We saw quite a bit of read option, single back sets. I know Tedord's been criticized for running the same type of offense since he's arrived. So I'm assuming hes changing things up a bit, playing toward Maynards strengths, something he should have done with Ayoob. <br /><br />However, it seems like all of our QBs in the wings would benefit from a more Tedford traditional power O. I'm watching Stanford and I'm missing our days in '04 '05 '07 when we had a strong OL, FB and TB that ran downhill right down our opponents throat. <br /><br />I am wondering if we'll go back to the hard nose style of football Tedford has been the most successful at? Or if we'll take the next step and become more like an Oregon style O?

Easier to change scheme than it is to change the personnel and attitude necessary to execute said scheme.

It's tough to rely on a power running game when you don't have the personnel to make it work. Our OL couldn't pass or run block against Texass' DL.

I'm of the opinion that we'll be back to a more comfortable (for JT) offense once Maynard is gone. More 2 back, pro-style. I have no faith that it'll work any better, but I think the change back will be made.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Cal84;665199 said:</div><hr>It's tough to rely on a power running game when you don't have the personnel to make it work. Our OL couldn't pass or run block against Texass' DL.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />As simple as that. We don't have the linemen to mow over defenses like we used to.<br /><br />[/thread]

I think we'll be more effective, probably not with Maynard throwing and Isi running though. I had been thinking about this for the last few weeks watching Seattle Seahawks as well. They had been running Lynch in single back set along with 2 back set, he was so much more effective when he had a FB leading the way.

Not really. I think we abandoned the fact that these are 18-22 year old kids who are emotionally charged. Instead we put in a play book that NFL guys say is more complicated than the one they must learn. Our HC puts his players to sleep at halftime and refuses to make any adjustments. I look at Stanford and I see not only smart players not making dumb penalties but I also see fire in them. Where the hell did that come from? <br /><br />I believe it is called the Harbaugh effect.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Calntheplay;664938 said:</div><hr><br /><br />....However, it seems like all of our QBs in the wings would benefit from a more Tedford traditional power O. I'm watching Stanford and I'm missing our days in '04 '05 '07 when we had a strong OL, FB and TB that ran downhill right down our opponents throat. <br /><br />I am wondering if we'll go back to the hard nose style of football Tedford has been the most successful at? Or if we'll take the next step and become more like an Oregon style O?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Cal still runs "power O"....except everybody and their grandmother knows the ball is going to wherever the Fullback is lined up because Cal puts their Fullback in an "offset-I" formation, either left or right. That's where the ball is going to be run by the RB.<br /><br />Cal doesn't do counter or gap-running plays that show a strongside formation-wise, but are run to the weakside, throwing the Defense off and sometimes getting huge gains. Wisconsin does both strongside and weakside stuff.<br /><br />Long story short -- Cal runs power-O but it's predictable. However, you can be predictable if you have the muscle to play smashmouth football and dare people to stop you. Both Wisconsin and Stanford do this.<br /><br />To answer the 2nd part of your question -- Even though Cal can run some plays from it, Oregon's simple offense scares Cal. Sorry to have to tell you this, but Cal Football is simply trying to be super-complicated in order to please it's very smart fanbase who enjoy complexity and machinations.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Our Domicile;665842 said:</div><hr> Sorry to have to tell you this, but Cal Football is simply trying to be super-complicated in order to please it's very smart fanbase who enjoy complexity and machinations.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />This is nonsense. Furd runs one of the biggest playbooks in football. There is nothing simple at all about their offense.<br /><br />Even Oregon has evolved a lot from their earlier days. Calling their offense simple is silly.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>Cal doesn't do counter or gap-running plays that show a strongside formation-wise, but are run to the weakside, throwing the Defense off and sometimes getting huge gains. Wisconsin does both strongside and weakside stuff.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You really think Cal doesn't do any sort of counters or weakside runs at all? That every play they just come out and do the same exact thing so the defense knows exactly where they're going to run...? Do you have any evidence of this?<br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>To answer the 2nd part of your question -- Even though Cal can run some plays from it, Oregon's simple offense scares Cal. Sorry to have to tell you this, but Cal Football is simply trying to be super-complicated in order to please it's very smart fanbase who enjoy complexity and machinations.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />...

<blockquote><div class="name-said">LessMilesMoreTedford;665848 said:</div><hr>This is nonsense. Furd runs one of the biggest playbooks in football. There is nothing simple at all about their offense.<br /><br />Even Oregon has evolved a lot from their earlier days. Calling their offense simple is silly.<hr></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Your reaction is sillier. I was being sarcastic to prove a point.<br /><br />Of course, Stanford runs a complicated offense...however, they are projected to have 3 of the first 15 picks in the NFL Draft (one QB, two OLM). Complicated or not, it seems that you still need NFL talent to pull off their big playbook successfully.<br /><br />And yes, <i>relatively</i> speaking, Oregon's offense is simple. Apples and Oranges.<br /><br />I agree with <i>Letsroll</i> -- Cal's offense is unnecessarily complex at times. Seeing Cal huddle-up with time running out is LOL and living proof of "unnecessary complexity".

