Booth if you must.

Tedford's Explanation regarding Isi vs. CJA on at least one of the final goal-line plays: apparently we called an outside zone run and Isi is the best back for that.

I admit I still don't really get it. Outside zone is a great play in general because of the long gainer potential on a cutback. All that upside is gone close to the goal-line so why call that play, especially when it apparently forces you to put your far smaller back in there? Why not either try CJA inside again on what JT calls the "blast", or use CJA as a decoy to draw the defense inside and play-fake/roll Maynard left with run/pass option?

Not that the Sofele outside zone run couldn't have worked with better blocking or a different cut by Isi, but it still doesn't seem like a good decision to me.

http://holycalberkeley.blogspot.com/2011/09/cal-couldnt-find-end-zone-against.html

----snip---- (assuming it's ok to quote free public content from non-competing sites)

Media: Might you guys think about putting a bigger back in down in goal line situations or is Isi someone you're going to stick with?

Tedford: With that run, it was an outside zone play, it wasn't so much a downhill play, it had cutback potential, as you saw when we ran blast right up the middle, we put C.J. in on the blast play [in the first half] and C.J. did what he was supposed to do, he plowed over somebody.

On the outside zone play that we ran down there, we just missed the block, a guy came off the blocker or Isi squirts right in there. Isi broke the first tackle, the nose guard, Dom overreached the nose and the nose came behind him and tried to get his legs and he broke that tackle and then the next guy on the edge came off of a block and got back inside and that's the guy he ran into.

There was a big hole there, we just have to sustain our blocks, so that wasn't so much Isi. The plays that we run, we're going to put certain guys in. The blast is downhill and C.J. went in for that. But the outside play that could go in or bounce out, Isi has had the most experience with that play and has a little bit better speed to be able to execute that play, so that's why he was in there.

His explanation still sortof begs the question....why are we running an outside zone play with a RB that is 180 lbs at the goalline?

Maybe Isi is the best RB for that play (?)...but why are we calling a running play like that in the first place?

Thanks for the link. Looks like the blogger, John Breech, is affiliated with CBSSports.com:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rapid-reports/team/CA

pretty detailed stuff from him. In fact, it's better than the local media.... and far better than ESPN's minimal coverage (and wtf they have a Stanfurd blogger).

Both the blogspot and CBSsports page have been added to my bookmarks.

Yes, the follow up question is:

Coach, so if this blast play worked nicely with CJA downhill in the first half, and it would seem like a good idea to use bigger personnel in this situation in general, why not try it at least once, instead of the two outside zone/cutback plays with a smaller Isi?

Isi was in because he is the more experienced player. When things get tight JT goes with experience. All this other stuff is CYA IMO. If every play gets blocked perfectly I could run it in. They do not always get good blocking so you use players that have the ability to make the most out of the play. CJA may very well have run over/through that tackle on 2nd down while Isi was tackled. Of course we will never know now.

To read this quote by JT you would think CJA is some 250 lb fullback with no niftyness at all. Of course we know that is not accurate. Isi may be quicker, but CJA is not just a plowhorse he some running ability.

6956bear;580939 said:

---

Isi was in because he is the more experienced player. When things get tight JT goes with experience. All this other stuff is CYA IMO. If every play gets blocked perfectly I could run it in. They do not always get good blocking so you use players that have the ability to make the most out of the play. CJA may very well have run over/through that tackle on 2nd down while Isi was tackled. Of course we will never know now.

To read this quote by JT you would think CJA is some 250 lb fullback with no niftyness at all. Of course we know that is not accurate. Isi may be quicker, but CJA is not just a plowhorse he some running ability.

---

That's what I just don't get about JT. The experience factor that he seems to value so much. Look at all the frosh starting in the Pac 10 that are doing well. Also, does this mean that in the red zone, if Isi is in the backfield we can count on an OZ and if CJ is in we can count on IZ? Makes it easier for the defense I guess...

Go Bears!

It's a fatal flaw that harbaugh does not have.

I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that JT focuses solely on experience, when he playing a near high in the number of true and redshirt freshmen this year. Sure, you can use this particular play to say JT is frustratingly focused on experience, but I just don't think that takes into account the bigger picture.

The fact of the matter is our blocking sucks arse and a bigger back doesn't guarantee success when the defense has a clear shot at the RB behind the line of scrimmage more than not.

CALiforniALUM;580977 said:

---

The fact of the matter is our blocking sucks arse and a bigger back doesn't guarantee success when the defense has a clear shot at the RB behind the line of scrimmage more than not.

---

No one said a big RB guarantees success. A big RB who can punish a tackler adds another important dimension to a goal line situation. It makes the D more likely to make mistakes. Jump off side, bite on a play action, get overly aggressive, etc. All of which can be exploited by the offense.

