no, not the Berkeley student body which not doubt is to the left, but the old U$C approach to running the ball

I casually knew a guy who was a backup during the OJ days

I asked him once about the concept of student body left .. as they ran that play or a variation a lot

his response was that "coach felt that you should run few plays that everyone knows very well rather than run a bunch of different plays .. he told me that believe it or not all football players are not super smart (with a laugh, cuz he was pretty bright) and that players had a tendency to get confused and make errors.. using fewer plays decreased the number of errors "

I think JT could learn from this .. we have a complex offense and I see too many mistakes, missed handoffs in the backfield, etc.. one of our key weapons apparently has trouble learning the plays or so I have read .. we have so many penalties, etc.. and I think they are also a function of too complicated an offense ..

perhaps JT is too concerned with being an offensive guru and not concerned enough with results ..

In a way it is frustrating to be back in the position of consistent losing .. but as a long time CAL fan, I know that it seems to be my fate.. entered CAL the year they went to the RB and that has been it .. a few highlights, but no real consistent success ..

If Oregon and Oregon State can be winners .. we should be able to be winners too

damn, I am getting old and may never get that RB before I die

problem ... our OL is like a grade school "student body" ... they get overwhelmed, if they even make contact.

Oakbear;841991466 said:

---

....his response was that "coach felt that you should run few plays that everyone knows very well rather than run a bunch of different plays .. he told me that believe it or not all football players are not super smart (with a laugh, cuz he was pretty bright) and that players had a tendency to get confused and make errors.. using fewer plays decreased the number of errors "

I think JT could learn from this .. we have a complex offense and I see too many mistakes, missed handoffs in the backfield, etc.. one of our key weapons apparently has trouble learning the plays or so I have read .. we have so many penalties, etc.. and I think they are also a function of too complicated an offense ..

perhaps JT is too concerned with being an offensive guru and not concerned enough with results...

---

Lombardi had the same philosophy (do one thing and do it well), but I can't help but think the Game of Football has become so fast and so physical one would still need some degree of Complexity on Offense to fool the Defense.

You have great intentions by asking for simplification and kudos to you for speaking your mind, but Boise State runs stuff on Offense that is just as complex or moreso than anything we're doing.

I still think we have a Teacher Problem (the coaches) and/or Textbook (playbook) and not a Student Problem (the players) that requires gross and outright simplification of the offense for them to execute it.

I guarantee Chris Petersen (fantasy, I know) can install his complex Boise State system over here and, lo and behold, Cal Players would be executing it just fine.

Furthermore, a breakdown in one component (say, the Oline) can have a cascade or catastrophic effect on the rest of the machine (Think of interconnecting gears in a timepiece or a car's transmission) so it's hard to see what's happening in our train-wreck of a season (or past several seasons).

Overall, it's late in the season, JT is too stubborn and dense to change his ways nowadays so I say ride out the storm and hope we can start over somehow.

By the way, yes, I agree with you that "perhaps JT is too concerned with being an offensive guru and not concerned enough with results". We helped create this monster and now we have to deal with it.

I think we need a regime change like the majority of people on this Board. However, I think it's offensive the way some posters have ridiculed Tedford's intelligence. You called him "dense," meaning not really receptive to new ideas or able to digest them. Others have said he's not real smart.

We are talking about a football coach, not a Ph.D. in physics or chemistry. I'm sure JT would the first to agree he is not a genius, even though we thought he was a football genius from '02 through '07. However, it is really beneath us to malign his intelligence. For one thing, we are being inconsistent. To call him dumb, but then accuse him of creating a playbook that takes (Mansion, for one)three years to master indicates he is far from dumb. Second, the guy has engaged in what I would call "continuing education of the coach." He went to WVA when Rodriguez was coaching there and tried to pick up the Spread Offense. He spent time with Urban Meyer and his approach to the game. Recently, he joined up with Belichik to learn greater use of the tight end. All these things point to a guy who is trying to improve his team. It hasn't worked, but you can't claim its from lack of effort.

Maybe we can lay off the intelligence remarks. This is the Cal Board, not the SEC or the Big 12. We're supposed to be classy and intelligent.

Dom:

I think we confuse complexity (as in BSU or Oregon) of individual plays with the complexity of the whole offense. Boise's offense is based on misdirection and complexity, but they don't run half a dozen different types of offense (pro set, west coast, spread, pistol, read option, etc., etc.). I think players can run very complex plays, not just a bazillion different formations where you can only practice a given play a few times.

