Cal is currently second in the nation in turnover ration at 10 to 2. Historically, this stat is unreliable and highly susceptible to variability. Does Cal's luck end, or does preparation, scheme and opponent create luck?

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

DWM81 said:

---

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

---

It is.

UC Davis: 3-1 Cal favor
Auburn: 5-0 Cal favor
San Diego State: 2-1 Cal Favor

Overall that's 10-2.

Its worth noting that those 2 turnovers include a scoop and score and a pic6 that was called back on a block in the back. On the flip side, Cal's defense has not scored yet.

MrGPAC said:

---

UC Davis: 3-1 Cal favor
Auburn: 5-0 Cal favor
San Diego State: 2-1 Cal Favor

Overall that's 10-2.

Its worth noting that those 2 turnovers include a scoop and score and a pic6 that was called back on a block in the back. On the flip side, Cal's defense has not scored yet.

---

You are right, I was looking at the interception numbers by accident.

https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/29

ducktilldeath said:

---

DWM81 said:

---

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

---

It is.

---

Last year and this year it is 100%

Opponent TOs (Cal/Opp) W/L

North Texas 2-3 Win
Auburn 3-2 Loss
Idaho 0-3 Win
UW 3-1 Loss
ASU 0-2 Win
OSU 2-1 Loss
Utah 2-0 Loss
USC 4-1 Loss
Oregon 3-2 Loss
WSU 2-4 Win
Furd 1-1 Win
UCLA 2-4 Win
Texas Tech 4-2 Loss

So it is 100% predictive for the last 16 games.

We had 28 turnovers last year in 13 games.

That is what fans often don't understand. A QB that looks good and throws pretty passes but turns the ball over 2 or 3 times a game is not a better QB than one that moves the chains and leads TD drives without turning the ball over, even if they don't look like a QB out of central casting.

The huge difference this year over last year is Mendoza's ball security was bad last year and has been great (perfect) this year. That, and our LBs are getting to the QB forcing bad throws and our DBs are ball hawks. With some guys coming back this week if we keep this up we will be one of the best teams in the ACC, maybe getting to the CCG, with the next two games being the biggest test.

I agree that on balance that Mendoza has been minimizing those moments, but remember that the outcome of the plays don't tell the whole story as there have definitely been some dropped picks (potentially pick 6s) that don't appear on the normal box score. I'm happy with the improvement, but there's room to continue getting better.

Also he can't be perfect because he literally threw a pick in the last game.

I don't fault Mendoza for the pick since the ball bounced off the receiver's hands.

DWM81 said:

---

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

---

I'd say the relative scores of the two teams would be the most important variable.

calumnus said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

DWM81 said:

---

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

---

It is.

---

Last year and this year it is 100%

Opponent TOs (Cal/Opp) W/L

North Texas 2-3 Win
Auburn 3-2 Loss
Idaho 0-3 Win
UW 3-1 Loss
ASU 0-2 Win
OSU 2-1 Loss
Utah 2-0 Loss
USC 4-1 Loss
Oregon 3-2 Loss
WSU 2-4 Win
Furd 1-1 Win
UCLA 2-4 Win
Texas Tech 4-2 Loss

So it is 100% predictive for the last 16 games.

We had 28 turnovers last year in 13 games.

That is what fans often don't understand. A QB that looks good and throws pretty passes but turns the ball over 2 or 3 times a game is not a better QB than one that moves the chains and leads TD drives without turning the ball over, even if they don't look like a QB out of central casting.

The huge difference this year over last year is Mendoza's ball security was bad last year and has been great (perfect) this year. That, and our LBs are getting to the QB forcing bad throws and our DBs are ball hawks. With some guys coming back this week if we keep this up we will be one of the best teams in the ACC, maybe getting to the CCG, with the next two games being the biggest test.

---

I like Nando's ability to improvise. That unexpected little dump off he made to the running back when the pocket collapsed around him last game and he was about to get sacked was a little off target. But that he had the presence of mind to try to get it to his RB and also put it where only his receiver could get it was smart. It kept Cal from losing yardage due to a sack and also gave Cal a chance to make a play.

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

DWM81 said:

---

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

---

It is.

---

Last year and this year it is 100%

Opponent TOs (Cal/Opp) W/L

North Texas 2-3 Win
Auburn 3-2 Loss
Idaho 0-3 Win
UW 3-1 Loss
ASU 0-2 Win
OSU 2-1 Loss
Utah 2-0 Loss
USC 4-1 Loss
Oregon 3-2 Loss
WSU 2-4 Win
Furd 1-1 Win
UCLA 2-4 Win
Texas Tech 4-2 Loss

So it is 100% predictive for the last 16 games.