I still don't like the call, but at least it makes more sense that the play was intended to go outside, and just got turned back inside. That's better than simply calling an inside goal-line run for a small RB.

Personally, having re-watched the play, I also think Sofele took a bad route and partially allowed himself to be caught by the penetrating D-linemen.

sycasey;580986 said:

---

I still don't like the call, but at least it makes more sense that the play was intended to go outside, and just got turned back inside. That's better than simply calling an inside goal-line run for a small RB.

Personally, having re-watched the play, I also think Sofele took a bad route and partially allowed himself to be caught by the penetrating D-linemen.

---

Me too. Bad decision by Isi

sycasey;580986 said:

---

I still don't like the call, but at least it makes more sense that the play was intended to go outside, and just got turned back inside. That's better than simply calling an inside goal-line run for a small RB.

Personally, having re-watched the play, I also think Sofele took a bad route and partially allowed himself to be caught by the penetrating D-linemen.

---

I think we both said that yesterday....IMO, Isi should have gone outside on both the 2nd and 3rd down play and cut it inside because he doesn't have the vision or wisdom of Jahvid Best to string it outside....I think some people miss that fact that Isi is pretty good with good blocking but still hits the wrong hole many times....

Let's see if I have this right. It's ok to use the wrong guy if you call the wrong play. Oh, yeah, I forgot two wrongs make a right.

For the love of god, Tedford, call the blast next time.

Thanks for the post. I think this does help a lot. We may not like the play call but it is big that the staff sees things properly - if we intend to blast it up the middle, Isi isn't the man for the job. It would be tough to take if they saw that one the other way. So we called a play that some of us wouldn't necessarily prefer and the way the play unfolded made it appear that the call was something else. Time to move on.

drunkoski;581016 said:

---

tedford's response after teh game doesn't exactly imply this was why isi was in the game. he's in CYA mode.

---

Actually it does follow that this is why Isi was in the game. They wanted to try to attack the edge, and the speedier Sofele was considered a better option to do so (which makes sense).

Again, I don't agree with the strategy (I think if you are going to run the ball, you power it up the middle, and if you want to stretch the D, then you have the QB out there as well, to make them defend 2 options), but it's not crazy to prefer Sofele on that play, if the staff thought the Washington D would be weaker on the edge than in the middle.

tommie317;580973 said:

---

It's a fatal flaw that harbaugh does not have.

---

Is that why Harbaugh had freshman Andrew Luck throw a pass to Mike Mohamed instead of senior Toby Gerhart who was in the process of ripping us a new one in the final drive of the big game a couple of years ago? Sounds like the fatal flaw would have won them the game.

drunkoski;581044 said:

---

it may be a logical explanation, but why did it take 48 hours to hear it? his first reaction to that question was basically that it was a good question.

---

I don't know, maybe next time you can call JT right after the game and get his answer.

drunkoski;581051 said:

---

and i quote:

On whether he should have went with C.J. Anderson, a bigger tailback, at the goal line at the end of the game:

"Would C.J. have scored? I don't know. It's a thought."

if you believe this new explanation i imagine you also believe he didn't know cal players were going to fake injuries in teh oregon game.

---

I have no idea how this quote is supposed to prove that JT's later explanation was false. Perhaps you can explain it to me?

None of us expects JT to say: "I did a poor job of coaching at the end of the game" which is clearly the case.

Tedford demonstrates again and again that he is a lousy gameday coach - the events in Seattle (including the fade on last play and taking the holding penalty) should not surprise any of us.

drunkoski;581055 said:

---

why wouldn't the reaction be "no we wanted isi in there becasue it was a zone run?"

---

Why would it? Do coaches usually get into X's and O's in postgame press conferences? Before they've had a chance to review the film?

This is a big stretch, even for you.

drunkoski;581046 said:

---

so one bad decision by harbaugh means that every ball-less call JT makes is teh right one? andy reid sad after the falcons game taht he wished he went for it on 4th down because not doing it sent the wrong message to the team. tedford needs to look into this.

---

uhhhh, he went for it on 4th down right? Multiple times in this game and for the season. We're 5th in 4th down conversions attempted this season and have already converted more 4th downs this year than all of last year! I get it, the goal-line offense failed on Saturday, but I'm not sure how giving it to your tailback is ball-less.

Just admit it at this point - you are going to curve fit in your assessment of Tedford and the Bears this year. You've made your decision that Tedford is gutless, that he's too tight and that he's a terrible coach. You will continue to focus on negative outcomes and try to convince everybody that the negative outcomes all result from Tedford's mistakes. You are the skip bayless of bearinsider and Tedford is your Lebron / A Rod.

