Been doing research on Mr Franklin. Seems his system is better suited for the non-power conference schools. It has problems with defenses that have decent to GOOD Defensive lines. Looking at last year, this conclusion holds up. Hung in there with UCLA, but got blown out by Washington. How will we fare this season? Most likely will only go as far as our OL will take us.

So your point is that if the OL is really good, the Bears will kick a$$? I thought that's what you meant.

Yeah I don't know if it's the system or Dykes/Franklins inflexibility but the way Cal runs it doesn't work against good fronts. Other teams will use TE/FB to help block but we pretty much leave or 5 OL to fend for themselves.

bleedblue;842525113 said:

---

Been doing research on Mr Franklin. Seems his system is better suited for the non-power conference schools. It has problems with defenses that have decent to GOOD Defensive lines. Looking at last year, this conclusion holds up. Hung in there with UCLA, but got blown out by Washington. How will we fare this season? Most likely will only go as far as our OL will take us.

---

Yep. This offense is less good against better defenses with better defensive lines, especially when our offensive line struggles. Makes sense to me. The solution might not be a different offense but a better offensive line. Not sure with all of the concerns one might have for this team that the offense is where you need to be focusing your energy.

Texas a&m has an awful DL

What no vertical blocking scheme talk?

This is actually a decent article, from 2013 before the bad season.
LINK: What Is Vertical Set Blocking and Why Cal's Sonny Dykes Thinks It Will Work

U$C, ASU, UTAH, and OREGON have solid D lines. UCLA, STANFURD, WSU, and WASHINGTON are all question marks. Even with Goff, I don't see us doing better than splitting the questionable teams, which means possibly a 3 Pac-12 win season, plus the non conference games. 5 or 6 wins, unless there's some major upsets.

If this plays out this way, not a whole lot to look forward too!

Texas a&m has an awful DL

Texas A&M runs a different version of the spread!

@beelzebear,

Oregon does not use vertical set blocking. They run a spread option, which is based on a power run blocking system ( TE's and option runs) and a kick step pass set.

bleedblue;842525129 said:

---

@beelzebear,

Oregon does not use vertical set blocking. They run a spread option, which is based on a power run blocking system ( TE's and option runs) and a post kick pass set.

---

1. I don't think beelzebear was talking about Oregon. He is alluding to the fact that many fans question the vertical set pass blocking scheme. Goff gets a lot of bodies pushed back into the pocket.

2. Oregon's bread and butter is zone blocking in the run game. Power is a gap blocking scheme. But I agree that they do not use vertical set blocking in the passing game. I don't know anyone else who does but then again I rarely watch non-Cal games.

3. I agree that OL is key this year. After Goff's health, the units where the most hangs in the balance this year are DL and OL. The jury is out on our OL. We were terrible in 2013 and not good in 2014. Fans here are excited about the prospects for 2015 but I will reserve judgment. I guess we have a new OL coach.

The article about vertical set pass blocking mentions Oregon. The only other team I know of that uses it is WSU. And you can have a zone blocking scheme based on a power run game. Either way, I feel that the OL philosophy will be Dyke's downfall. I hope I'm wrong! This season will tell us a lot.

Go Bears!

bleedblue;842525137 said:

---

The article about vertical set pass blocking mentions Oregon. The only other team I know of that uses it is WSU. And you can have a zone blocking scheme based on a power run game. Either way, I feel that the OL philosophy will be Dyke's downfall. I hope I'm wrong! This season will tell us a lot.

Go Bears!

---

It mentions Oregon should be able to overcome the vertical blocking scheme on defense and that it had a great offense. That's it. The core of the article was about the Golden Bears and the OL scheme.

beelzebear;842525123 said:

---

What no vertical blocking scheme talk?

This is actually a decent article, from 2013 before the bad season.
LINK: What Is Vertical Set Blocking and Why Cal's Sonny Dykes Thinks It Will Work

---

Lol, I was thinking the same thing, you beat me to it. I heard can remember where but Dykes said they're working on short pass blocking. This was a few weeks ago, I was intrigued so I did a little googling. I couldn't find anything on short pass blocking but did learn about verticle sets. From what I read the basic concept is the line are set in sort of a flat v and their first steps are back. If they all retreat at the same consistency the dline will have a hard time breaking the pocket.

I think the problem you run into and what we saw specifically against Washington last year was that pockets weren't forming because the pass rush (Danny Shelton) were bull rushing the blockers into Goff forcing quick throws and tipped balls.

From what I read the verticle set is simple to teach and if ran properly there should be no natural or created gaps that D lineman can get through.

