While the injury excuse is seemingly a good one, how much was coaching/motivation and how much was just bad luck?


For example, we had guys out like AS with a torn Achilles tendon. That is not an injury that you can "play through" obviously. We had several of those... Simply bad luck injuries.

However, IIRC, we also had some injuries that maybe could have been listed as "playing hurt" in other environments.

What drives this question is Dykes' own comments about injury and playing hurt vs being injured and him thinking the team lacked toughness mid season.


I dont think posting a list of injuries and players is helpful (ie pointing the finger at individuals), but I think it is an interesting question...


How injured were we this year, and how much of it was a lack of motivation to return to the field?

I think a fair amount of both. Many injuries we had were reoccurring in nature and often when your having a losing season you won't rush back to play. There's a ton of gray area here so I don't know how much insight we can really give as observers. Only the players and coaches really know.

I like how we use injuries as an excuse, even though we suffered few offensive injuries this year yet we still couldn't put points on the board.

Calling-in sick, when one really is not, or well enough to trek in, but chooses not to...

From that perspective, and not all that different, research has found "opportunities" for employers to improve the workplace environment and management.

If work or any endeavor is not fun, rewarding, somehow satiating, some will find ways to avoid or minimize the exposure.

Maybe some of that applies here...

pingpong2;842233892 said:

---

I like how we use injuries as an excuse, even though we suffered few offensive injuries this year yet we still couldn't put points on the board.

---

Injuries to the Oline was significant (1st and 2nd string centers, was also the starting RG) and required movement which stunted their growth.

Davidson;842233903 said:

---

Injuries to the Oline was significant (1st and 2nd string centers, was also the starting RG) and required movement which stunted their growth.

---

Yeah but that doesn't explain why our passing game was anemic even though the protection was decent.

perhaps he should have gave tyndall a chance once he came back from injury early season. supposedly he was our best spring o-lineman and especially once they moved freddie off of tackle

I didn't realize there were so many skilled diagnosticians on the board...

pingpong2;842233909 said:

---

Yeah but that doesn't explain why our passing game was anemic even though the protection was decent.

---

Run blocking was pretty bad before the change-over, which affects the passing game...negatively.

Also, protection was spotty at best...imo of course.

maxer;842233916 said:

---

I didn't realize there were so many skilled diagnosticians on the board...

---

It is a question of how significant it may be; no one has pointed the finger on this board and Dykes, perhaps the man with the most information, had made the claim. So, on this board, and in this thread we are using the information the Head Coach gave us. I have yet to see any speculation on this board regarding an individual.


I am curious what your aversion to the discussion is?

pingpong2;842233909 said:

---

Yeah but that doesn't explain why our passing game was anemic even though the protection was decent.

---

Protection wasn't that good. We threw a lot of quick passes to minimize QB hits, but on long-developing plays Goff was usually pressured.

sycasey;842233983 said:

---

Protection wasn't that good. We threw a lot of quick passes to minimize QB hits, but on long-developing plays Goff was usually pressured.

---

Only Washington and UCLA gave up more sacks and the numbers don't tell the whole story because if you watched the games you saw that Goff and Kline were often running for their lives. Rarely was there even a pocket to throw out of.

Cal89;842233897 said:

---

Calling-in sick, when one really is not, or well enough to trek in, but chooses not to...

From that perspective, and not all that different, research has found "opportunities" for employers to improve the workplace environment and management.

If work or any endeavor is not fun, rewarding, somehow satiating, some will find ways to avoid or minimize the exposure.

Maybe some of that applies here...

---

+1

dimitrig;842234165 said:

---

Only Washington and UCLA gave up more sacks and the numbers don't tell the whole story because if you watched the games you saw that Goff and Kline were often running for their lives. Rarely was there even a pocket to throw out of.

---

When a team throws the ball more often, there are more opportunities for sacks. With that in-mind, sacks per attempts is the measurement to employ, Cal is in the middle of the conference. Six or seven other conference teams are sacked more often Cal QB's...

Similarly, people say how many INT Goff's has thrown, again, the same principle. Per attempt, he's in the top 1/3 in the conference for fewest INT's.