I re-watched the game yesterday - Isi ran very hard all game and broke a number of tackles throughout the game and outclassed CJ. Isi even broke a tackle on one of the goal-line plays, but unfortunately there were so many unblocked guys that he had no chance. CJ ran hard in his goal-line stand and was stuffed on his first run, but made it in on his second run because he didn't get contacted until he was in the end zone. It was a big collision but he was already had a TD at that point. If Tedford went with CJ and failed to get a TD you would have been all over him saying that he had no faith in Isi who had played well all game and was being too predictable and boring and should have thrown it 4 times. You will take the outcome (if negative) and fit your theory of Tedford to it, regardless of circumstance.

Similarly, you've giving Maynard a complete pass for his goal-line mistakes because you've already formed your opinion on him.

sycasey;581071 said:

---

This is a big stretch,[U] even for you[/U].

---

No it's not. It's DO at his ridiculously, sublime self. Take innocuous post game quote... twist beyond comprehension... argue with everybody who doesn't see it the same twisted way.

And I'll beat him to the punch.

Signed,

drunkoski;581075 said:

---

they do if people are directly challenging his substitions.

---

No, they don't. Coaches give glib, non-answers immediately after the game because they haven't had a chance to review anything yet. It's pretty clear that this is what Tedford's answer about CJ was. Then later on, if you're lucky, they might expound upon the decision-making that went into a particular play. This is what JT did later.

The ideas that (1) CJ might have scored on the play, but (2) the reason we used Isi was X-Y-Z, are most definitely not incompatible. At the time, they thought Isi was the best bet to score for the play they wanted to run. After the fact, JT may have considered that it would have been better to use CJ. The one statement does not cancel out the other, yet here you are making up conspiracy theories.

The 4th down stat thing is too simple...

On the first drive of the game... 3rd and 20 from our own 10 thanks to a bad snap... I guess 85%+ of coaches would run some sort of quick pass or delayed draw. Tedford sends him a risky play where Maynard drops back to the goal line then throws a zing crossing patter 30+ yards in the air, that turns into a great TD.

Right out of the gate. First drive of the game.

So what does DO do? Changes the argument to some unquantifiable "much more conservative in the 2nd half nonsense."

You've hit the nail on the head about DO. The fact that he (and to be fair others) are arguing with our first down play calling in the 2nd half when it netted us on average 8 yards per 1st down proves your point.

Unit2Sucks;581074 said:

---

uhhhh, he went for it on 4th down right? Multiple times in this game and for the season. We're 5th in 4th down conversions attempted this season and have already converted more 4th downs this year than all of last year! I get it, the goal-line offense failed on Saturday, but I'm not sure how giving it to your tailback is ball-less.

Just admit it at this point - you are going to curve fit in your assessment of Tedford and the Bears this year. You've made your decision that Tedford is gutless, that he's too tight and that he's a terrible coach. You will continue to focus on negative outcomes and try to convince everybody that the negative outcomes all result from Tedford's mistakes. You are the skip bayless of bearinsider and Tedford is your Lebron / A Rod.

I re-watched the game yesterday - Isi ran very hard all game and broke a number of tackles throughout the game and outclassed CJ. Isi even broke a tackle on one of the goal-line plays, but unfortunately there were so many unblocked guys that he had no chance. CJ ran hard in his goal-line stand and was stuffed on his first run, but made it in on his second run because he didn't get contacted until he was in the end zone. It was a big collision but he was already had a TD at that point. If Tedford went with CJ and failed to get a TD you would have been all over him saying that he had no faith in Isi who had played well all game and was being too predictable and boring and should have thrown it 4 times. You will take the outcome (if negative) and fit your theory of Tedford to it, regardless of circumstance.

Similarly, you've giving Maynard a complete pass for his goal-line mistakes because you've already formed your opinion on him.

---

drunkoski;581084 said:

---

spoken by the guy who never says anything non positive about JT soley because he knows your name. whose the sad man in this group?

---

you are. made sadder by you not being able to recognize it.

drunkoski;581086 said:

---

wow. talk about pot to kettle.

---

wow, you're starting to admit it. Except if you don't think I have the self awareness to know that I in fact am a positive, ah hell let's call it sunshine pumping guy, you're lost.

Where CAL football concerned, I am a positive person. You're a miserable SOB. A little hard to argue that.

(and the board gets yet another very public DrunkOski Xultaif tte--tte... Now we just need a particular poster to butt in with his standard inane picture accompanied post and we'll be done)

xultaif;581083 said:

---

You've hit the nail on the head about DO. The fact that he (and to be fair others) are arguing with our first down play calling in the 2nd half when it netted us on average 8 yards per 1st down proves your point.

