mvargus;842369859 said:

---

The screen passes worked because the DBs were playing off to try to take away the big play on a slant or go route. Kaufman clearly would rather give up 9 yards to a screen pass than try to play tight coverage so the DBs can get around blockers only to have the QB throw over the coverage to a receiver on a go route. This makes a lot of sense with our thin secondary. Teams can easily move the ball from 20 to 20, but once the field gets tighter its easier for Kaufman to play the secondary to stop the pass and still have them able to support against the run. This is part of why Cal is #3 in the conference in Red Zone Defense, and has successfully turned away 5 red zone trips and forced another 3 to be for field goals only.

The running by the QB has been due to the fact that the LBs are dropping a deep in pass coverage and by the time the QB is forced to scramble there tends to be a huge hole for them to run into. We could leave a LB to "spy" but that weakens the pass coverage. It's a case of deciding what "poison" to take. Kaufman wants to big plays and will risk having teams march down the field on us. For us right now, its probably the best choice.

---

I am not so sure about some of that. Go watch the AZ game if you can or even this last game. We have a defender there, but they don't make the play. Whether they are easily blocked by WRs or just missing tackles. On 3rd and 9 or 3rd and 10 they should not be able to get multiple first downs via a screen pass or QB run. They should not get completely faked out by the QBs when they run. I understand the bend, but don't break.. However there is no excuse to not come up and make those plays at least a few times. When in space we don't tackle very well at all. The only play I can think of that we really made in space was the last play where the QB was out there alone and Jefferson flew to the QB while Lowe came in and finished it. In my opinion anyways.

BeachyBear;842369848 said:

---

Okay, but a lot of this is because of the nature of the jobs he's taken. He likes to take poor defenses and turn them around, which of course will make his numbers look bad. Given the trajectory of this defense and the problems we've been having, it's safe to say a lot of the issues on defense were not on Buh. But the things that were on Buh were bad (the PSU debacle was a classic example - no excuse for that). Our defense in 2012 was also bad, and most of that was not on Pendy (though he would get consistently outschemed by spread offenses for some reason, which was frustrating).

2012 was mostly bad luck and morale issues. 2013 was bad luck, bad coaching and morale issues. 2014 is setting the foundation for a good defense. The schemes seem pretty good, the players are in much better position than 2013, but we struggle with depth and talent gaps. Kaufman is doing the right things to turn the d around, but it's going to take work. And... we're winning. And the defense sometimes steps up (which is never did in 2013 and rarely did in 2012). Much like last year's offense, I see things that tell me we're on the right path, even if the stat line says otherwise. I see signs of strength in this defense, which I saw none of last year and very little of in 2012. And in terms of professionalism, Kaufman is head and shoulders about the last two. I have no doubt he'll turn this defense around.

---

Good summary
Kaufman and his staff are doing a good job finding players among those who have previously been overlooked:
Piatt, for instance. Our DBs' youth and inexperience are only solved by playing.

NYCGOBEARS;842369780 said:

---

How do you scheme with a lack of talent, depth and experience?

---

The word coming into this off season was that we were getting all those injured players back, all those JC transfers solved the depth/experience issues (other than S), the guys who were thrown into the mix last season now were experienced players, we were improved, the system was simpler and better, and the guys were incredibly well conditioned because they were in the system for more than a full season. Fast forward 3 games and we can't play into the 4th quarter against Arizona because of fatigue and have a lack of talent/depth. Please.

tequila4kapp;842369882 said:

---

The word coming into this off season was that we were getting all those injured players back, all those JC transfers solved the depth/experience issues (other than S), the guys who were thrown into the mix last season now were experienced players, we were improved, the system was simpler and better, and the guys were incredibly well conditioned because they were in the system for more than a full season. Fast forward 3 games and we can't play into the 4th quarter against Arizona because of fatigue and have a lack of talent/depth. Please.

---

We are 3-1. You're welcome.

tequila4kapp;842369882 said:

---

The word coming into this off season was that we were getting all those injured players back, all those JC transfers solved the depth/experience issues (other than S), the guys who were thrown into the mix last season now were experienced players, we were improved, the system was simpler and better, and the guys were incredibly well conditioned because they were in the system for more than a full season. Fast forward 3 games and we can't play into the 4th quarter against Arizona because of fatigue and have a lack of talent/depth. Please.

---

Oh yeah we look just as bad as last year... You are right we haven't gotten better. :facepalm

And that was 105 points by 2 of the least fearsome QBs in the PAC12. We're better; how much remains to be seen.

NYCGOBEARS;842369889 said:

---

We are 3-1. You're welcome.

