability to get outside, their ability to ignore the threat of play action, etc.

It's why Tedford teams would "run up the score" with huge runs up the middle late in the game, but would run into a wall at the start.

BTW, anyone notice Jott doesn't put in his mouth guard if he isn't going to get the ball? Really makes play action with him blocking seem useless.

---

Man we had better "jot" this down (that he is tipping the play) as well as note an edge blocker missing his assignment every FGA (as spotted by another poster). Someone put the list together and send it through a burner account email to Wilcox. Send him this week's lookalike thread as well.

---

Sorry we aren't all as keen eyed as you. Sometimes tendencies are super obvious, like how every coach pounds the ball into the DLine even when iT iSnT wOrkInG!1!1!

It didnt take me more than a couple plays to see he wasn't running the ball or a route when he let that guard dangle from his facemask, and I was a good 70 or 80 yards away. I'm not sure how you missed it. The think is like a foot long.

LunchTime said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

And it is not just Musgrave or Spav. Lots of coaches seem to overdo that.

Is it because they think the speed/athleticism matchups are bad so we need to exploit holes at the LOS (kind of like in basketball you jump into a tall/athletic defender so they can't leverage their arms) to bust one open (as opposed to going wide where the OC does not believe we have good matchups)? Setting up for that one throw over the top that they don't expect (which we never did)? Or the set up for that play action that we have in our back pocket (which we never did)? Can someone that knows Xs and Os please explain this tendency? I think they all know it is predictable and they all know there is a wall there. But I know Spav is not dumb. Why do we keep doing it?

---

defense has to work hard to stop runs in the middle.

Through the game the defense should get tired faster (reaction vs initiative). That reduces their pass rush, their run defense, their ability to get outside, their ability to ignore the threat of play action, etc.

It's why Tedford teams would "run up the score" with huge runs up the middle late in the game, but would run into a wall at the start.

BTW, anyone notice Jott doesn't put in his mouth guard if he isn't going to get the ball? Really makes play action with him blocking seem useless.

---

Man we had better "jot" this down (that he is tipping the play) as well as note an edge blocker missing his assignment every FGA (as spotted by another poster). Someone put the list together and send it through a burner account email to Wilcox. Send him this week's lookalike thread as well.

---

Sorry we aren't all as keen eyed as you. Sometimes tendencies are super obvious, like how every coach pounds the ball into the DLine even when iT iSnT wOrkInG!1!1!

It didnt take me more than a couple plays to see he wasn't running the ball or a route when he let that guard dangle from his facemask, and I was a good 70 or 80 yards away. I'm not sure how you missed it. The think is like a foot long.

---

I'm actually semi-serious if our coaches are missing this. As for me there's so much to look at pre snap so it's easy to miss. But I was being facetious in that it will be taken as overzealous fans trying to act like they know more than them. I would like to also know if our edge blocker is in fact whiffing every time, and if so that may mitigate some of the blame that Luckhurst is getting as well.

Inside runs have their time and place specifically to me, I'd rather have the pass set up the run than the run set up the pass.

But that's a philosophy / lifestyle choice.

You want to hit inside runs on light boxes, or with dropping backers, and then use play action to throw over them when they fill run.

The problem is the lack of any creativity in the pass game.

killa22 said:

---

Inside runs have their time and place specifically to me, I'd rather have the pass set up the run than the run set up the pass.

But that's a philosophy / lifestyle choice.

You want to hit inside runs on light boxes, or with dropping backers, and then use play action to throw over them when they fill run.

The problem is the lack of any creativity in the pass game.

---

This is really a head scratcher after Spav called throws to all parts of the field v. NT.

KoreAmBear said:

---

killa22 said:

---

Inside runs have their time and place specifically to me, I'd rather have the pass set up the run than the run set up the pass.

But that's a philosophy / lifestyle choice.

You want to hit inside runs on light boxes, or with dropping backers, and then use play action to throw over them when they fill run.

The problem is the lack of any creativity in the pass game.

---

This is really a head scratcher after Spav called throws to all parts of the field v. NT.

---

Auburn's secondary is just a little better than NT's and their pass rush is maybe a bit better, too

killa22 said:

---

Inside runs have their time and place specifically to me, I'd rather have the pass set up the run than the run set up the pass.