We had 28 turnovers last year in 13 games.

That is what fans often don't understand. A QB that looks good and throws pretty passes but turns the ball over 2 or 3 times a game is not a better QB than one that moves the chains and leads TD drives without turning the ball over, even if they don't look like a QB out of central casting.

The huge difference this year over last year is Mendoza's ball security was bad last year and has been great (perfect) this year. That, and our LBs are getting to the QB forcing bad throws and our DBs are ball hawks. With some guys coming back this week if we keep this up we will be one of the best teams in the ACC, maybe getting to the CCG, with the next two games being the biggest test.

---

I like Nando's ability to improvise. That unexpected little dump off he made to the running back when the pocket collapsed around him last game and he was about to get sacked was a little off target. But that he had the presence of mind to try to get it to his RB and also put it where only his receiver could get it was smart. It kept Cal from losing yardage due to a sack and also gave Cal a chance to make a play.

---

It is much improved, but short passes, screens and swing passes is still the weakest part of his game IMO. He is tall, a little gangly and throws over the top, so he throws a beautiful 20 to 30 yard pass with zip upfield. It is the short stuff where he throws too hard, is inaccurate and stares down receivers (getting them blown up). The exception was in Auburn where he was money rolling right (and changed his motion by necessity). Many great, hard throwing QBs (Elway, Rodgers) had to learn to change their throwing motion for short passes. It was something Goff did coming in and was his major advantage over Kline who didn't. And every QB needs to learn to look off receivers, especially on screens.

As I said above, the MOST important thing is he has dramatically improved his ball security as turnover margin has determined the winner of 16 of our last 16 games. As Nando develops I think it is incumbent on Bloesch to recognize what his players do well and don't do well and put them in a position to succeed. So rather than screens, we need to run more outside pitches. Jet sweeps and reverses. More wheel routes and shuttle passes (underarm throw). Lots and lots of play action throws upfield to the TEs (I am liking the two TE sets, the empty backfield on 4th and short with a generally non-running QB was idiocy).

golden sloth said:

---

Cal is currently second in the nation in turnover ration at 10 to 2. Historically, this stat is unreliable and highly susceptible to variability. Does Cal's luck end, or does preparation, scheme and opponent create luck?

---

Slight correction : Fumbles (and more specifically recoveries of fumbles) is "unreliable and highly susceptible to variability". Interceptions & interceptions thrown much less so.

Noteworthy that, since the scoop and score early against Davis, no fumbles.

And the one INT went through receiver's hands and bounced off his chest plate/shoulder pads.


As stated in this thread, takeaways and ball security will be key to this team's continuing success.

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

DWM81 said:

---

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

---

It is.

---

Last year and this year it is 100%

Opponent TOs (Cal/Opp) W/L

North Texas 2-3 Win
Auburn 3-2 Loss
Idaho 0-3 Win
UW 3-1 Loss
ASU 0-2 Win
OSU 2-1 Loss
Utah 2-0 Loss
USC 4-1 Loss
Oregon 3-2 Loss
WSU 2-4 Win
Furd 1-1 Win
UCLA 2-4 Win
Texas Tech 4-2 Loss

So it is 100% predictive for the last 16 games.

We had 28 turnovers last year in 13 games.

That is what fans often don't understand. A QB that looks good and throws pretty passes but turns the ball over 2 or 3 times a game is not a better QB than one that moves the chains and leads TD drives without turning the ball over, even if they don't look like a QB out of central casting.

The huge difference this year over last year is Mendoza's ball security was bad last year and has been great (perfect) this year. That, and our LBs are getting to the QB forcing bad throws and our DBs are ball hawks. With some guys coming back this week if we keep this up we will be one of the best teams in the ACC, maybe getting to the CCG, with the next two games being the biggest test.

---

I like Nando's ability to improvise. That unexpected little dump off he made to the running back when the pocket collapsed around him last game and he was about to get sacked was a little off target. But that he had the presence of mind to try to get it to his RB and also put it where only his receiver could get it was smart. It kept Cal from losing yardage due to a sack and also gave Cal a chance to make a play.

---

It is much improved, but short passes, screens and swing passes is still the weakest part of his game IMO. He is tall, a little gangly and throws over the top, so he throws a beautiful 20 to 30 yard pass with zip upfield. It is the short stuff where he throws too hard, is inaccurate and stares down receivers (getting them blown up). The exception was in Auburn where he was money rolling right (and changed his motion by necessity). Many great, hard throwing QBs (Elway, Rodgers) had to learn to change their throwing motion for short passes. It was something Goff did coming in and was his major advantage over Kline who didn't. And every QB needs to learn to look off receivers, especially on screens.

