we'll not going to be able to use the same defensive strategy against the ducks

if ucla shredded us with their screen passes, I will have to cover my eyes when the ducks throw the same screen passes on Friday

Ducks are going to shred our defense. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Question is:

Does our offense have a chance?

dimitrig;842384887 said:

---

Ducks are going to shred our defense. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Question is:

Does our offense have a chance?

---

Oregon receivers hold their blocks for 2 more seconds than any other team in FBS which springs their backs/receivers. Whether they do it legally is another question.

KoreAmBear;842384895 said:

---

Oregon receivers hold their blocks for 2 more seconds than any other team in FBS which springs their backs/receivers. Whether they do it legally is another question.

---

Receivers are allowed to block?!

Still don't have the horses in the secondary to stop this consistently. Someone needs to be able to shed a blocker or someone who isn't being blocked needs to diagnose quickly and get over there to stop the receiver. Our guys aren't good enough to do that yet.

Hold being the operative word?

This isn't a philosophical question this is a very practical question. If what they are doing (both on the field and in the back room with the head of the refs) does not draw a flag then it is legal.

KoreAmBear;842384895 said:

---

Oregon receivers hold their blocks for 2 more seconds than any other team in FBS which springs their backs/receivers. Whether they do it legally is another question.

---

HoopDreams;842384886 said:

---

we'll not going to be able to use the same defensive strategy against the ducks

if ucla shredded us with their screen passes, I will have to cover my eyes when the ducks throw the same screen passes on Friday

---

I was wondering if, just once - later in the game, after hanging back so many times - that one of our DBs would line up near scrimmage and risk jumping the screen route. Despite it all, we were still in a position to win the game.

If it doesn't get called its legal. See Yest game against UCLA.

Our DBs don't seem to have the physicality to shed the blocks nor the quickness to avoid them

moonpod;842385164 said:

---

If it doesn't get called its legal. See Yest game against UCLA.

Our DBs don't seem to have the physicality to shed the blocks nor the quickness to avoid them

---

I don't know if I am simply being a homer, but it seemed like they were holding all over the place. That first TD pass by UCLA seemed to have a obvious hold right smack in the middle of the play that didn't get called. But all game long, it looked like their receivers were holding. It would seem impossible to keep a player in check that long. I think in the NFL the flag gets thrown every time on those plays and maybe that is what drives me crazy about the non-calls there. Plus our guys can't seem to do it or get away with it.

NJCalFan;842385194 said:

---

I don't know if I am simply being a homer, but it seemed like they were holding all over the place. That first TD pass by UCLA seemed to have a obvious hold right smack in the middle of the play that didn't get called. But all game long, ituys looked like their receivers were holding. It would seem impossible to keep a player in check that long. I think in the NFL the flag gets thrown every time on those plays and maybe that is what drives me crazy about the non-calls there. Plus our guys can't seem to do it or get away with it.

---

It's easy to a hold a guy that's slower, weaker, and less competitive than you. If our guys were a little stronger or more elusive, they probably would be able to force the holds to extend outside the offender's frames, which would make holding calls more likely.

sycasey;842384898 said:

---

Still don't have the horses in the secondary to stop this consistently. Someone needs to be able to shed a blocker or someone who isn't being blocked needs to diagnose quickly and get over there to stop the receiver. Our guys aren't good enough to do that yet.

---

+1. It was clear that Kaufman was trying to protect McClure and Lowe with the way we were playing pass defense. The only way to easily stop the screen pass is pull the safeties up and have them put in a position where they are having to win 1v1 blocks and tackles. With both Lowe and McClure battered it was clear Kaufman decided he'd rather allow the screens to work for short gains and hope UCLA turned the ball over. They did 3 times and also had a redzone failure. Overall the plan worked better than expected.

It probably won't work as well against Oregon, but we can hope for continued improvement.

fucla played this screen game against the Bears last year in the Rose Bowl as well. Bear DB's never shed the block out there.