I'm thinking as an o lineman if your first step is backwards its harder to slow down the opposing D lineman at the college level. I was excited to hear Dykes mention short pass blocking and I'm thinking this would entail engagement at the line as opposed to the verticle sets. Does anyone have more info on this, maybe there's some football guys that can shed some light?

Weren't we a few plays from being 8-4 even with an awful defense? Not totally defending the system but it's not impossible to be decent.

I think we are being trolled.

Go Bears!

stivo;842525117 said:

---

Yep. This offense is less good against better defenses with better defensive lines, especially when our offensive line struggles. Makes sense to me. The solution might not be a different offense but a better offensive line. Not sure with all of the concerns one might have for this team that the offense is where you need to be focusing your energy.

---

Everyone has trouble against better defenses with better defensive lines. It isn't just Cal's problem. After watching all of the La Tech v TAM game, I realized that Tech stayed in the game because they had a great running QB who saved them numerous times. It may be why TF wanted Luke so badly.

oski003;842525164 said:

---

I think we are being trolled.

Go Bears!

---

Might be right.

The vertical blocking scheme worked for TAM...but those guys had like 3 first round picks from the OL. So it works if you have talent.

Seriously. A great defensive line is the Achilles heel of basically every scheme in the book.

bleedblue;842525113 said:

---

Been doing research on Mr Franklin. Seems his system is better suited for the non-power conference schools. It has problems with defenses that have decent to GOOD Defensive lines. Looking at last year, this conclusion holds up. Hung in there with UCLA, but got blown out by Washington. How will we fare this season? Most likely will only go as far as our OL will take us.

---

How is your conclusion any different from what Phil Steele and Sonny himself has said. To beat the best teams with good defenses you must have a good OLine.

I would add a corollary: if a team using the TFS has an OLine that is comparable in quality to the other team's DLine, the team using the TFS will very probably win.

Not trolling, just VERY frustrated regarding the Vertical set. There's a reason why NOBODY else does this! It puts the OL in very bad positions. I do feel that if Dykes taught them the traditional footwork (which wouldn't change his offensive scheme much) he would be much more successful in the Pac-12.

Just venting, sorry!

I'd be cautious with that article. There are definitely some true things in there, but there's a lot of misinformation mixed in. The biggest problem is that the author is confused about the vertical set vs. the 2-point stance. We're in a 2-point stance every play, but we absolutely do not use the vertical set on run plays. Just watch video of one run play and one drop-back pass play and it's easy to tell the difference.

As for the lining up in a V thing, this is what every team does. Here's a picture of the Giants: ?1371750633.
The Chiefs: ?w=650&h=365&q=85
Here's us: .
The Chiefs picture has the biggest stagger of the bunch, and their guards are the only ones in a 3-point stance. The V is totally irrelevant to the points she's making.

Also, in lots of dropback pass protections the OL's first steps will be backwards. The question is, how far do they drop back before anchoring? Also, we don't vertical set on every dropback pass. Our entire dropback play-action game, which we use more than you might think for a spread team, uses a slide protection with an OG pulling away from the slide, making the protection look like a power run (in the technical sense of "power" mentioned by MisterNoodle, not the broad sense of "anything where there are lots of big guys right up the middle").

The author also talks a lot about OL splits. That has nothing to do with the vertical set. She seems to be confusing the vertical set with Mike Leach's general philosophy on taking wide splits in order to turn the whole OL vs. DL into a series of 1-on-1's. We don't take splits like Leach teams. Also, in just about every case the DL can't just rush whatever gap they want, because then the defense isn't sound and they're risking the QB breaking contain and buying more time to throw. Wide splits might make it easier to execute called stunts, but that's a different issue. And anyway, like I said, we don't use Leach-like splits.

She mentions that screens run a higher risk of being picked by DL in the vertical set. Most of our screens come on run/pass packaged plays, where the OL is legitimately run blocking. As for jailbreak screens, how many of those have been picked off in the last two seasons?

There's also a gentle assumption throughout the article that our offense will be stopped by the same things that stop Oregon's offense for schematic reasons. Not true.