But that's a philosophy / lifestyle choice.

You want to hit inside runs on light boxes, or with dropping backers, and then use play action to throw over them when they fill run.

The problem is the lack of any creativity in the pass game.

---

They loaded the box to stop the run and blitz the QB, which is what I would do against us and should have been predictable. Running Ott into that was pure Musgrave/Idiocy.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

My thought is fake to what they are looking for (the handoff or pitch to Ott) with play action and then throw to spots vacated by the linebackers and safeties (hit WRs on slants) or TEs behind the defense over the middle.

What would be a typical Air Raid way to exploit a loaded box?

dimitrig said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

killa22 said:

---

Inside runs have their time and place specifically to me, I'd rather have the pass set up the run than the run set up the pass.

But that's a philosophy / lifestyle choice.

You want to hit inside runs on light boxes, or with dropping backers, and then use play action to throw over them when they fill run.

The problem is the lack of any creativity in the pass game.

---

This is really a head scratcher after Spav called throws to all parts of the field v. NT.

---

Auburn's secondary is just a little better than NT's and their pass rush is maybe a bit better, too

---

Our OL opened up huge holes against North Texas and when they didn't Ott and Ifanse shed tackles. It was wishful thinking that we could do the same against Auburn, but after averaging 1.6 yards per play in the 1st quarter only an insane person would continue believing that.

Quote:

---

They loaded the box to stop the run and blitz the QB, which is what I would do against us and should have been predictable.

---

So this year will be a repeat of last year, cuz we essentially have the same oline. <1 year with a new oline coach and OC can only do so much.

dimitrig said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

killa22 said:

---

Inside runs have their time and place specifically to me, I'd rather have the pass set up the run than the run set up the pass.

But that's a philosophy / lifestyle choice.

You want to hit inside runs on light boxes, or with dropping backers, and then use play action to throw over them when they fill run.

The problem is the lack of any creativity in the pass game.

---

This is really a head scratcher after Spav called throws to all parts of the field v. NT.

---

Auburn's secondary is just a little better than NT's and their pass rush is maybe a bit better, too

---

Doesn't mean you go one-dimensional.

calumnus said:

---

killa22 said:

---

Inside runs have their time and place specifically to me, I'd rather have the pass set up the run than the run set up the pass.

But that's a philosophy / lifestyle choice.

You want to hit inside runs on light boxes, or with dropping backers, and then use play action to throw over them when they fill run.

The problem is the lack of any creativity in the pass game.

---

They loaded the box to stop the run and blitz the QB, which is what I would do against us and should have been predictable. Running Ott into that was pure Musgrave/Idiocy.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

My thought is fake to what they are looking for (the handoff or pitch to Ott) with play action and then throw to spots vacated by the linebackers and safeties (hit WRs on slants) or TEs behind the defense over the middle.

What would be a typical Air Raid way to exploit a loaded box?

---

We were getting a little too cute with trying to play smart football on a presnap basis.

Auburn for much of the night played two high safeties, and we're still able to shut down the run.

I would've gone more 3x1, wide ass splits, see if I could get the hole defender to vacate the box. You give me a 4-2 look? Fine, I'll quick game and spacing throw you. Or I'll key screen you and hit leverage.

You play me cover down? 5 man box? I'm gonna power, gt, and trap the hell out of you with single back runs. Since I have an athlete QB, I'll go QB power / Gt and then RPO that, mainly your single side, I'll RPO your will over hang, and just go iso to Hunter all day long.

You start doubling that up? Im gonna go 4 strong to the field with quick game or stretch you horizontally with Ott on swing screens, or stick / flat stretch throws.

I only need quick game protection for that, but QBs gotta process (at least a little).

The issue is, the playbook is extremely vanilla, and we haven't show anything in terms of complexity with downfield throws.

Spav back in 2016 was running his "Storm" deep choice stuff which was cutting edge.

I think they just played risk averse, and wanted to try to play complimentary football. Nah, he's gotta go balls out and go freaky on dudes with emptying it out and just letting it rip.

Scared money don't make money take a note from Davis Webb on that.