Darius White is our biggest CB, and I saw him shed his block once and then was held and induced a flag. You could really see the size difference when a guy like #9 Payton was blocking Cam Walker on a screen.

sycasey;842384898 said:

---

Still don't have the horses in the secondary to stop this consistently. Someone needs to be able to shed a blocker or someone who isn't being blocked needs to diagnose quickly and get over there to stop the receiver. Our guys aren't good enough to do that yet.

---

Even with Seabiscuit, Nashua, and Swaps back there, you don't stop 4 receivers with 3 defenders, or 3 receivers with 2 defenders or 2 receivers with one defender. This has been going on for several games, and we still stick with the same coverage on these obvious screen passes. If each defender is being blocked, it is the easiest thing in the world for the uncovered receiver to waltz on down the field for a nice gain, every single time. Matt Millen pointed this out on the broadcast several times. Maybe the commercial TV broadcasts should be included in all the film the coaches watch, so they could get another opinion. Playing not to get burned deep is just another conservative strategy. It has its value at times, but not as a steady diet. I can't believe we would be worse defensively if we tried to cover these screens instead of trying not to get beat deep. At least we could mix it up, but when we line up on defense with less defenders on one side than there are receivers, we are in deep do-do, as far as defending screens is concerned.

The coverage with the best chance of stopping the screen would've been Cover-1 (Man with a FS deep), which we've run a fair amount in some other games. This was the first game with an obvious BBDB gameplan. In terms of pure X's and O's we had a 3-on-2 advantage over every one of those screens except the jailbreak screen at the end of the 1st half. The problem is the second underneath defender, usually the OLB. If they have two WR's out there, he's the second underneath defender who's matching up. The problem is that, because of the run, we weren't pulling that guy out all the way to the #2 WR, so he had a natural disadvantage against every outside screen. This problem would be partially solved by faster OLB's/guys who took fewer false steps in addition to CB's who could shed better. Put another way, other teams line up in the same way against our screens but blow them up, which we were completely unable to do yesterday. It's also a mystery to me that our safeties couldn't make more of those plays, because that's exactly what they did when UA ran plays like this. Our safeties were surprisingly ineffective against these screens.

The issue in all this is the run, which was also killing us. Hundley's reading those flat defenders (OLB's) pre-snap. If they go outside to match the screen better, he hands off, usually getting 6-7 yards. If they pinch inside, he throws the screen. The OL is run-blocking on every one of those plays. The only real way to combat that would've been Cover-1 nickel. By taking a safety out of deep coverage, we put him over one of the #2 WR's. This means that a LB doesn't have to remove from the box on that side to match numbers, so we can leave 6 men in the box against the run while matching numbers better against the screen. We've run Cover-1 a lot this year, so against UCLA we were probably avoiding it (1) because of our bad tackling in the game, and (2) because of the mobile QB. In Cover-1, since it's straight man coverage, if you miss a tackle it's a huge gain. A more aggressive coverage would've helped the numbers problem against the screen, but putting extra guys out there yields a bigger gain if one of those guys misses the tackle Also, it takes four of your defenders' eyes off the QB and puts a fifth guy (the FS) deep and out of run defense. This is a problem, because we still only have six box defenders against 5 OL + 1 RB + 1 QB. We'd really need a 7-man box to feel great about stopping both Hundley and the RB. We can only get to a 6-man box because of the spread formation, though, so playing zone is intended to limit the run to medium-sized gains when it gets through those six defenders.

In general, our entire gameplan was conservative against UCLA, including punting so often near mid-field. That strategy could very well be why we were close enough to win in the first place, though, so it's hard to say.

Berk, did you like the technique of the CBs? From watching other teams defend the rocket screen it seems like you want a corner to aggressively attack the outside shoulder of the WR blocking. If you the CB makes the tackle great but he at least needs to upfield and force the ball carrier inside. If the do that then you can have the safety and linebacker leverage the ball carrier. Also were our safeties playing really deep (more than 12 yards)?

btsktr;842385686 said:

---

Berk, did you like the technique of the CBs? From watching other teams defend the rocket screen it seems like you want a corner to aggressively attack the outside shoulder of the WR blocking. If you the CB makes the tackle great but he at least needs to upfield and force the ball carrier inside. If the do that then you can have the safety and linebacker leverage the ball carrier. Also were our safeties playing really deep (more than 12 yards)?

