TheSouseFamily;842367604 said:

---

The offense is the least of our concerns!

---

Amen!

MilleniaBear;842368384 said:

---

We are going to need 50+ points a game. My advice to Sonny is to shoot for 60 a game. Even if we have a 4 TD lead - keep the pedal to the floor. We've shown the ability to give up 50.

---

You've got that right!

99 points!!!!!!

Davidson;842368594 said:

---

Andrew luck set the precedence for being projected number one and then coming back to school and still go number 1, he was there what like 5 years?

---

Luck was at Stanfoo for four years.

yea youre right, damn, he was projected #1 as a RS soph? daayaam

Coming from this System, those in the NFL will look at his output differently, than if he produced such numbers in a proset. Right or wrong, that will be a consideration, and a factor in attempting to translate performance at the next level. Extrapolation at QB is considered to be toughest to access (read a good article about draft risk per position). For those who listened to the post-game yesterday, we were reminded of Tim Couch, a prolific Hal Mumme (Father of All Raid Gurus) QB at Kentucky...

There is less perceived risk in taking a prototypical QB who was groomed in a pro-set offense, in a major conference. Such a QB has absorbed a complex, NFL-like playbook, and has learned to carry-out such plays, make reads, change plays, all seemingly in an instinctive manner over his college career. Not saying Goff can't do that of course. Proving it like let's say AR did, Luck, and others, takes-out a lot of the speculation and learning curve...

Lmao kevin hogan over goff in the nfl bc of the offense!

59bear;842368298 said:

---

Maybe. He still hasn't faced a quality defense this year. These run/gun schemes put up pinball game scores but seem to flame out when up against a really good defense. There's a reason for the SEC's ascendancy and it isn't entirely ESPN's self-serving promotion of the league.

---

It's mostly promotion, the P12 actually finished ahead of the SEC last year, according to Sagarin...

TheSouseFamily;842367604 said:

---

The offense is the least of our concerns!

---

The offense is not a problem only because the TFS is working so well.

Cal89;842368729 said:

---

There is less perceived risk in taking a prototypical QB who was groomed in a pro-set offense, in a major conference. Such a QB has absorbed a complex, NFL-like playbook, and has learned to carry-out such plays, make reads, change plays, all seemingly in an instinctive manner over his college career. Not saying Goff can't do that of course. Proving it like let's say AR did, Luck, and others, takes-out a lot of the speculation and learning curve...

---

This is the way the NFL thought five years ago. Since then there's been a flood of "system" QB's who ran simple offenses in college. Most of them were big running threats, but Brandon Weeden and Geno Smith certainly weren't, and they went in the 1st and 2nd rounds respectively. Nick Foles is a more-than-serviceable starting QB in the NFL, and he played for Sonny! This way of thinking is largely over (at least with enough teams to get you drafted), and it's only going to be better. Back in the day the spread was a novelty run by lower tier major conference teams and mid-majors who didn't have athletes. Now USC and Oklahoma do it. Their guys are going to (and already do) get drafted, and all this system non-sense will fade away. The NFL has to work with what the colleges are giving them, after all.

tommie317;842367905 said:

---

Retire the rubenzer run and I'm good

---

Disagree. LR got a great 30 yd run from the end zone in the 2d Qtr. To bad it was called back on a penalty. But I agree that LR should be allowed to pass sometimes on a play action pass.

Hogan is no Luck, that's for sure. But if he continues his current decent to good productivity, even with the non-quick release, he's apt to get drafted, and probably higher than most would expect.

berk18;842368787 said:

---

This is the way the NFL thought five years ago. Since then there's been a flood of "system" QB's who ran simple offenses in college. Most of them were big running threats, but Brandon Weeden and Geno Smith certainly weren't, and they went in the 1st and 2nd rounds respectively. Nick Foles is a more-than-serviceable starting QB in the NFL, and he played for Sonny! This way of thinking is largely over (at least with enough teams to get you drafted), and it's only going to be better. Back in the day the spread was a novelty run by lower tier major conference teams and mid-majors who didn't have athletes. Now USC and Oklahoma do it. Their guys are going to (and already do) get drafted.

