From Crumpacker's article this morning:

Quote:

---

The coach said he will cut back on the number of plays available for a particular game from 150 to 100, at least in part so new quarterback Zach Maynard does not get so overwhelmed he can't see the forest for the trees.

"We do need to cut back. Less volume, more creativity," Tedford said. "We need to make sure everyone is on the same page and have them execute."

---

Link

"Less volume, more creativity"--exactly! Though even 100 plays might be too many.

This is where there is the greatest potential for improvement in our team's play. This is where Tedford can establish the system that will guide Cal's future. Go Jeff! Go Bears!

drunkoski;536115 said:

---

obviously JT reads bearinsider. sadly it seems to take him years to follow our advice.

---

I know, he is just encouraging me to post more

Hey, the past is the past, can't be changed. If Tedford can get this right going forward I will be one very happy :bear:

calumnus;536116 said:

---

I know, he is just encouraging me to post more

Hey, the past is the past, can't be changed. If Tedford can get this right going forward I will be one very happy :bear:

---

Aloooooha -

Next time you're padding your post count, teasing about a story somewhere out there on the net, might wanna include a link, erm, or even just what rag it appeared in? Thanks in advance.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/27/SP2L1KFC36.DTL&type=printable

#GoFightingTedfords

SiniCal;536122 said:

---

Aloooooha -

Next time you're padding your post count, teasing about a story somewhere out there on the net, might wanna include a link, erm, or even just what rag it appeared in? Thanks in advance.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/27/SP2L1KFC36.DTL&type=printable

#GoFightingTedfords

---

Sorry jay, usually do--summer cold has me working off green tea instead of my usual java--fixed up top. Thanks

So called illegals ruin the American dream.

I got my siggy, it works for me. Does change from time to time. Suggest other Cybers fly their own freak.

Like Belushi's character in Animal House preached..
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077975/quotes?qt=qt0479916

#GoInternetBumperStickers!

Nearly all types of systems can perform at a high level. Simple offenses, complex offenses, spread, pro, pistol, whatever. They can all be great.

I've seen Tedford do a lot of tweaking over the last several years. Maybe he should just stick with something and figure out how to make it work.

Of course, everything is moot when our OL can't block. Many complain about poor play calling, but I think it's simply that Tedford knows that a screen on 3rd and long is realistically the only play that could work when the OL can't block for more than 2 seconds. If our OL performs at a high level, a monkey could install the veer and an ape could call the plays and we'd win 9 games this season.

atticus;536199 said:

---

Nearly all types of systems can perform at a high level. Simple offenses, complex offenses, spread, pro, pistol, whatever. They can all be great.

I've seen Tedford do a lot of tweaking over the last several years. Maybe he should just stick with something and figure out how to make it work.

Of course, everything is moot when our OL can't block. Many complain about poor play calling, but I think it's simply that Tedford knows that a screen on 3rd and long is realistically the only play that could work when the OL can't block for more than 2 seconds. If our OL performs at a high level, a monkey could install the veer and an ape could call the plays and we'd win 9 games this season.

---

+1

I do however think JT should take more risks on 4th down. When it's 1 yd to go on our 45 yd line and punt is a stupid call. He's been out coached by Kelly and others by not taking chances.

bar20;536230 said:

---

+1

I do however think JT should take more risks on 4th down. When it's 1 yd to go on our 45 yd line and punt is a stupid call. He's been out coached by Kelly and others by not taking chances.

---

It's not a stupid call when you can't get a yard. Even with a touchback, that is 25 valuable yards of field position to help out our defense on the ensuing series, and the offense in the series after that.

atticus;536199 said:

---

Nearly all types of systems can perform at a high level. Simple offenses, complex offenses, spread, pro, pistol, whatever. They can all be great.

I've seen Tedford do a lot of tweaking over the last several years. Maybe he should just stick with something and figure out how to make it work.

Of course, everything is moot when our OL can't block. Many complain about poor play calling, but I think it's simply that Tedford knows that a screen on 3rd and long is realistically the only play that could work when the OL can't block for more than 2 seconds. If our OL performs at a high level, a monkey could install the veer and an ape could call the plays and we'd win 9 games this season.

---

Thank you Atticus. This is what I was saying all last year.

bar20;536230 said:

---

+1

I do however think JT should take more risks on 4th down. When it's 1 yd to go on our 45 yd line and punt is a stupid call. He's been out coached by Kelly and others by not taking chances.

---

Disagree. Last year JT did a great job -- if Cal had a PK and a rookie QB who were not each a "head case".

grandmastapoop;536239 said:

---

It's not a stupid call when you can't get a yard. Even with a touchback, that is 25 valuable yards of field position to help out our defense on the ensuing series, and the offense in the series after that.

---

I don't know - even if we only have a 1 in 3 shot at it, I might be in favor of taking the shot. The defense generally held for us last year so were the extra 25 yards of field position truly that valuable? I think we left too many points on the field last year.

This is the year - THE FAKE FIELD GOAL!!