The same logic explains the massive passing yards accumulated. A lot of passes, the most in Cal history. The yards are simply explained via the attempts. Maynard would have broken the record too, actually sooner, with that many attempts...

maxer;842233916 said:

---

I didn't realize there were so many skilled diagnosticians on the board...

---

+1
Great diagnosis here with the exeption of self diagnosis of course.

Cal89;842234200 said:

---

When a team throws the ball more often, there are more opportunities for sacks. With that in-mind, sacks per attempts is the measurement to employ, Cal is in the middle of the conference. Six or seven other conference teams are sacked more often Cal QB's...

Similarly, people say how many INT Goff's has thrown, again, the same principle. Per attempt, he's in the top 1/3 in the conference for fewest INT's.

The same logic explains the massive passing yards accumulated. A lot of passes, the most in Cal history. The yards are simply explained via the attempts. Maynard would have broken the record too, actually sooner, with that many attempts...

---

I think Goff was pretty good at not throwing INTs, but I disagree that the offensive line was mediocre. The line broke down very very frequently. Cal did not have many sacks per passing play because the QBs were able to get the ball away quickly, but for short yardage or even a loss. There was very little time to throw. Even adjusting for pass attempts it is clear the pass protection was not good and this was reflected in the terrible pass efficiency and perhaps even the number of fumbles (most in the Pac-12).

dimitrig;842234379 said:

---

I think Goff was pretty good at not throwing INTs, but I disagree that the offensive line was mediocre. The line broke down very very frequently. Cal did not have many sacks per passing play because the QBs were able to get the ball away quickly, but for short yardage or even a loss. There was very little time to throw. Even adjusting for pass attempts it is clear the pass protection was not good and this was reflected in the terrible pass efficiency and perhaps even the number of fumbles (most in the Pac-12).

---

Cal had the typical ratio of hurries and hits in relation to sacks. I had taken notes of such in many games. Sacks is a very good measure of QB measure. The pressure felt by our QB's was about average this year in our conference, as revealed by the stats, and much less than last year's Cal team, also by the stats. Last year, we endured 40 sacks on 366 attempts. This year just 34 sacks on a ridiculous 622 attempts. We threw the ball like over 70% more this year and had fewer sacks.

Interestingly, CO's true freshman QB was afforded the best protection of any conference QB with at least 100 attempts. Huge kudos to Mac and the Buff as they allowed 50 sacks last season, this season, with a game left, just 17. Wow, that's some serious improvement.

Cal89;842234452 said:

---

Cal had the typical ratio of hurries and hits in relation to sacks.

---

Are you kidding me?! Go back and rewatch.

dimitrig;842234581 said:

---

Are you kidding me?! Go back and rewatch.

---

I don't kid about the team and the school I love. I re-watch all games. Thanks for snide comment though.

I'd venture to guess you don't log such stats. I posted on this topic before, and have stated such...

A statement was made that our pass protection was not good, with the number of sacks provided as evidence. Cal actually leads the conference in total sacks allowed, of course with other teams still having a game left, but UCLA or ASU might catch us. So, a slight error in someone's earlier post...

Our pass protection in the form of sacks allowed per pass attempts, as judged against the rest of our conference, the teams we play against, is average. The LA schools, UW, ASU are examples of teams who have their QB's sacked more often than we do.

QB hits, year in and year out, this number is generally 1.5-2x the number of sacks. QB hurries a game, typically around 2-4x the number of sacks. So, if a QB is sacked 3x in a game, it would not be uncommon to see 5 to 6 hits on him and around 9 hurries too. These numbers hold pretty well in most cases; and that is what I saw with our team...

Compared to last year, when I recall no one wanting to defend our coaching staff, offensive system and QB, Maynard was under a lot more pressure. Cal QB's in 2012 were sacked on average every 9 to 10 pass attempts! This year, it was double that at 18+ pass attempts for a sack...

The OL's production seemingly improved near the end of the season. Even our rushing numbers picked-up. Our top 3 RB's (based upon carries) all finished the year with an average per rush between 4-6 yards.