---

Regarding CB technique, I'll keep an eye out when I rewatch the game. Live from the stands I did see a few plays where a CB aggressively attacked the blocker as you say, but then there was no second defender anywhere close to make the tackle. In a few games I've noticed problems with our SLB on packaged plays, where he's taking about three steps toward the run while his WR is running a bubble screen or out. Since these packaged plays are reasonably new I don't know how college coaches are coaching their defenders on a play like that, but my guess is that better recognition out there would help a lot. I don't think our safeties were playing especially deep against UCLA, so I don't know why they were so much worse in this game than in past games. Against the exact same action they were hitting UA's WR's for losses. Against UA we really divorced the safeties from run defense. It's possible that we were tying them into our run fits more in this game to stop Perkins (even though we played from the same coverage shell), which would explain the difference.

So....basically it comes down to we are getting handled on the LOS so the coaches don't have any flexibility to help the CBs out all that much leading to the conservative game plan. Which ironically almost worked

moonpod;842385164 said:

---

If it doesn't get called its legal. See Yest game against UCLA.

Our DBs don't seem to have the physicality to shed the blocks nor the quickness to avoid them

---

They have no choice but to lay back and hope for a poor throw.

KoreAmBear;842384895 said:

---

Oregon receivers hold their blocks for 2 more seconds than any other team in FBS which springs their backs/receivers. Whether they do it legally is another question.

---

didn't seem to stop Washington State for most of the game!

Berk
You should get an award for your contribution
The best posts I have seen on any forum
Instead of me scratching my head about what's going wrong, you break it down for us

Anything I can do for you to thank you?
Free tix or something?

berk18;842385476 said:

---

The coverage with the best chance of stopping the screen would've been Cover-1 (Man with a FS deep), which we've run a fair amount in some other games. This was the first game with an obvious BBDB gameplan. In terms of pure X's and O's we had a 3-on-2 advantage over every one of those screens except the jailbreak screen at the end of the 1st half. The problem is the second underneath defender, usually the OLB. If they have two WR's out there, he's the second underneath defender who's matching up. The problem is that, because of the run, we weren't pulling that guy out all the way to the #2 WR, so he had a natural disadvantage against every outside screen. This problem would be partially solved by faster OLB's/guys who took fewer false steps in addition to CB's who could shed better. Put another way, other teams line up in the same way against our screens but blow them up, which we were completely unable to do yesterday. It's also a mystery to me that our safeties couldn't make more of those plays, because that's exactly what they did when UA ran plays like this. Our safeties were surprisingly ineffective against these screens.

The issue in all this is the run, which was also killing us. Hundley's reading those flat defenders (OLB's) pre-snap. If they go outside to match the screen better, he hands off, usually getting 6-7 yards. If they pinch inside, he throws the screen. The OL is run-blocking on every one of those plays. The only real way to combat that would've been Cover-1 nickel. By taking a safety out of deep coverage, we put him over one of the #2 WR's. This means that a LB doesn't have to remove from the box on that side to match numbers, so we can leave 6 men in the box against the run while matching numbers better against the screen. We've run Cover-1 a lot this year, so against UCLA we were probably avoiding it (1) because of our bad tackling in the game, and (2) because of the mobile QB. In Cover-1, since it's straight man coverage, if you miss a tackle it's a huge gain. A more aggressive coverage would've helped the numbers problem against the screen, but putting extra guys out there yields a bigger gain if one of those guys misses the tackle Also, it takes four of your defenders' eyes off the QB and puts a fifth guy (the FS) deep and out of run defense. This is a problem, because we still only have six box defenders against 5 OL + 1 RB + 1 QB. We'd really need a 7-man box to feel great about stopping both Hundley and the RB. We can only get to a 6-man box because of the spread formation, though, so playing zone is intended to limit the run to medium-sized gains when it gets through those six defenders.