As I said above, the MOST important thing is he has dramatically improved his ball security as turnover margin has determined the winner of 16 of our last 16 games. As Nando develops I think it is incumbent on Bloesch to recognize what his players do well and don't do well and put them in a position to succeed. So rather than screens, we need to run more outside pitches. Jet sweeps and reverses. More wheel routes and shuttle passes (underarm throw). Lots and lots of play action throws upfield to the TEs (I am liking the two TE sets, the empty backfield on 4th and short with a generally non-running QB was idiocy).

---

I absolutely agree with your statement that Bloesch needs to figure out plays that play to his offensive players' strengths. To that end, let's go back to the play I mentioned earlier, where Nando tried to dump it short to the running back. It was purely improvised by Nando to avoid a sack, but I think Bloesch should formalize it into a play. Have the RB initially pass block but let the defender through after initial contact at the LOS, then slip out into the flat for a short pass. That should get our speedy RBs into space with the ball.

The more misdirection we can run on offense, the better. Cal's players are smart, they can take advantage of the aggressive tendencies of other teams. Bloesch needs to utilize their intelligence to Cal's advantage.

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

DWM81 said:

---

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

---

It is.

---

Last year and this year it is 100%

Opponent TOs (Cal/Opp) W/L

North Texas 2-3 Win
Auburn 3-2 Loss
Idaho 0-3 Win
UW 3-1 Loss
ASU 0-2 Win
OSU 2-1 Loss
Utah 2-0 Loss
USC 4-1 Loss
Oregon 3-2 Loss
WSU 2-4 Win
Furd 1-1 Win
UCLA 2-4 Win
Texas Tech 4-2 Loss

So it is 100% predictive for the last 16 games.

We had 28 turnovers last year in 13 games.

That is what fans often don't understand. A QB that looks good and throws pretty passes but turns the ball over 2 or 3 times a game is not a better QB than one that moves the chains and leads TD drives without turning the ball over, even if they don't look like a QB out of central casting.

The huge difference this year over last year is Mendoza's ball security was bad last year and has been great (perfect) this year. That, and our LBs are getting to the QB forcing bad throws and our DBs are ball hawks. With some guys coming back this week if we keep this up we will be one of the best teams in the ACC, maybe getting to the CCG, with the next two games being the biggest test.

---

I like Nando's ability to improvise. That unexpected little dump off he made to the running back when the pocket collapsed around him last game and he was about to get sacked was a little off target. But that he had the presence of mind to try to get it to his RB and also put it where only his receiver could get it was smart. It kept Cal from losing yardage due to a sack and also gave Cal a chance to make a play.

---

It is much improved, but short passes, screens and swing passes is still the weakest part of his game IMO. He is tall, a little gangly and throws over the top, so he throws a beautiful 20 to 30 yard pass with zip upfield. It is the short stuff where he throws too hard, is inaccurate and stares down receivers (getting them blown up). The exception was in Auburn where he was money rolling right (and changed his motion by necessity). Many great, hard throwing QBs (Elway, Rodgers) had to learn to change their throwing motion for short passes. It was something Goff did coming in and was his major advantage over Kline who didn't. And every QB needs to learn to look off receivers, especially on screens.

As I said above, the MOST important thing is he has dramatically improved his ball security as turnover margin has determined the winner of 16 of our last 16 games. As Nando develops I think it is incumbent on Bloesch to recognize what his players do well and don't do well and put them in a position to succeed. So rather than screens, we need to run more outside pitches. Jet sweeps and reverses. More wheel routes and shuttle passes (underarm throw). Lots and lots of play action throws upfield to the TEs (I am liking the two TE sets, the empty backfield on 4th and short with a generally non-running QB was idiocy).

---

I absolutely agree with your statement that Bloesch needs to figure out plays that play to his offensive players' strengths. To that end, let's go back to the play I mentioned earlier, where Nando tried to dump it short to the running back. It was purely improvised by Nando to avoid a sack, but I think Bloesch should formalize it into a play. Have the RB initially pass block but let the defender through after initial contact at the LOS, then slip out into the flat for a short pass. That should get our speedy RBs into space with the ball.

The more misdirection we can run on offense, the better. Cal's players are smart, they can take advantage of the aggressive tendencies of other teams. Bloesch needs to utilize their intelligence to Cal's advantage.