---

jamonit;842369933 said:

---

Oh yeah we look just as bad as last year... You are right we haven't gotten better. :facepalm

---

Don't be "that guy". Of course we are 3-1 and of course that's great. But the context of the discussion is the defense.

We are a quarter of the way into the season. Players are back from injury. We had another recruiting class and it had a bunch of JC players. Buh and others were replaced. Yet we just gave up 105 points in 2 games to Zona and Colorado. I don't think the defense gave up that many in back to back games ever last year (107 to tOSU & Oregon, but my recollection is there were non offensive TD's scored in those games). Is it really better? Is it so much better that this discussion is unwarranted?

Edit: In the interest of short circuiting any "negabear" accusations, the Offense looks WAY better.

kaufman has them believing in themselves that is more than half the battle imo ...

and after that goaline stand help get the win ... you can not tell any of the defensive players kaufman is any less that god sent ...

keep on doubting .. the pac12 is full of good QB's from top to bottom!! goff record was 1-11 but still he was a obviously a good young QB .. the pac12 is definitely the best conference out of the big 5 when considering QB's hands down

59bear;842369978 said:

---

And that was 105 points by 2 of the least fearsome QBs in the PAC12. We're better; how much remains to be seen.

---

Liufau was a higher rated QB than Goff last season and finished with a QBR 7 points higher than Goff. He was not one of the "least fearsome QBs" Wilson at Utah and Hogan from Stanford were much lower rated last season.

Solomon was already putting up Madden type numbers in the first 3 games of the season even before Arizona faced Cal. The TD numbers weren't all there because Zona was so dominant on the ground in a couple of those games, but the rest of the Pac-12 is talking about him as being a star for the future.

I do believe that Cal will have to score 50+ to win most of their remaining games, but that is achievable.

Maybe that's why Kaufman made that comment of coming to Cal because of "Goff". He knows that his job isn't to have the opposition score low, just to score lower than Goff and Co.

tequila4kapp;842369993 said:

---

Don't be "that guy". Of course we are 3-1 and of course that's great. But the context of the discussion is the defense.

We are a quarter of the way into the season. Players are back from injury. We had another recruiting class and it had a bunch of JC players. Buh and others were replaced. Yet we just gave up 105 points in 2 games to Zona and Colorado. I don't think the defense gave up that many in back to back games ever last year (107 to tOSU & Oregon, but my recollection is there were non offensive TD's scored in those games). Is it really better? Is it so much better that this discussion is unwarranted?

Edit: In the interest of short circuiting any "negabear" accusations, the Offense looks WAY better.

---

I am not saying you are a negabear... I am saying come on that is crazy. We have given up a lot of points the last 2 weeks, but you can't see a better defense? Look at our 3rd down percentage for the season, our passer rating against, our yards per play, etc. Are we a good Def no... Do we need a lot of work yes, but compared to last year it is a huge difference. We actually stop the run. As a matter of fact the last 3 games the teams leading rushers have been the teams QBs! Think about that. Last year we couldn't stop anyone running the ball and now good teams can't run on us... Well except their QBs. Huge improvement.

Also lets look at the last 2 games compared to last years games... We have been way up and/or in a tight battle the whole way with both those teams. They have gone full throttle on offense the entire game and warp drive near the end of games. They had to throw 74 times and 64 times in those games. Last year most games teams were running out the clock with a huge lead which is why they didn't continue to keep scoring against us. Our Def last year we horrendous. This year has been way way better... of course it still has a ways ways to go.

our dbs will get better and hopefully the hard knocks start paying off .... as the season goes they will get better ..need lil more help on the pass rush ..

6bear6;842369827 said:

---

AZ killed us with slants. Col used screens. In both instances, we played off the WRs. BBDB.

---

In many cases we actually played press coverage against CU and still got burned on slants and especially stick routes. CU was able to take what we gave them.

jamonit;842369814 said:

---

Really our run DEF has been great and I would even say amazing, BUT we are having a huge issue with QBs running. We bite way to easy on fakes and get left in the dust for runs that result in first downs. Rather than contain the QB and not allow a first down we bite and he is gone. Siemian only positive rushing game of the year with +2 yards including his season long 8 yard (not to mention 17 yard TD where he danced around our defenders for a TD reception), Safron 60 yards which led his team in rushing, Solomon 46 yards which led his team in rushing, Liufau 72 yards which led his team in rushing. Why is that? I mean they are all ok runners with Solomon maybe even better than that, but why? Then I look at 3rd down and long this last game and watch closely. Screen pass, screen pass, short pass, screen pass, etc. and most are picked up for 9+ yards! To me this tells me we aren't a very good in space tackling team. That when players get in space against us we will have issues. If we can some how fix this we will be a good Def with still depth issues imo.