---

I will say this: aside from the final sequence on the goal line, any complaints about playcalling in this game are bull***t. The offensive playcalling was great all game long; it has actually been damn good all season. We had some drives stall because of physical errors -- receivers dropping balls, Maynard falling down or fumbling, passes that were off the mark -- but the plays nearly always had us in position to succeed (i.e. a receiver was open), which is all you can ask for.

True...true....friend sycasey, I tend to agree with you, and I believethat Coach Tedford is well behind such play calling, especially on third and long. But, if I may interject, I believe him to be generally a very good overall game planner; however, I also believe, and I mean no disrespect to Coach Tedford, he has difficulty with real-time game stratedgy and does, and rightfully so, seem to rely on his assistant coaches, to make such calls. Their decisions may not be Coach Tedford's but unfortunately only after he has had sufficient time to reflect upon such decisions....I am only speculating from what I've seen over the last several seasons where this has been very apparent.

hanky1;580912 said:

---

His explanation still sortof begs the question....why are we running an outside zone play with a RB that is 180 lbs at the goalline?

Maybe Isi is the best RB for that play (?)...but why are we calling a running play like that in the first place?

---

In addition to a small RB instead of a bruiser near the Goal Line, why didn't we run behind our better blockers? Was it to surprise Washington's defense?

drunkoski;581093 said:

---

HUGE difference between being positive and crapping on anyone who dares suggest their might be a problem with the program. look at sycasey compared to you as an example.

---

and a huge difference between commenting on posts here and there and crapping on anyone who dares to suggest there might be a problem.

And of course, there's even a huger difference between that and have 18K(!!!) posts, many of which are to complain about Tedford, his coaching, or parsing and twisting his words from a press conference... this thread being exhibit A.

Blueblood;581095 said:

---

True...true....friend sycasey, I tend to agree with you, and I believethat Coach Tedford is well behind such play calling, especially on third and long. But, if I may interject, I believe him to be generally a very good overall game planner; however, I also believe, and I mean no disrespect to Coach Tedford, he has difficulty with real-time game stratedgy and does, and rightfully so, seem to rely on his assistant coaches, to make such calls. Their decisions may not be Coach Tedford's but unfortunately only after he has had sufficient time to reflect upon such decisions....I am only speculating from what I've seen over the last several seasons where this has been very apparent.

---

Actually I would agree with that. Generally I have not cared for his decisions on such things as using time outs, whether or not to go for it on 4th down, and so forth. But I do think he's been better about it this season. Not perfect, but better.

sycasey;581091 said:

---

I will say this: aside from the final sequence on the goal line, any complaints about playcalling in this game are bull***t. The offensive playcalling was great all game long; it has actually been damn good all season. We had some drives stall because of physical errors -- receivers dropping balls, Maynard falling down or fumbling, passes that were off the mark -- but the plays nearly always had us in position to succeed (i.e. a receiver was open), which is all you can ask for.

---

Agree. Example #1 is the first TD pass play. The old JT would have called a run deep in his own side of the field and 3d and long; when the new JT called a pass.

BTW I am very happy that some of the posters on this board don't sit near me at the Cal FB games. There would be a fight in the stands between Cal fans.

drunkoski;581078 said:

---

yes he's finally going on 4th downs. it only took him 10 years to do so. let's see if it continues. his second half offense was WAY more conservative than the first half. which is par for the the course.

i've been saying all along he should have thrown it. read up on it.

one overthrow is somethign i should crap on maynard about? how about give the guy the ball for 4 downs.

---

The overthrow was the least of it. Maynard killed a drive with his houdini act on the pump fake. He killed another one when he got stepped on by a lineman. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one but I'm beginning to wonder why he's so snakebitten. Fortunately we seem to recover most of his fumbles, but it's only a matter of time before those starting going the other way. I'm not going to blame the first missed snap on him and he did make up for it with the 3rd and 20 pass to his bro.

How many fumbles does Maynard have this year? I'm frankly amazed you haven't yet pinned his mistakes on Tedford.

Quote:

---

if i can call out the play based on the formation play after play don't tell me holt can't as well

---

I'm always interested in real analysis on this kinda thing. I think it's really interesting when people dive into film/image work on these sequences to see the details of what's really going on. Armchair fans talking about it in vague, general terms, though? Meh. People are gonna believe what fits their frame of reference.

Quote:

---

In addition to a small RB instead of a bruiser near the Goal Line, why didn't we run behind our better blockers?

---

MSG is supposed to be maybe our best run blocker, no? Weren't we heading his direction?