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BTUR;665855 said:</div><hr>You really think Cal doesn't do any sort of counters or weakside runs at all? That every play they just come out and do the same exact thing so the defense knows exactly where they're going to run...? Do you have any evidence of this?<hr></blockquote><br /><br /><br />As far as evidence, go get a VCR/DVR and watch the Fullback when we are in Offset-I using the Fullback the "strongside" key to the play, not the TE or any other personnel, just the Fullback. I bet the percentages come out in my favor.<br /><br />As far as I can tell, Cal only runs Sprint Draw as a counter....and that was revealed around the Utah and/or Oregon State game. That's in shotgun with a single back. I really like that play TBH. We don't "sell it" right, all the time though (I feel the QB has to bring the ball up for one second to "sell" a rollout pass...and then do the handoff to run the counter).<br /><br />In terms of counters, there's a cutback run off the Stretch Play that Shane and Best use to run as a counter...but I don't see it that much or ever nowadays since we changed OCs.<br /><br />Keep in mind this is JMO, but I feel the gametapes can back me up. Maybe there ARE counters, but we can't run them effectively. In other words, they are blown up to the point of being unrecognizable to an observer.<br /><br />In general, I agree with the posters above who bring up OLM Personnel as being crucial to whatever we can or cannot do in the running game or LOS period.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Our Domicile;665859 said:</div><hr>Your reaction is sillier. I was being sarcastic to prove a point.<br /><br />Of course, Stanford runs a complicated offense...however, they are projected to have 3 of the first 15 picks in the NFL Draft (one QB, two OLM). Complicated or not, it seems that you still need NFL talent to pull off their big playbook successfully.<br /><br />And yes, <i>relatively</i> speaking, Oregon's offense is simple. Apples and Oranges.<br /><br />I agree with <i>Letsroll</i> -- Cal's offense is unnecessarily complex at times. Seeing Cal huddle-up with time running out is LOL and living proof of "unnecessary complexity".<hr></blockquote><br /><br />The point is that Cal has average/mediocre QB & OL play right now, so it doesn't really matter what offense we run until they improve.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Our Domicile;665842 said:</div><hr>Cal still runs "power O"....except everybody and their grandmother knows the ball is going to wherever the Fullback is lined up because Cal puts their Fullback in an "offset-I" formation, either left or right. That's where the ball is going to be run by the RB.<br /><br />Cal doesn't do counter or gap-running plays that show a strongside formation-wise, but are run to the weakside, throwing the Defense off and sometimes getting huge gains. Wisconsin does both strongside and weakside stuff.<br /><br />Long story short -- Cal runs power-O but it's predictable. However, you can be predictable if you have the muscle to play smashmouth football and dare people to stop you. Both Wisconsin and Stanford do this.<br /><br />To answer the 2nd part of your question -- Even though Cal can run some plays from it, Oregon's simple offense scares Cal. Sorry to have to tell you this, but Cal Football is simply trying to be super-complicated in order to please it's very smart fanbase who enjoy complexity and machinations.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Before Kapp Jr. was injured we definitely ran more power O. It's evident though, that it has been phasing out since Will Ta'ufo'ou left.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Our Domicile;665859 said:</div><hr>Your reaction is sillier. I was being sarcastic to prove a point.<br /><br />Of course, Stanford runs a complicated offense...however, they are projected to have 3 of the first 15 picks in the NFL Draft (one QB, two OLM). Complicated or not, it seems that you still need NFL talent to pull off their big playbook successfully.<br /><br />And yes, <i>relatively</i> speaking, Oregon's offense is simple. Apples and Oranges.<br /><br />I agree with <i>Letsroll</i> -- Cal's offense is unnecessarily complex at times. Seeing Cal huddle-up with time running out is LOL and living proof of "unnecessary complexity".<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Stanford runs most of their plays out of the same formation. They are more complicated this year because they have a seasoned QB in Luck, but go back to his first year with Gerhardt as the focus of the offense and you will see the same plays (with lots of counters) over and over again. <br /><br />Same with Oregon, Kelly has made it a little more complicated this year because he has a passing QB in Thomas. When he brings in the next guy, especially if he is more of a runner, you will see the offense go back to basics like with Masoli.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calumnus;666028 said:</div><hr>When he brings in the next guy, especially if he is more of a runner, you will see the offense go back to basics like with Masoli.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Sounds like you mean back to being predictable! <img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />">