On one note unrelated to the article, lots of times people think that more blockers = better blocking. This is only true in a limited sense. If the D only rushes three or four, then obviously 8 blockers is better than 5. Once the D starts blitzing and the offense starts releasing more than two receivers into routes, though, it gets blurry. If the offense splits out a third or fourth WR, then the defense will almost always remove a guy from the box to cover him. When you take blockers out of the core of the formation, you're really just turning an 8-on-7 into a 7-on-6 or a 6-on-5. If the offense is capable at running 4-verticals (something you can't run out of the I), then they can force the defense into Cover-2. If the offense is 4-wide then, the numbers shake out like this: 2 safeties deep + 2 CB's plus 2 OLB's/NB's lined up over the inside WR's = 5 defenders left in the box to blitz 5 blockers. If the offense were an I-formation team instead, then the defense would be more inclined to play Cover-3 or Cover-1, which changes the math: 1 safety + 2 CB's = 8 defenders left in the box to rush the passer against 7-blockers (only 8 if the offense goes absolute max protect, but then they only have two WR's in the route, making it harder to spring guys open).

The big advantage of the spread is that, even if the defense can still technically outnumber you, the fewer players you have in the box the easier it is to sort out your assignments against blitzes. If you're an I-formation team, then your max protect will have 8 blockers. If the defense has an 8-man box, then you're 8-vs.-8, which looks the same as 5-on-5 or 6-on-6, but there's a huge difference. Most blitzes only use five pass rushers. If the defense has 8 men in the box against the I-formation, then they will rush 4 DL, and then the fifth rusher can be any one of the four remaining box defenders, giving the offense a 25% chance of knowing who the extra rusher is. Spread offenses will often be outnumbered 6-on-5 in the box, but it's not actually that bad. Assuming again that four of the pass rushers will be the DL, there are only two players left in the box to blitz. The OL picks one of them to block, and the QB throws hot if the other blitzes, and boom, all potential rushers are accounted for without anyone having to think too hard. Even still, most 5-man protections come in the quick game. If we're dropping back or going play-action, the RB is usually check-releasing, so for most of our drop-back game we're actually in a 6-man protection as it is.

berk18;842525182 said:

---

I'd be cautious with that article. There are definitely some true things in there, but there's a lot of misinformation mixed in. The biggest problem is that the author is confused about the vertical set vs. the 2-point stance. We're in a 2-point stance every play, but we absolutely do not use the vertical set on run plays. Just watch video of one run play and one drop-back pass play and it's easy to tell the difference.

As for the lining up in a V thing, this is what every team does. Here's a picture of the Giants: ?1371750633.
The Chiefs: ?w=650&h=365&q=85
Here's us: .
The Chiefs picture has the biggest stagger of the bunch, and their guards are the only ones in a 3-point stance. The V is totally irrelevant.

Also, in lots of dropback pass protections the OL's first steps will be backwards. The question is, how far do they drop back before anchoring? Also, we don't vertical set on every dropback pass. Our entire dropback play-action game, which we use more than you might think for a spread team, uses a slide protection with an OG pulling away from the slide, making the protection look like a power run (in the technical sense of "power" mentioned by MisterNoodle, not the broad sense of "anything where there are lots of big guys right up the middle").

The author also talks a lot about OL splits. That has nothing to do with the vertical set. She seems to be confusing the vertical set with Mike Leach's general philosophy on taking wide splits in order to turn the whole OL vs. DL into a series of 1-on-1's. We don't take splits like Leach teams. Also, in just about every case the DL can't just rush whatever gap they want, because then the defense isn't sound and they're risking the QB breaking contain and buying more time to throw. Wide splits might make it easier to execute called stunts, but that's a different issue. And anyway, like I said, we don't use Leach-like splits.

She mentions that screens run a higher risk of being picked by DL in the vertical set. Most of our screens come on run/pass packaged plays, where the OL is legitimately run blocking. As for jailbreak screens, how many of those have been picked off in the last two seasons?

There's also a gentle assumption throughout the article that our offense will be stopped by the same things that stop Oregon's offense for schematic reasons. Not true.

On one note unrelated to the article, lots of times people think that more blockers = better blocking. This is only true in a limited sense. If the D only rushes three or four, then obviously 8 blockers is better than 5. Once the D starts blitzing and the offense starts releasing more than two receivers into routes, though, it gets blurry. If the offense splits out a third or fourth WR, then the defense will almost always remove a guy from the box to cover him. When you take blockers out of the core of the formation, you're really just turning an 8-on-7 into a 7-on-6 or a 6-on-5. If the offense is capable at running 4-verticals (something you can't run out of the I), then they can force the defense into Cover-2. If the offense is 4-wide then, the numbers shake out like this: 2 safeties deep + 2 CB's plus 2 OLB's/NB's lined up over the inside WR's = 5 defenders left in the box to blitz 5 blockers. If the offense were an I-formation team instead, then the defense would be more inclined to play Cover-3 or Cover-1, which changes the math: 1 safety + 2 CB's = 8 defenders left in the box to rush the passer against 7-blockers (only 8 if the offense goes absolute max protect, but then they only have two WR's in the route, making it harder to spring guys open).