---

berk18, just saw your post...

Indeed times have changed. Chip is coaching in the NFL by golly! His O is actually doing pretty well too. I remain totally open to change and as stated upon SD's hire and TF who soon followed, I've totally embraced the concept, and hope the TFS can excel here, and there are signs that it will...

While Weeden and Smith got the vote of confidence (the high selection), their production unfortunately makes one wonder if that was indeed the right choice. They have more INTs than TDs and have been generally quite poor...

I think we all want to see Goff not just get drafted, which he clearly will at this pace, but excel at the next level. When the spread is prevalent and proven in the NFL, I imagine the segue to Sunday play will be much easier and seen as a less risky pick.

Leave it to the Niners of old to buck this trend and take Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers. After watching Rodgers today you have to wonder what kind of numbers he would have put up in the TFS. As Tedford once said, he's got all the balls.

Cal89;842368729 said:

---

Coming from this System, those in the NFL will look at his output differently, than if he produced such numbers in a proset. Right or wrong, that will be a consideration, and a factor in attempting to translate performance at the next level. Extrapolation at QB is considered to be toughest to access (read a good article about draft risk per position). For those who listened to the post-game yesterday, we were reminded of Tim Couch, a prolific Hal Mumme (Father of All Raid Gurus) QB at Kentucky...

There is less perceived risk in taking a prototypical QB who was groomed in a pro-set offense, in a major conference. Such a QB has absorbed a complex, NFL-like playbook, and has learned to carry-out such plays, make reads, change plays, all seemingly in an instinctive manner over his college career. Not saying Goff can't do that of course. Proving it like let's say AR did, Luck, and others, takes-out a lot of the speculation and learning curve...

---

Davidson;842368602 said:

---

Well afaik goffs dad played baseball at cal and in the majors. My gut tells me he is quite proud and will push him towards a professional career

---

Goff needs to bulk to play in the NFL. Gain a little more muscle mass and weight. I can see Goff staying for the fourth to be more prepared for the NFL strength and endurance wise. Take the longer view and reduce the risk of early injury in the NFL.

What he should do, if he's able, is to maneuver himself to a team with a decent O line.

82gradDLSdad;842368906 said:

---

Leave it to the Niners of old to buck this trend and take Alex Smith over Aaron Rodgers. After watching Rodgers today you have to wonder what kind of numbers he would have put up in the TFS. As Tedford once said, he's got all the balls.

---

I watched AR today, and it was a true pleasure, as usual. Nearly 80% today, and so many times his receivers were tightly covered, yet he puts it right there, where it has to be. With his accuracy and decision-making, one can only imagine what his numbers would be in the TFS...

Davidson;842368731 said:

---

Lmao kevin hogan over goff in the nfl bc of the offense!

---

who said that ? step far away from what ever helped / hindered you 2 make that decision the game is changing by the minute

UCBerkGrad;842368227 said:

---

5th in the nation in scoring? Yeah, I'll take that.

---

where did Cal rank in 2013.

HoopDreams;842368593 said:

---

Everything is 20-20 in hindsight and I wonder how some would feel if we missed the FG and lost in the 3 rd OT?

But for myself I liked the play calling yesterday and in general, except for when we've used Luke in key situations

We have a star QB, the best group of WR in the Pac12 and two RBs that are showing they can get it done, and you give the ball to a freshmen who is one dimensional ?

A like that franklin allows goff to be a gun slinger as he calls some very gutsy plays

Overall I'd give him an A- on play calling

---

I disagree that Luke is one dimensional. He has a good arm as shown in the Sac State game and in his HS playing. But for some reason he is rarely called on to pass. IMO if he were used in a play-action-pass situation, the play could-go-all-the-way since the D would be jamming the line of scrimmage expecting a run.