One of the hallmarks of the Lombardi philosophy (which is still operative even though the kinds of offenses run have changed) was: you know what's coming, but you still can't stop it. Nothing is more demoralizing to a defense. This is essentially what happened with the USC sweeps or Nevada's and Oregon's read option. OTOH, when we run a successful play, it's "well, that worked, so we can't try it again."

USC had much better players than everyone else in the 70s, in particular dominant OL.

If we tried to run the playbook, it would be a disaster. Like Joe Kapp trying to use a late 60s early 70s playbook in 1986.

Tedford is trying to run the offense he was trained to run and teach throughout his whole FB career. It worked for many many years when was a QB coach, and OC, and a HC, so thinks it should work now too. And it probably would work if we had a really good OL, like we did in the first 5-6 years of Tedford's tenure, and how it looks even now against teams with weak DLs.

I really think our problems are not schematic but bad recruiting, which cannot easily be corrected. Moreover, if you are physically overwhelmed by the opposing team, much more likely to try to hold, etc, thus more penalties.

SHPC will fix that when it's done.

RealDrew2;841991579 said:

---

USC had much better players than everyone else in the 70s, in particular dominant OL.

If we tried to run the playbook, it would be a disaster. Like Joe Kapp trying to use a late 60s early 70s playbook in 1986.

Tedford is trying to run the offense he was trained to run and teach throughout his whole FB career. It worked for many many years when was a QB coach, and OC, and a HC, so thinks it should work now too. And it probably would work if we had a really good OL, like we did in the first 5-6 years of Tedford's tenure, and how it looks even now against teams with weak DLs.

I really think our problems are not schematic but bad recruiting, which cannot easily be corrected. Moreover, if you are physically overwhelmed by the opposing team, much more likely to try to hold, etc, thus more penalties.

---

I think "Tedford's offense" when he first came here was "West Coast, pro set, power running game". In the ensuing years, he went in a bit of a different direction, adding in that hybrid-spread stuff, plus experimenting with the wildcat and a bit of option.

Harbaugh, on the other hand, came in and added "overwhelming force at the point of attack" and improved the power running game aspect of the offense.

Damn it, I'm not even much of a 49er fan...

True that we don't have the overwhelming superiority of the 70's USC teams, but our recruiting has consistently been top 15-25 nationally. That should translate into better than a .500 record. Oregon State certainly doesn't outrecruit us, but they consistently outscore us.

Don't confuse complexity with philosophy. Good to great teams usually have a consistent philosophy and may or may not have a lot of complexity.

Boise St has a consistent mis direction run, play action pass offense. They add complexity using different formations, but they run the same basic plays from all of the formations. Same with Nevada's pistol, multiple formations running the same plays. Same with Oregon. Same with Alabama. Same with USC. Same with Stanfurd. Same with pretty much any good team with a consistent philosophy.

They all can practice the basic play and make minor adjustments based off of whatever formation they are in. That's the complexity. One play with 5 different looks with slight variations.

The difference with our offense is we have an inconsistent philosophy (pro style, power running, spread, spread option, pistol) and we have complexity (multiple formations using plays which are non transferable to other formations and/or philosophies). Our players need to learn all of these plays for all of these philosophies and formations. Other schools learn the basic plays then make slight adjustments for different formations. They don't have to worry about different philosophies.

UrsaMajor;841991520 said:

---

Dom:

I think we confuse complexity (as in BSU or Oregon) of individual plays with the complexity of the whole offense. Boise's offense is based on misdirection and complexity, but they don't run half a dozen different types of offense (pro set, west coast, spread, pistol, read option, etc., etc.). I think players can run very complex plays, not just a bazillion different formations where you can only practice a given play a few times."

---

As I understand it Mike Leach has a different take: run a limited number of plays (implying that you practice them and get good at them), but run them from different formations. He considered teaching formations easier because you only have to teach the players different places to line up. Teaching them what to do after the snap was considered the hard part.

Of course, Mike Leach's ideas are not ever considered .... normal? conventional wisdom?

Now on re-reading you comments I realize it is not the multiplicity of formations that is the issue, but the different strategies employed by multiple offensive approaches/styles that generates the complexity.

(since I love reading about great coaches):

Lombardi's team ran that sweep play so often and so fast that they used it in place of running sprints for conditioning.