---

Agree about the biting, disagree about the tackling. Tackling is, in general, decent and WAY better than last year. The reason Kaufman is comfortable playing so much man is that he is confident in the defenses ability to make the tackle. For the most part, this has worked. The problem is that WRs are still getting open to make the catch and move the chains.

I think we have played reasonably well against the screen game but have gotten killed by routes that are more downfield: slants, outs, fades, and stick routes. We try to press and they beat us with the go/stick routes. We play soft and they beat us with the slant/crossing routes. Keep in mind that we have been putting the CBs on islands w/o safety help during long stretches of the last two games, probably to deal with the running QB and to free up defenders to bring pressure.

Without the emergence of a serious rush end or rush LB to pressure the QB, we will continue to give up chunks through the air. Some consolation can be gathered by acknowledging that this isn't exactly coming easy to the opposition. They are having to run >100 plays a game to generate the yardage necessary to keep up with our offense. Kaufman has gambled that teams will screw up before putting up points, with mixed results. We haven't provided much resistance, but credit must be given to AZ and CU for rising to the challenge, grinding out long drives, and scoring points.

BerlinerBaer;842370304 said:

---

In many cases we actually played press coverage against CU and still got burned on slants and especially stick routes. CU was able to take what we gave them.



Agree about the biting, disagree about the tackling. Tackling is, in general, decent and WAY better than last year. The reason Kaufman is comfortable playing so much man is that he is confident in the defenses ability to make the tackle. For the most part, this has worked. The problem is that WRs are still getting open to make the catch and move the chains.

I think we have played reasonably well against the screen game but have gotten killed by routes that are more downfield: slants, outs, fades, and stick routes. We try to press and they beat us with the go/stick routes. We play soft and they beat us with the slant/crossing routes. Keep in mind that we have been putting the CBs on islands w/o safety help during long stretches of the last two games, probably to deal with the running QB and to free up defenders to bring pressure.

Without the emergence of a serious rush end or rush LB to pressure the QB, we will continue to give up chunks through the air. Some consolation can be gathered by acknowledging that this isn't exactly coming easy to the opposition. They are having to run >100 plays a game to generate the yardage necessary to keep up with our offense. Kaufman has gambled that teams will screw up before putting up points, with mixed results. We haven't provided much resistance, but credit must be given to AZ and CU for rising to the challenge, grinding out long drives, and scoring points.

---

Good post.

BerlinerBaer;842370304 said:

---

In many cases we actually played press coverage against CU and still got burned on slants and especially stick routes. CU was able to take what we gave them.



Agree about the biting, disagree about the tackling. Tackling is, in general, decent and WAY better than last year. The reason Kaufman is comfortable playing so much man is that he is confident in the defenses ability to make the tackle. For the most part, this has worked. The problem is that WRs are still getting open to make the catch and move the chains.

I think we have played reasonably well against the screen game but have gotten killed by routes that are more downfield: slants, outs, fades, and stick routes. We try to press and they beat us with the go/stick routes. We play soft and they beat us with the slant/crossing routes. Keep in mind that we have been putting the CBs on islands w/o safety help during long stretches of the last two games, probably to deal with the running QB and to free up defenders to bring pressure.

Without the emergence of a serious rush end or rush LB to pressure the QB, we will continue to give up chunks through the air. Some consolation can be gathered by acknowledging that this isn't exactly coming easy to the opposition. They are having to run >100 plays a game to generate the yardage necessary to keep up with our offense. Kaufman has gambled that teams will screw up before putting up points, with mixed results. We haven't provided much resistance, but credit must be given to AZ and CU for rising to the challenge, grinding out long drives, and scoring points.

---

I agree tackling is better, but to me still has a long ways to go especially one on one in space. Very good post. Maybe something young QBs would be better with to take the open WR while older QBs will want bigger plays. Lets see against a SR Holliday this weekend.

QBRs not withstanding, do you think either Liufau or Solomon would start anywhere else in the PAC12 other than, maybe, Utah? Some might say UW, although Liufau wasn't even recruited by the Huskies. I'm not a big Hogan fan but his QBR is influenced by the system in which he plays and he does win, albeit largely because he is supported by a very strong team.

140 pass plays in two games .. is unheard of .. not like the pass defense is experienced 3 games/starts 1 sr ... give it some time and be happy the offense is scoring ..

nobody plays defense ... but glove guys.. and the have yet to play a high powered offense