Davidson;842368604 said:

---

Whatever happens happens im just glad we are having this discussion versus our usual "play the backup!!!!!" discussion

---

"Bring back Kline":p

rjgoode;842368156 said:

---

An example of 'scheme' beating a defense was Colorado's first TD. That formation confused the hell out of us and led to an easy TD. That's scheme.

---

The formation confused the hell out of us because it was illegal. What the Buffs were trying to do was to use an unbalanced formation to spring their TE. Sonny and Tony have been using a variety of unbalanced formations to confuse defenses going all the way back to their LA Tech days (including Lasco's long TD run against UA a week ago), so actually, they're doing exactly what Colorado did on that TD, but they're doing it better.

Don't let the rhetoric of simplicity fool you. At the end of the day we're still playing match-up football. Treggs' TD in the first OT was a perfect example. The play was a perfectly common 4-vertical route (basically: Everybody run downfield). We knew their trips adjustment, though, so we ran it from trips instead of out of 2x2. This resulted in the safety covering the inside man to the trips side, leaving Treggs 1-on-1 against a DB with awful leverage. We didn't just say "Aw shucks we need a lot of yards. Let's run 4-verts and count on our guy to win!" We have a few concepts that we can tag into a bunch of variations depending on what we need. Other teams run a bunch of different concepts with fewer variations, so each concept is more highly specialized.

goldenokiebear;842368392 said:

---

Agree completely with this.

---

That throw to Khalfani under the heavy blitz was an NFL throw.

GivemTheAxe;842368948 said:

---

I disagree that Luke is one dimensional. He has a good arm as shown in the Sac State game and in his HS playing. But for some reason he is rarely called on to pass. IMO if he were used in a play-action-pass situation, the play could-go-all-the-way since the D would be jamming the line of scrimmage expecting a run.

---

D's think they see a pattern with Luke. Tony will surprise them. Luke is not one-dimensional.
When the game needs to be established, or is close, then it's obviously all Goff.
They won't all be like the last two.

So after the great 3-1 start, have the Negative Nancy's eaten their humble pie regarding the staff, or do they suffer amnesia?

Recruiting is probably indescribably easier now. An over-.500 record is clearly tangible, and Sandy has probably not heard any boo birds lately.

txwharfrat;842368959 said:

---

That throw to Khalfani under the heavy blitz was an NFL throw.

---

looked even better on the replay. ball went farther than I thought it did live, and had incredible zip for being thrown off your back foot with defenders in your face.

CalFish;842368541 said:

---

If you have a good-to-great chance of getting drafted in Round 1, you go. Come back for your degree after you finish your career in the NFL.

---

Andrew Luck is your exception he was ready & would have gone in rd one but opted to graduate & then went to Colts in first round.Would be great for Goff to do that.

movielover;842369056 said:

---

So after the great 3-1 start, have the Negative Nancy's eaten their humble pie regarding the staff, or do they suffer amnesia?

Recruiting is probably indescribably easier now. An over-.500 record is clearly tangible, and Sandy has probably not heard any boo birds lately.

---

This staff deserves credit, and has gotten it from me, and I believe most here. That does not change the fact that the grief they got last season was well-deserved and merited too.

It things continue, our winning ways, in the back half the schedule, extension talk will surface, and most would feel it justified. If things go way south, namely the offensive production against tougher Ds, there will definitely be expressed concerns about the viability of the TFS, and possibly calls for a change at HC.

This isn't about blind support, or about being in attack mode no matter what, at least it shouldn't be. Some apparently put such righteousness before being a true fan.

These are paid professionals that need to deliver, now. Ideally, we should have seen some form of improvement over the 2013 season. I was supportive from the get-go with this staff, even while others were not. I wanted to see some type of improvement, even spelling-out what would be nice to see, comparing the first 4 games, to the next and last 4. It just didn't happen last season...