John Madden went to a coaching conference and sat in on a Lombardi led break-out session. He said Lombardi spoke for 8 hours on the details of the Packer sweep.

Lombardi's plays all had a counter-play so that teams couldn't cheat when trying to stop them. The counter to his sweep was the halfback pass.

Lombardi was an old offensive lineman and OL coach. He never coached a team with a bad line.

BTW, Coach Lad coaches the lines at DLS. The lines are the keys to your football team. You better be able to coach them or find someone who can. The OL in particular makes you look like an offensive genius.

UrsaMajor;841991520 said:

---

Dom:

I think we confuse complexity (as in BSU or Oregon) of individual plays with the complexity of the whole offense. Boise's offense is based on misdirection and complexity, but they don't run half a dozen different types of offense (pro set, west coast, spread, pistol, read option, etc., etc.). I think players can run very complex plays, not just a bazillion different formations where you can only practice a given play a few times.

One of the hallmarks of the Lombardi philosophy (which is still operative even though the kinds of offenses run have changed) was: you know what's coming, but you still can't stop it. Nothing is more demoralizing to a defense. This is essentially what happened with the USC sweeps or Nevada's and Oregon's read option. OTOH, when we run a successful play, it's "well, that worked, so we can't try it again."

---

slider643;841991609 said:

---

...The difference with our offense is we have an inconsistent philosophy (pro style, power running, spread, spread option, pistol) and we have complexity (multiple formations using plays which are non transferable to other formations and/or philosophies). Our players need to learn all of these plays for all of these philosophies and formations. Other schools learn the basic plays then make slight adjustments for different formations. They don't have to worry about different philosophies.

---

Valid theories and they make sense. All of this confusion on Offense should be blamed on our resident HC/Offensive Mastermind and rightfully so.

JT (if still employed) would literally have to rip up his old playbook and start over from scratch by hiring a legitimate and proven OC who reflected the ideas (however diverse and complex) he wants to run...even if he had to take a pay-cut in order to finance the new guy's salary.

In other words -- Call in a Pro.

No has said that he deserves the right to carry out his contract no matter what. No one has said that. Some have suggested he might get another year (his contract his much longer than that), in part because his buyout is huge.

the_purple_drank;841992013 said:

---

Personally, I am very well respected and am capable of giving JT the respect he deserves. As far as I'm concerned, JT leaves when he says he wants to leave. None of us are in a position to tell him when to do so."

http://www.bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65679&page=3

Try again.

---

You find one poster who just joined in October with a handful of posts - bravo. Just don't presume that the rest of us, who do respect JT, even if not happy with results the past couple of seasons, share that view. You can respect someone's accomplishments while still questioning whether that person is still the right coach to lead going foward. Not mutually exclusive.

I thought you were about to say the students would not show tomorrow night. Wow, I would think after a tough week of school, some time to party pregame, with Tosh in town, it would be a wonderful way to let off a lot of steam.

6bear6;841991514 said:

---

I think we need a regime change like the majority of people on this Board. However, I think it's offensive the way some posters have ridiculed Tedford's intelligence. You called him "dense," meaning not really receptive to new ideas or able to digest them. Others have said he's not real smart.

We are talking about a football coach, not a Ph.D. in physics or chemistry. I'm sure JT would the first to agree he is not a genius, even though we thought he was a football genius from '02 through '07. However, it is really beneath us to malign his intelligence. For one thing, we are being inconsistent. To call him dumb, but then accuse him of creating a playbook that takes (Mansion, for one)three years to master indicates he is far from dumb. Second, the guy has engaged in what I would call "continuing education of the coach." He went to WVA when Rodriguez was coaching there and tried to pick up the Spread Offense. He spent time with Urban Meyer and his approach to the game. Recently, he joined up with Belichik to learn greater use of the tight end. All these things point to a guy who is trying to improve his team. It hasn't worked, but you can't claim its from lack of effort.

Maybe we can lay off the intelligence remarks. This is the Cal Board, not the SEC or the Big 12. We're supposed to be classy and intelligent.

---

If Tedford was intelligent he would design a playbook that was easy for his players to master, but would confuse the other team, not confuse his own players.
i can't fault his effort, but if he was smart he would have made the things he learned from other coaches work.

student body left/right ... uh, given the academic results and the dismal OL, are there "students" or "bodies" to do that?