The big advantage of the spread is that, even if the defense can still technically outnumber you, the fewer players you have in the box the easier it is to sort out your assignments against blitzes. If you're an I-formation team, then your max protect will have 8 blockers. If the defense has an 8-man box, then you're 8-vs.-8, which looks the same as 5-on-5 or 6-on-6, but there's a huge difference. Most blitzes only use five pass rushers. If the defense has 8 men in the box against the I-formation, then they will rush 4 DL, and then the fifth rusher can be any one of the four remaining box defenders, giving the offense a 25% chance of knowing who the extra rusher is. Spread offenses will often be outnumbered 6-on-5 in the box, but it's not actually that bad. Assuming again that four of the pass rushers will be the DL, there are only two players left in the box to blitz. The OL picks one of them to block, and the QB throws hot if the other blitzes, and boom, all potential rushers are accounted for without anyone having to think too hard.

---

Informative as always berk18

Thank you, Berk !!!

Well done Berk.

Love Berk's analysis. So much knowledge. But cmon OP. Great DLs cause every type of O problems Just as a great OL makes every type of O better.

Berk stepped in and punked fools.

im hoping the adjustments that jones is making/installing to HIS O line will show progress over in 2015 over 2014

NYCGOBEARS;842525196 said:

---

Berk stepped in and punked fools.

---

lol only you

going4roses;842525201 said:

---

lol only you

---

You know it.

lol

My intent was not to debate the spread offense. The spread is a part of College football that isn't going away, and when run properly is very effective. My intent was to point out the problems with Franklin's version of it- being the Vertical set. And yes, "To beat the best teams with good defenses, you have to have a good OL." That's the biggest difference between the top 15 teams and everyone else! EVERYONE is looking for that stud OL, Stanfurd makes it their recruiting priority.

The problem with the Vertical set starts with the first step. Which is with the inside foot. Because they are trying to get back and re-set the LOS, they are basically backpedaling. Which brings their feet closer together and causes their knees to straighten. (Very Bad for pass protection). They also have to go from an all out backpedal to holding their ground when engaging a defender, which is difficult to do without a proper base. Because of this, Dykes teaches them to catch and redirect, instead of strike and reset. Almost to the point where they absorb the defenders momentum. They hold their hands closer to their waist instead of at the traditional nipple area. Causing them to "catch", and negatively affecting the 6" power punch that offensive linemen must master.

The tackles do not widen on their sets, which does nothing to help form the pocket. Infact, it gives a speed rusher a shorter corner off the edge. It causes a problem for Goff to have to step forward into an already collapsing pocket ( due to the Guards backpedaling and getting bullrushed). It also rushes the timing of the throw which doesn't allow the deeper receiving routes.
The theory is that it neutralizes a stud DL'er, but in better leagues(Power 5), it allows them to gain momentum and take advantage of a top heavy OL who only absorbs and doesn't strike. It allows 4 guys to put pressure on the QB without having to blitz. Most teams run either cover 1 or cover 0 against us. The system's run plays are primarily based on the pass, which is supposed to slow this momentum down and keep a D-end from "pinning his ears back" and bringing it with no regard for the run game. But if your not burning them with big run plays, it does nothing but put your OL in a very bad position.
Up until Ohio State beat Alabama, usually the power team won. i.e.- Alabama-ND, Auburn-Oregon. Even though Ohio State doesn't run a true spread. So I would argue that if all things were equal, TFS would not win out, because it does not produce the type of OL that is needed to stop the stud DLer. This is evident in the number of Offensive linemen this system has put in the NFL over the last 10yrs. A perfect example this year will be Freddie Tagaloa. He was horrible in this system, now he is a starter for Arizona and on the Outland Trophy watch list. We'll see how he does with a traditional kickstep.

does the OP
know there is a different O line coach
we had a promoted GA ( no hate) coaching the O line in a new scheme
now we have a 5 yr coach with exp now

we will see

Your so wrong

Bleedblue,

Your comments lead me to think that you think you know more about football than Berk18 and our coaching staff. question: What is your record at coaching at the D1 level?

@pjlbear
I didn't realize everyone on here was a D-1 coach. And I wasn't arguing with berk18 or anyone else. I was commenting on the Vertical set, based on my experience. Wasn't trying to upset anyone. Like everyone else, I want Cal to do well. No need to get testy because you don't agree with my observations!