---

On that play, though, the rb didn't go to the flat. He was right in the middle of the line, about 1 yd beyond the line of scrimmage. True he had just blocked and let his guy through, but he was taken totally by surprise to see the ball suddenly coming at him through a little gap in the linemen. I yelled NO, but we were lucky that it caught everyone by surprise and fell incomplete.

Still, your idea is a good one. The only fly in the ointment might be how quickly he can get to the flat, clear of the dl and lb's. Myabe better to plan a dump off to the rb over the middle, assuming there's a gap there somewhere to shoot it through.

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

DWM81 said:

---

I do not possess stats to back my position but I would say that takeaway-turnover ratio is the single most important variable in determining whether Cal Football wins or loses...

---

It is.

---

Last year and this year it is 100%

Opponent TOs (Cal/Opp) W/L

North Texas 2-3 Win
Auburn 3-2 Loss
Idaho 0-3 Win
UW 3-1 Loss
ASU 0-2 Win
OSU 2-1 Loss
Utah 2-0 Loss
USC 4-1 Loss
Oregon 3-2 Loss
WSU 2-4 Win
Furd 1-1 Win
UCLA 2-4 Win
Texas Tech 4-2 Loss

So it is 100% predictive for the last 16 games.

We had 28 turnovers last year in 13 games.

That is what fans often don't understand. A QB that looks good and throws pretty passes but turns the ball over 2 or 3 times a game is not a better QB than one that moves the chains and leads TD drives without turning the ball over, even if they don't look like a QB out of central casting.

The huge difference this year over last year is Mendoza's ball security was bad last year and has been great (perfect) this year. That, and our LBs are getting to the QB forcing bad throws and our DBs are ball hawks. With some guys coming back this week if we keep this up we will be one of the best teams in the ACC, maybe getting to the CCG, with the next two games being the biggest test.

---

I like Nando's ability to improvise. That unexpected little dump off he made to the running back when the pocket collapsed around him last game and he was about to get sacked was a little off target. But that he had the presence of mind to try to get it to his RB and also put it where only his receiver could get it was smart. It kept Cal from losing yardage due to a sack and also gave Cal a chance to make a play.

---

It is much improved, but short passes, screens and swing passes is still the weakest part of his game IMO. He is tall, a little gangly and throws over the top, so he throws a beautiful 20 to 30 yard pass with zip upfield. It is the short stuff where he throws too hard, is inaccurate and stares down receivers (getting them blown up). The exception was in Auburn where he was money rolling right (and changed his motion by necessity). Many great, hard throwing QBs (Elway, Rodgers) had to learn to change their throwing motion for short passes. It was something Goff did coming in and was his major advantage over Kline who didn't. And every QB needs to learn to look off receivers, especially on screens.

As I said above, the MOST important thing is he has dramatically improved his ball security as turnover margin has determined the winner of 16 of our last 16 games. As Nando develops I think it is incumbent on Bloesch to recognize what his players do well and don't do well and put them in a position to succeed. So rather than screens, we need to run more outside pitches. Jet sweeps and reverses. More wheel routes and shuttle passes (underarm throw). Lots and lots of play action throws upfield to the TEs (I am liking the two TE sets, the empty backfield on 4th and short with a generally non-running QB was idiocy).

---

I absolutely agree with your statement that Bloesch needs to figure out plays that play to his offensive players' strengths. To that end, let's go back to the play I mentioned earlier, where Nando tried to dump it short to the running back. It was purely improvised by Nando to avoid a sack, but I think Bloesch should formalize it into a play. Have the RB initially pass block but let the defender through after initial contact at the LOS, then slip out into the flat for a short pass. That should get our speedy RBs into space with the ball.

The more misdirection we can run on offense, the better. Cal's players are smart, they can take advantage of the aggressive tendencies of other teams. Bloesch needs to utilize their intelligence to Cal's advantage.

---

On that play, though, the rb didn't go to the flat. He was right in the middle of the line, about 1 yd beyond the line of scrimmage. True he had just blocked and let his guy through, but he was taken totally by surprise to see the ball suddenly coming at him through a little gap in the linemen. I yelled NO, but we were lucky that it caught everyone by surprise and fell incomplete.

Still, your idea is a good one. The only fly in the ointment might be how quickly he can get to the flat, clear of the dl and lb's. Myabe better to plan a dump off to the rb over the middle, assuming there's a gap there somewhere to shoot it through.

---

Agreed.

My main objective here is to get Cal's speedy RBs into open space with the ball. On that play, if Nando had gotten the ball to him, the RB (IIRC, it was Jet) was pretty much alone at the LOS. I have no doubt he could've gotten significant yardage from there.