We come-out in 2014 with our pants on fire, and this offense has looked spectacular most of the time. Seeking signs of improvement, we have gotten it, finally. The more critical folks will point-out that our schedule has been conducive to such though. I just know that we didn't do this well last year though, not matter the competition, so I remain hopeful...

We don't have bottom of the conference talent here. And this scheme should not mandate top 10 classes, I would think / hope. Oregon and even Stanford experienced fantastic success without such elite classes. I recall the Duck classes over several years averaging around 15 to 17...

No one is going to take Cal lightly now. Whatever wins we get will not be via surprise, if that was the case before. The rubber hits the road in October and November. My primary concerns is us having time to go deep as we have been successfully a few times a game. If the pressure picks-up, things often change for the worse. As I had stated before, some teams or their QBs are unphased by pressure and sacks as they are seemingly accustomed to it. UCLA and Hundley once again are atop the conference in sacks per attempted pass. Mariotta is there too (3rd), yet these guys / teams are battle-tested to deal with such pressure and deliver results. Toss-in what should be tighter man coverage, and probably less separation for our receivers, the open windows will probably not be as big or as often. Can't wait to see us rise to the challenge and deliver though!

movielover;842369056 said:

---

So after the great 3-1 start, have the Negative Nancy's eaten their humble pie regarding the staff, or do they suffer amnesia?

Recruiting is probably indescribably easier now. An over-.500 record is clearly tangible, and Sandy has probably not heard any boo birds lately.

---

So true. Recruits want to come to Cal. Abysmal football is the main hindrance. Compared to last year, looks like we might be heading in the right direction.

59bear;842368563 said:

---

Florida, Auburn and ATM all run (or ran) similar systems but only ATM was as pass reliant as we are. Florida in the Meyer years and Auburn (even with Newton) were much more balanced between pass and run, largely because their QBs were very good runners. Most SEC teams have a more balanced run/pass distribution and the good ones have sturdier defenses. I repeat, we have not faced a good defense yet. When that happens, I suspect our run game drops way off and our pass game will be more severely tested. We are significantly improved over last year; we also have played, arguably, 4 of the five most beatable teams on our schedule.

---

This year Cal has run 165 times and passed 140 times ... guess you missed that... oooppsss

jamonit;842369123 said:

---

This year Cal has run 165 times and passed 140 times ... guess you missed that... oooppsss

---

wow did not know that .... well that has to be good thing .. teams know we can run and will run and of we can pass a lil bit too

Facts are a distraction.

Go!Bears;842367625 said:

---

Serious question: How much of the D's trouble is attributable to an offense that works very quickly?

---

Against CU? Pretty much none. Our defense looked poor from the get-go, and that wasn't on Franklin, no matter how you spin it.

I wish the offense was perfect, too. That isn't going to happen. We were very mistake-prone last season and looked like a mixed bag on offense. This year we get it right much more than not, and we're much better. There's room for improvement, but when you're averaging over 45 points a game... not a whole lot.

Defense, OTOH... LOTS of upside

Had 7 TDs but missed about 3 more lol

Cal89;842368729 said:

---

Coming from this System, those in the NFL will look at his output differently, than if he produced such numbers in a proset. Right or wrong, that will be a consideration, and a factor in attempting to translate performance at the next level. Extrapolation at QB is considered to be toughest to access (read a good article about draft risk per position). For those who listened to the post-game yesterday, we were reminded of Tim Couch, a prolific Hal Mumme (Father of All Raid Gurus) QB at Kentucky...

There is less perceived risk in taking a prototypical QB who was groomed in a pro-set offense, in a major conference. Such a QB has absorbed a complex, NFL-like playbook, and has learned to carry-out such plays, make reads, change plays, all seemingly in an instinctive manner over his college career. Not saying Goff can't do that of course. Proving it like let's say AR did, Luck, and others, takes-out a lot of the speculation and learning curve...

---

If the above is so important, why did so many teams (not just the Niners) take a pass on AR?