After thinking it over, I really think that our offense is only a 2 down offense based on how conservative the play calling and offensive objective of Tedford. Bear with me...


4th down, we will usually punt or kick a field goal (forget 4th down conversions, this concept is foreign)

If we are in 3rd and long, we will usually run the ball up the middle to set up the punt or field goal on 4th down. Agani 3rd down conversions are also a foreign concept based on one of the worst 3rd down conversion rates in Division I.

If we are on 1st or 2nd down and we commit a holding/delay of game or get sacked, etc. forget it, as we will use 2nd down to position 3rd down so that we can punt or kick a field goal.

I know this sounds riduculous, but that is the manifestation of how we play even if on the onset, it is unintentional.

Funny enough I was explaining the EXACT same thing to my friends on Saturday. And it doesn't sound ridiculous, it sounds accurate. What's ridiculous is the fact that this is occuring and the fact that Tedford puts us at this huge disadvantage where we have one less operable down than every other team.

Sulf-fulling prophecy. Tedford plays not to lose, and loses.

He is so fearful of what might happen on 3rd down that he gives it up before it can happen. Ensuring a punt on 4th is high priority.

SFBear2012;841958977 said:

---

Funny enough I was explaining the EXACT same thing to my friends on Saturday. And it doesn't sound ridiculous, it sounds accurate. What's ridiculous is the fact that this is occuring and the fact that Tedford puts us at this huge disadvantage where we have one less operable down than every other team.

---

This is the point I keep making.

Some teams use all four downs. Our predictable run up the middle with Sofele on first is a waste of a down. We set up 3rd down passing situations almost purposely. We have been doing this for years. Maynard and Riley are not good, but our play calling magnifies this. We do not put them in a position to succeed. When we decided not to run on first down what did we do? We go with an empty back field--telling the defense that this time we won't run.

On third and long, sometimes we run a draw, but usually it is mass protect with two receivers running patterns and our QB sitting in a collapsing pocket under an onslaught of blitzers. Occasionally, the defense will change up and drop 8, leaving our QB all the time in the world to try to find one of two options open amid the 8 defenders.

What kills me is that IF by some chance we get a good gain on the first down play and it is 2nd and 1 or 2, instead of using this rare extra down (play action and a deep ball), we follow with a run up the middle for the first down and begin the cycle again.

Playing Bigelow is the simple way around this because he is a home run threat. If he gets the ball on first and second in space (not slamming him into the line behind our weak line like we did with Best) there is a good chance he can get a first or even go all the way and we can avoid third and longs. Hurry up, no huddle featuring lots of tosses to Bigelow (spelled by Sofele and CJ to keep him fresh), mixed in with cutbacks, reverses and play-action passing and Maynard roll-outs could be a very simple but effective offense.

Playing a jumbo offense (in short yardage at least) would also help because we convert those third and shorts that lead to punting on 4th and shorter. Maybe Tedford even gains enough confidence that we go for 4th and shorts.

calumnus;841959003 said:

---

What kills me is that IF by some chance we get a good gain on the first down play and it is 2nd and 1 or 2, instead of using this rare extra down (play action and a deep ball), we follow with a run up the middle for the first down and begin the cycle again.

QUOTE]

That really gets to me too. Another key way we squander downs. Sickening.

This thread highlights what was so great about the game plan in the Ohio State game ... lots of short passes and other quick-developing plays that didn't require a whole ton of deliberation in the pocket (or allow for too much penetration by the d-line). The result: far fewer third-and-longs than we've had in many, many games (and a defense that was off-balance for much of the game). I really wonder why we didn't use a similar strategy against USC.

Cal Bears Great;841959103 said:

---

This thread highlights what was so great about the game plan in the Ohio State game ... lots of short passes and other quick-developing plays that didn't require a whole ton of deliberation in the pocket (or allow for too much penetration by the d-line). The result: far fewer third-and-longs than we've had in many, many games (and a defense that was off-balance for much of the game). I really wonder why we didn't use a similar strategy against USC.

---

+1

The only reasons I can come up with was that the USC defense wasn't allowing it, or that we literally needed everyone back in pass blocking (RBs and TEs) except for Keenan and Treggs. I don't like either of those explanations.

Why wasn't it used against USC? Could it be because USC is considerably better than Ohio State and didn't allow it? All those consecutive years of top 5 recruiting classes, sanctions or no, would led me to believe that just possibly USC might have some talent. Cal would have had to be perfect to overcome the talent difference, and they certainly weren't, regardless of what they tried to do. Really, it came down to line play. USC's lines on both sides of the ball was way better than Cal.