Wasted opportunity.

calumnus said:

---

killa22 said:

---

Inside runs have their time and place specifically to me, I'd rather have the pass set up the run than the run set up the pass.

But that's a philosophy / lifestyle choice.

You want to hit inside runs on light boxes, or with dropping backers, and then use play action to throw over them when they fill run.

The problem is the lack of any creativity in the pass game.

---

They loaded the box to stop the run and blitz the QB, which is what I would do against us and should have been predictable. Running Ott into that was pure Musgrave/Idiocy.

I'm interested in your thoughts.

My thought is fake to what they are looking for (the handoff or pitch to Ott) with play action and then throw to spots vacated by the linebackers and safeties (hit WRs on slants) or TEs behind the defense over the middle.

What would be a typical Air Raid way to exploit a loaded box?

---

They didn't load the box. They mostly had two high safeties.

dimitrig said:

---

In general there is nothing wrong with it.

4 yards and a cloud of dust will get you all the first downs you need and both Ott and Ifanse averaged just under 4 yards per carry although overall rushing it was just 2.8.

It also helps keep the defense fresher versus 3 incompletes in a row, minimizes risk of turnovers, and eats up game clock.

As was said above, running to the outside isn't a good idea against a fast defense. I would have liked to see Ott have more receptions. He was only targeted 3 times.

Overall, QB play was a bigger problem but to be fair Sam Jackson was not 100% and Wilcox said so before the game.

---

4 yards and a cloud of dust will bring us a 1st down after 3 down. The problem is we had a number of runs that resulted in 2 yards and a cloud of dust.

Hmmm, Musgrave and now Spav. Old OL coach and now new OL coach. Same results. What is the constant? Hmmm. Head scratcher.

Even after watching football for almost 60 years I am the first to admit that I don't know the minor details of the game.

But it appeared to me on Saturday that OC just didn't think that Cal had the ability to run outside against the Auburn defense, because they concluded that Auburn had excellent lateral speed. But even if you believe this, within the plays of the game you still have to try running outside the tackles enough to keep the defense honest even if you think your odds of success isn't as good. I may be wrong but the ratio of inside runs to outside runs was just too high in this game regardless of the circumstances.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Even after watching football for almost 60 years I am the first to admit that I don't know the minor details of the game.

But it appeared to me on Saturday that OC just didn't think that Cal had the ability to run outside against the Auburn defense, because they concluded that Auburn had excellent lateral speed. But even if you believe this, within the plays of the game you still have to try running outside the tackles enough to keep the defense honest even if you think your odds of success isn't as good. I may be wrong but the ratio of inside runs to outside runs was just too high in this game regardless of the circumstances.

---

The only two true runs outside the tackles were the worst runs of the night. One was a (questionable) fumble and the other resulted in our star RB being knocked out of the game.

oski003 said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Even after watching football for almost 60 years I am the first to admit that I don't know the minor details of the game.

But it appeared to me on Saturday that OC just didn't think that Cal had the ability to run outside against the Auburn defense, because they concluded that Auburn had excellent lateral speed. But even if you believe this, within the plays of the game you still have to try running outside the tackles enough to keep the defense honest even if you think your odds of success isn't as good. I may be wrong but the ratio of inside runs to outside runs was just too high in this game regardless of the circumstances.

---

The only two true runs outside the tackles were the worst runs of the night. One was a (questionable) fumble and the other resulted in our star RB being knocked out of the game.

---

To your point, the fact that there was only two attempts is my point, regardless of the results. Also let's be honest, no disrespect to J. Ott but the reason he was knocked out of the game is not due to the fact he was running outside, it was because what he tried to do is just foolish, not worth the risk. Jahvid tried the same thing years back and to this day I feel it kept him from being a superstar in the NFL.

killa22 said:

---

The issue is, the playbook is extremely vanilla, and we haven't show anything in terms of complexity with downfield throws.

Spav back in 2016 was running his "Storm" deep choice stuff which was cutting edge.

I think they just played risk averse, and wanted to try to play complimentary football. Nah, he's gotta go balls out and go freaky on dudes with emptying it out and just letting it rip.

Scared money don't make money take a note from Davis Webb on that.

Wasted opportunity.

---

Thank You Sir.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

oski003 said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Even after watching football for almost 60 years I am the first to admit that I don't know the minor details of the game.