D-FENS;536268 said:

---

By the end of the year, it probably didn't matter much as the offense was not even competent, but when Riley was still healthy, there were probably risks that should have been taken. Tedford has proven to be extremely risk-averse though, so I doubt that will ever change.

---

I'd say that we could have used it most against Oregon and Washington. It was pretty obvious that we weren't going to score any points with our conventional offense - we had just 1 offensive TD in the 2 games combined, and our DL had 2 TDs on its own.

The opportunity was there for trick plays, 4th down attempts, misdirection etc. but instead we did what the defense expected us to do with unsurprising results. It's amazing that we came as close as we did - credit to our defense for scoring TDs and keeping us in those games.

I love the quote. I give credit to JT for going in this direction, I don't care if people consider it late, it's happening. The key word for me is creativity. Maynard, KA, Isi all can do a lot of different things. Option anyone?

It all sounds great, but I'm not going to give any credit until we actually see it on the field. "Words are wind" (some of you will get that :acclaim and need to be backed up by actions, or they are meaningless.

I think he means it, and I hope we see it.

bar20;536230 said:

---

+1

I do however think JT should take more risks on 4th down. When it's 1 yd to go on our 45 yd line and punt is a stupid call. He's been out coached by Kelly and others by not taking chances.

---

If I recall correctly, the first time Oregon went for it on 4th down, we stopped them, and then we scored. In a game in which we had a very difficult time scoring, that allowed us to score. If Shane did not fumble deep in our own territory, we had a good chance of winning that game. I agree that JT could and should take more risks, but I would not say Tedford was out-coached by Kelly last year.

drunkoski;536252 said:

---

a qb sneak even with a lousy oline should be able to get a first down most of the time. tedford regurally punts it on 4th and inches. actually the distance doesn't seem to factor in whether he goes for it or not since i can remember him going for it on 4th and long a couple of times.

---

JT went for it on 4th and ___ more often in the days when Cal had a credible OLine.

That call cost us a bowl bid.

GoldenBearofCalifornia;536342 said:

---

If I recall correctly, the first time Oregon went for it on 4th down, we stopped them, and then we scored.

---

Minor nit; they did it twice (on the first drive). The first time was well defensed but Thomas made an athletic play to get the first down. The second time, we stopped them.

I agree with your points, as I said this was a very minor nit.

atticus;536199 said:

---

Nearly all types of systems can perform at a high level. Simple offenses, complex offenses, spread, pro, pistol, whatever. They can all be great.

I've seen Tedford do a lot of tweaking over the last several years. Maybe he should just stick with something and figure out how to make it work.

Of course, everything is moot when our OL can't block. Many complain about poor play calling, but I think it's simply that Tedford knows that a screen on 3rd and long is realistically the only play that could work when the OL can't block for more than 2 seconds. If our OL performs at a high level, a monkey could install the veer and an ape could call the plays and we'd win 9 games this season.

---

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."

Maybe adopting a single system and recruiting to it worked for power programs in the days before scholarship limits. However, given the constant personnel turnover in college football, if you are going to get the most from your team and have success, you have to "tweak" the strategy to fit the players you have in any given year. Most years trying to force square pegs into round holes is not going to get the most from your square pegs. Also, there is a great range of talent on most college teams, so it is imperitive that you maximize the use of your best talent.

I agree that IF you have a great OL any system works, but it very unlikely that we have a great OL this year. Rather than write off the year, it makes perfect sense to adopt a strategy that does not require a great line, no?

Similarly, complex systems are great, especially in the NFL where you have virtually unlimited practice time and you can have a QB for more than a decade. However, college has restraints: limited practice time, players that need to go to class and study, and again, constant turnover in personnel so it is often critical for a first year QB (freshman or transfer) to be able to learn and execute your offense in a couple of months.

That is why I really like the direction Tedford is going. He is not changing the system (as far as we can tell), he is just taking a portion of the system that it appropriate for the players we have in 2011 and he is going to work on improving execution of those plays, making sure that he has plenty of misdirection and creativity in there. That (hopefully) will be further refined each game, depending on opponent, and strengths that emerge in the team, with new wrinkles added for creativity and surprise (Harbaugh's Stanford team did this very well last year).

Think of the system as a cookbook of 500+ plays, he is preparing a menu of 100 plays based on the ingredients that are on the shelf or in season. To be consistently successful in college sports, (other than the dominant programs) you have to be flexible.

In some future year when we have a dominant OL again (or even if it emerges this year), Tedford can go back to a more predictable, smash mouth, "establish the run," mentality, because that will be what fits the team.

calumnus;536397 said:

---

I agree that IF you have a great OL any system works, but it very unlikely that we have a great OL this year. Rather than write off the year, it makes perfect sense to adopt a strategy that does not require a great line, no?