<blockquote><div class="name-said">alarsuel;665200 said:</div><hr>I'm of the opinion that we'll be back to a more comfortable (for JT) offense once Maynard is gone. More 2 back, pro-style. I have no faith that it'll work any better, but I think the change back will be made.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You have the causation reversed. We did not abandon the power run game because we are starting Maynard/Sofele (and I don't believe any of that "package deal" nonsense). We abandoned the power run game because we do not have the OL for it. We are starting Maynard/Sofele [U]because[/U] we realized we had to abandon the power run game (Note: while I think this was the right idea for 2011, I don't think we committed to it fully or soon enough). <br /><br />We will go back to a power run game as soon as we have rebuilt our OL. It looks like we have some great OL recruits coming in. Thus, 2013 we will probably go back to a power run game, not because Maynard and Sofele will have left, but because we will have our line then and can play one of our pro-style QBs (Kline?).

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BTUR;666040 said:</div><hr>Sounds like you mean back to being predictable! <img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />"><hr></blockquote><br />A baseball pitcher may only have three pitches, but if they are good pitches and he is able to use the same delivery every time and mixes them up well, batters will be fooled most of the time. <br /><br />Oregon with Masoli was not predictable. They always lined up in the same formation but there were several different plays they could run from it. The plays work the other way, the QB forces the defense to make a decision and then that determines what happens. A defense can't "guess" right. If a defenses "guesses" they will always be wrong if the play is run correctly.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calumnus;666042 said:</div><hr>You have the causation reversed. We did not abandon the power run game because we are starting Maynard/Sofele (and I don't believe any of that "package deal" nonsense). We abandoned the power run game because we do not have the OL for it. We are starting Maynard/Sofele [U]because[/U] we realized we had to abandon the power run game (Note: while I think this was the right idea for 2011, I don't think we committed to it fully or soon enough). <br /><br />We will go back to a power run game as soon as we have rebuilt our OL. It looks like we have some great OL recruits coming in. Thus, 2013 we will probably go back to a power run game, not because Maynard and Sofele will have left, but because we will have our line then and can play one of our pro-style QBs (Kline?).<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I don't quite agree with you. We started Maynard and Sofele because they were the best guys we had. Simple as that.

With the OL beef we are getting in recruiting, power football will be back very soon.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calumnus;666051 said:</div><hr>A baseball pitcher may only have three pitches, but if they are good pitches and he is able to use the same delivery every time and mixes them up well, batters will be fooled most of the time. <br /><br />Oregon with Masoli was not predictable. They always lined up in the same formation but there were several different plays they could run from it. The plays work the other way, the QB forces the defense to make a decision and then that determines what happens. A defense can't "guess" right. If a defenses "guesses" they will always be wrong if the play is run correctly.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />It was just a joke about how if the offense is too vanilla, people complain about predictability. If there's too many looks, people complain about complexity. My take is that people are really just complaining that the offense hasn't been working well enough (as they should). If it's not working, they'll come up with whatever reason to explain it. The bottom line is it needs to get better. I've always believed a Tedford offense goes as the OL goes. Hopefully these youngsters are legit!

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BTUR;666088 said:</div><hr>It was just a joke about how if the offense is too vanilla, people complain about predictability. If there's too many looks, people complain about complexity. My take is that people are really just complaining that the offense hasn't been working well enough (as they should). If it's not working, they'll come up with whatever reason to explain it. The bottom line is it needs to get better. I've always believed a Tedford offense goes as the OL goes. Hopefully these youngsters are legit!<hr></blockquote><br /><br />The last couple of years there were opposing defenders who said after our game that they were coached to ignore all our multiple looks and motion as "so much arm waving" and that our plays were actually easy to predict and defend. Thus we were both "overly complicated" and "predictable" the worst of both.<br /><br />I think that was less true this year, we were less predictable even though we "simplified" somewhat. However, our being second in the nation in penalty yardage (mostly on offense) is indicative of something.<br /><br />I agree about the OL. I give Tedford credit for trying to adapt to the lack of an OL this year (and next?) but he is clearly not in his element. He is just not an out of the box thinker like Chip Kelly.<br /><br />As an analogy: Lincoln went through many different generals who tried to out-strategize Lee, who had finished first in his class at West Point, before he ended up with Grant, who had finished last in that same class. Grant didn't try to out-think Lee--he simply used the North's overwhelming numerical and material superiority to go straight at Lee and turn every battle into a bloodbath that he would eventually prevail in. Tedford is like Grant, give him a superior line and a power back and he knows what to do with them.