Cal89;842234623 said:

---

I don't kid about the team and the school I love. I re-watch all games. Thanks for snide comment though.

I'd venture to guess you don't log such stats. I posted on this topic before, and have stated such...

A statement was made that our pass protection was not good, with the number of sacks provided as evidence. Cal actually leads the conference in total sacks allowed, of course with other teams still having a game left, but UCLA or ASU might catch us. So, a slight error in someone's earlier post...

Our pass protection in the form of sacks allowed per pass attempts, as judged against the rest of our conference, the teams we play against, is average. The LA schools, UW, ASU are examples of teams who have their QB's sacked more often than we do.

QB hits, year in and year out, this number is generally 1.5-2x the number of sacks. QB hurries a game, typically around 2-4x the number of sacks. So, if a QB is sacked 3x in a game, it would not be uncommon to see 5 to 6 hits on him and around 9 hurries too. These numbers hold pretty well in most cases; and that is what I saw with our team...

Compared to last year, when I recall no one wanting to defend our coaching staff, offensive system and QB, Maynard was under a lot more pressure. Cal QB's in 2012 were sacked on average every 9 to 10 pass attempts! This year, it was double that at 18+ pass attempts for a sack...

The OL's production seemingly improved near the end of the season. Even our rushing numbers picked-up. Our top 3 RB's (based upon carries) all finished the year with an average per rush between 4-6 yards.

---

Well done.

Yeah, I thought out pass pro (minus furd) looked a bit better towards the latter half of the season. However, I imagine our yards per reception is low. In this offense we throw a lot passes for no gain whereas the typical run based system would have little or yards gained on a rush.

Last year, we had a lot of 3rd and longs which probably contributed to sacks. In this offense we get a reception but it's 5 yards shy of first down.

Cal89;842234623 said:

---

I don't kid about the team and the school I love. I re-watch all games. Thanks for snide comment though.

I'd venture to guess you don't log such stats. I posted on this topic before, and have stated such...

A statement was made that our pass protection was not good, with the number of sacks provided as evidence. Cal actually leads the conference in total sacks allowed, of course with other teams still having a game left, but UCLA or ASU might catch us. So, a slight error in someone's earlier post...

Our pass protection in the form of sacks allowed per pass attempts, as judged against the rest of our conference, the teams we play against, is average. The LA schools, UW, ASU are examples of teams who have their QB's sacked more often than we do.

QB hits, year in and year out, this number is generally 1.5-2x the number of sacks. QB hurries a game, typically around 2-4x the number of sacks. So, if a QB is sacked 3x in a game, it would not be uncommon to see 5 to 6 hits on him and around 9 hurries too. These numbers hold pretty well in most cases; and that is what I saw with our team...

Compared to last year, when I recall no one wanting to defend our coaching staff, offensive system and QB, Maynard was under a lot more pressure. Cal QB's in 2012 were sacked on average every 9 to 10 pass attempts! This year, it was double that at 18+ pass attempts for a sack...

The OL's production seemingly improved near the end of the season. Even our rushing numbers picked-up. Our top 3 RB's (based upon carries) all finished the year with an average per rush between 4-6 yards.

---

Our pass protection was not good. VERY not good. Spin it however you want.

dimitrig;842234683 said:

---

Our pass protection was not good. VERY not good. Spin it however you want.

---

Unfortunately it's your talk that = spin. That is why I use metrics. Come back with some objectivity. Until then...

Better yet ask Goff re his OL. I am really surprised that he survived the many big hits he took (both before and after getting rid of the ball) until the Furd game. Unless the OL improves drastically, Goff will be missing a lot more games in future seasons.

dimitrig;842234581 said:

---

Are you kidding me?! Go back and rewatch.

---

Yeah forget about data. We had more sacks and pressures than all the teams that had more sacks and pressures than we did. I seen it me self.

Here's a clue guys. Our entire blocking scheme is around pass protection. That and general incompetence is why we stink at running.

And the reason we have quick passes is not because we are hurried. It is what the offense is designed to do. In fact, some of the hurries are by design also.

Sorry, but it is amazing sometimes how little people actually know about the scheme they defend. People still think we are running Oregon's offense.