---

I don't know of any strategy in football where success can be maintained without a strong line. I'm not saying write off the year, but it's a simple fact that if the line can't block, you can't run and you can't throw, and I don't know of any other way to move the football. (Unless we adopt UCLA's mantra and punt our way to victory). The most important thing an offense needs is time - time for routes to be run, time for blocks to be set up, time to throw the football. Without time, very smart play calls turn into turnovers very quickly. The only way to get more time is with better blocking.

In any case, I don't think simplifying the playbook would even qualify as a strategy that depends less upon the OL - rather, it sounds like it would rely even more upon it than ever because we will be a lot more straightforward and predictable. More than ever, execution will become crucial because there's a smaller pool of plays to choose from.

It's not like we were running the west coast offense or something truly "complex" to begin with. We just added a lot of motion and different formations to a fairly straightforward offense to compensate for the fact that we could legitimately run a handful of plays - again, because poor line play means you can't throw deep with any consistency, you can't run more complex passing routes that take longer to develop, and you have a harder time establishing a run game. So we figured, let's have a bunch of fake end arounds and hope that confuses people. It did sometimes, and it didn't other times - which is why we'd look good one week, and get demolished the next.

With turnover and everything factored in, plenty of schools have success with an offense very similar to the one used in the early Tedford era. Maybe for the first couple of years, you can say, yeah, the coach should tweak his system to fit the players. But it's been a decade. He's had plenty of time to recruit the right guys. And now he's having to trim down an offense because the best QB on our roster isn't one of the many Elite 11 guys we've recruited, but rather a middling transfer from Buffalo who won't see anymore success than Riley did if his line can't protect him or help Isi establish our run game and slow down the pass rush.

Something is not right here. I don't think it's our schemes so much as our day-to-day personnel development and coaching. If Coach M can bring our line back to the pre 2006 days we'll regain a bit of sanity and probably win 8 or 9 games.

Is KA21 going to play D at all or is he strictly a WR/Ret?

MoragaBear;536506 said:

---

I was there for the lunchtime conversation and there were some important details relevant to the discussion. I asked if the defense is consistently lights out this year unlike vs. SC, Nevada and OSU games last year, would be plan on being more aggressive with taking risks. He said yes, and that some of it depends on the personnel to pull off the plays if it's a trick play, like Keenan being a strong passer for instance.

---

:bravo

This is going to be my pet project this season. I can probably get someone I know who is a sports statistics authority to provide some backup for Tedford. Bottom line as I've been saying - if the defense can hold then offensive TDs outweigh offensive turnovers. People say you need to win the turnover battle, but you really need to win the TD battle.

MoragaBear;536506 said:

---

I was there for the lunchtime conversation and there were some important details relevant to the discussion. I asked if the defense is consistently lights out this year unlike vs. SC, Nevada and OSU games last year, would be plan on being more aggressive with taking risks. He said yes, and that some of it depends on the personnel to pull off the plays if it's a trick play, like Keenan being a strong passer for instance.

As for shortening the playbook, it the playbook for each individual game, not the whole playbook and it includes all possible situations, like 3rd and short, blue zone, everything. So on your typical given play, much of those 100 plays don't apply. They're just situational plays so their working number would actually be much less than 100 throughout much of the game.

---

Thanks Moraga, sounds great--looking forward to it. Though, I hope we aren't just focused on "trick" plays, but incorporating a lot of surprise and misdirection into our basic offense, especially with the goal of not developing a lot of predictable tendencies. I also hope we take more calculated chances, not just if the defense is holding the other team, but also if they are not and we need scores.

"Uhhh, just a moment....yes...yes....friend calumnus....yes, I think that I'm hearing the same music in my ears too.....ahhhhHHHHaaaa.....it's faint but I do hear it!"

Quote:

---

like Keenan being a strong passer for instance.

---

Uh oh, Moraga. You just let the "Keenan Pass play" cat out of the bag. You just lost your credential to watch the first and last five minutes of selected practices.

hmmmmm. 100 you say? Might be interesting.we could use Torchio as the blocking back and once in a while he could throw a pass, if he survives.when I spoke to Joe Kapp he said that should have worked but.............

elpbear;536394 said:

---

Minor nit; they did it twice (on the first drive). The first time was well defensed but Thomas made an athletic play to get the first down. The second time, we stopped them.

I agree with your points, as I said this was a very minor nit.

---

I knew it was on the first drive, but I could not recall if we stopped Oregon on the first or second time that Oregon went for it on fourth down. Thanks for correcting me. :beer:

how many of the 100 plays are bubble screens?

It almost sounds like DO wrote that quote for him!

OaktownBear;536553 said:

---

Uh oh, Moraga. You just let the "Keenan Pass play" cat out of the bag. You just lost your credential to watch the first and last five minutes of selected practices.

---

IIRC Keenan pulled down at least two passes last season & ran because his receivers were covered on the play

WarTime Consigliere;536639 said:

---

how many of the 100 plays are bubble screens?

---

I am not saying that I loved the play calling (again, I said I agree that JT could and should take more risks, though maybe he did not have confidence in Brock), but we were in a position to win the game and most likely would have won that game if Shane did not fumble.