In general, our entire gameplan was conservative against UCLA, including punting so often near mid-field. That strategy could very well be why we were close enough to win in the first place, though, so it's hard to say.

---

KoreAmBear;842384895 said:

---

Oregon receivers hold their blocks for 2 more seconds than any other team in FBS which springs their backs/receivers. Whether they do it legally is another question.

---

The key word being "hold". They do it better than anyone else. I thought Washington and ucla were the most obvious about it and pretty much got away with it. If the officials are going to ignore it, then these teams will get away with it as long as they can. As another poster mentioned, Cal does not have the horses on defense that they need to counteract this trend. WR's in this conference are big, and tend to have their way with out undersized DB's. Doesn't help matters that the injuries are starting to building the secondary as they did last year. Not a good sign when one of your safeties is 3rd on the depth chart and wears number 88.

moonpod;842385727 said:

---

So....basically it comes down to we are getting handled on the LOS so the coaches don't have any flexibility to help the CBs out all that much leading to the conservative game plan. Which ironically almost worked

---

Pretty much. So last night I watched the Niners-Broncos game (unfortunately) and saw some WR screens the Niners ran and they got stuffed. Why? In one case one of the Denver CBs recognized the play quickly and slipped past his blocker to make the hit as soon as the ball was caught. That's an individual effort by a talented corner, aided by experience in recognizing what a WR screen looks like -- something Cal can't really hope to get right now, because our guys are either not that talented or not that experienced. Another time one of the Denver LBs peeled off and helped to tie up blockers and stop the screen for a short gain. Again, that's because he was experienced enough and fast enough to diagnose the play and get involved. Our LBs are not there yet, and even if they were they have a responsibility to help the DL, which for Cal is an even thinner and less experienced unit than LB (for the Broncos, their DL is experienced and tough and can hold their own, so the LBs have more room to go freelancing).

We just need to get better on defense. Some of that is talent and some is experience. Maybe next year we'll see a better job of defensing these plays because of experience and improved strength/conditioning, but right now we just have to contain the big gain and hope for a bad throw or a drop (something the Niners also did last night).

sycasey;842385795 said:

---

Pretty much. So last night I watched the Niners-Broncos game (unfortunately) and saw some WR screens the Niners ran and they got stuffed. Why? In one case one of the Denver CBs recognized the play quickly and slipped past his blocker to make the hit as soon as the ball was caught. That's an individual effort by a talented corner, aided by experience in recognizing what a WR screen looks like -- something Cal can't really hope to get right now, because our guys are either not that talented or not that experienced. Another time one of the Denver LBs peeled off and helped to tie up blockers and stop the screen for a short gain. Again, that's because he was experienced enough and fast enough to diagnose the play and get involved. Our LBs are not there yet, and even if they were they have a responsibility to help the DL, which for Cal is an even thinner and less experienced unit than LB (for the Broncos, their DL is experienced and tough and can hold their own, so the LBs have more room to go freelancing).

We just need to get better on defense. Some of that is talent and some is experience. Maybe next year we'll see a better job of defensing these plays because of experience and improved strength/conditioning, but right now we just have to contain the big gain and hope for a bad throw or a drop (something the Niners also did last night).

---

Yeah. We need some more horses and we need some of what we got to grow. But c'mon, anyone who "watched" that game would say...jeez the UCLA guys were WAAAYYYY bigger and more physcial than our guys. recruiting....

Berk - do you see us going cover 1 against Oregon.

I remember we went cover 0 that one year when we stopped then cold (we obviously had much better talent and experience that year).

If we play the same type of defense, I see us dying a slow and painful death.

Oregon's OL "holds". TV analysts have explained that they keep their arms inside the extent of their shoulders when they do it, but still they "hold", grab and hook.