But it appeared to me on Saturday that OC just didn't think that Cal had the ability to run outside against the Auburn defense, because they concluded that Auburn had excellent lateral speed. But even if you believe this, within the plays of the game you still have to try running outside the tackles enough to keep the defense honest even if you think your odds of success isn't as good. I may be wrong but the ratio of inside runs to outside runs was just too high in this game regardless of the circumstances.

---

The only two true runs outside the tackles were the worst runs of the night. One was a (questionable) fumble and the other resulted in our star RB being knocked out of the game.

---

To your point, the fact that there was only two attempts is my point, regardless of the results. Also let's be honest, no disrespect to J. Ott but the reason he was knocked out of the game is not due to the fact he was running outside, it was because what he tried to do is just foolish, not worth the risk. Jahvid tried the same thing years back and to this day I feel it kept him from being a superstar in the NFL.

---

You don't do it just because you feel like you have to. As stated earlier, we were using quick pass dumps to act as outside runs. Those were far more successful than the outside runs, which resulted in catastrophic failures. The main problems were our general inability to completes passes and being too conservative to do anything more than safe passes. We were so afraid to turn the ball over we rarely tried to pass near or over the linebackers. This meant their athletic linebackers really only needed to watch the running back and QB and not much else. We almost connected on a couple throws to Hightower down the sideline with one-on-one coverage but Hightower couldn't beat the corner. We absolutely would have won if the refs were not so one-sided in the SEC's favor. That was very unfortunate, as well as playing without our two most important offensive players for a half and missing our third most important offensive player the entire game (and now season).

@killa

I rewatched a lot of the plays and it looks like there were a bunch of whiffed blocking assignments from the WRs/RBs on screen and swing passes. If those are cleaned up we convert and probably win this game, no?

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

@killa

I rewatched a lot of the plays and it looks like there were a bunch of whiffed blocking assignments from the WRs/RBs on screen and swing passes. If those are cleaned up we convert and probably win this game, no?

---

Those whiffed blocks on WR screens have been an absolute hallmark of Cal football for the last decade.

Too much speed and athleticism on that Auburn D. Weakest spot was the middle and the gameplan would have worked without a crazy amount of bad breaks. I dont thing we can make a proclamation about this offense yet as we wont play a D like Auburns the rest of the season. We will see when we play the Pac

caltripper said:

---

Too much speed and athleticism on that Auburn D. Weakest spot was the middle and the gameplan would have worked without a crazy amount of bad breaks. I dont thing we can make a proclamation about this offense yet as we wont play a D like Auburns the rest of the season. We will see when we play the Pac

---

I don't know about breaks causing our up the middle game to fail. TV replayed one up the middle 'stuffing'. I commented on this on the game thread. The C and G double teamed the DT in the gap. They moved him a bit then the C released to block the LB. The G was still on the outside shoulder of the DT who walked right in and tackled our back for no gain. I don't know who is to blame but that play had no chance.

KoreAmBear said:

---

And it is not just Musgrave or Spav. Lots of coaches seem to overdo that.

Is it because they think the speed/athleticism matchups are bad so we need to exploit holes at the LOS (kind of like in basketball you jump into a tall/athletic defender so they can't leverage their arms) to bust one open (as opposed to going wide where the OC does not believe we have good matchups)? Setting up for that one throw over the top that they don't expect (which we never did)? Or the set up for that play action that we have in our back pocket (which we never did)? Can someone that knows Xs and Os please explain this tendency? I think they all know it is predictable and they all know there is a wall there. But I know Spav is not dumb. Why do we keep doing it?

---

And running screens that never work.

So, people are saying that our Oline isn't very good, and there is little "athleticism" on the outside. I see. Very insightful.

That's … a pretty obvious tell. I was watching the game and noticed he wasn't really putting it in and meant to try and make that connection but it slipped my mind.

I will TRULY despair if that tell is there and no one on staff has picked it up after a year and two games.

You don't need to have great lateral speed on the outside if you can outnumber the outside with blockers. We actually did this one time I remember where we pulled Vakatani out into the perimeter on the right side and ran a toss for some decent yardage. That's about timing and pressing the outside just as the pulling guard is engaging.