hi my name is urban meyer

I don't get this debate. Do we think the OL has been bad because of the scheme? they've been bad because they are bad. Be it lack of talent or inexperience. And guys did improve with time and coaching and hopefully we see another big jump but we need to recruit and develop some better players on the line (I think we're doing that).

At least in the TFS, we've been able to score some points even with the line at its worst. As bad our OL was two years ago, our offense wasn't awful and with an average defense we'd have won some games. Tedfords pro style offense was so dependent on OL play we could do nothing, and that was a big part of his downfall on the field- the offense fell apart because of the OL even without 'vertical blocking'

Bleedblue,
1. I am not happy with our results the last several years.
2. I am not a football player nor coach.
3. My take is that your comments were based on your experience.
4. You indicated that our coaching staff was not as astute as you are (see your comment at 7:28 pm). Who have you recruited?
5. You may be right. But it is far easier to be a critic than a coaching staff that inherited limited talent.
6. Furthermore it is far more difficult to get players to Cal with appropriate academics (and to keep them eligible) than to most of the Pac 12.
7. Nevertheless we both want CAL to succeed so best wishes for a very successful year and
GO BEARS!

bleedblue;842525305 said:

---

@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!

---

Lol, you only have a "few" posts and used the text "Achiles Heel" so there are a few posters thinking your a fan of another team stiring the you know what. The other half of the poster are telling you we did OK last year with a young line, a not so established online coach (more experienced coach this year) and that there will be progress this year. Me, I don't understand the pass blocking methodology but I did see Goff under alot of pressure last year. I also heard Dykes recently talk about installing short pass protection (still not sure what that means) so I was intrigued by your post. My advice would be unless you sign your post Amy or drunkowski don't use terms like Achiles Heel until your post count reads about 5000 :-)

For the record though I learned from yours and Berks post so I count this as a good post :-)

jhbchristopher;842525402 said:

---

Lol, you only have a "few" posts and used the text "Achiles Heel" so there are a few posters thinking your a fan of another team stiring the you know what. The other half of the poster are telling you we did OK last year with a young line, a not so established online coach (more experienced coach this year) and that there will be progress this year. Me, I don't understand the pass blocking methodology but I did see Goff under alot of pressure last year. I also heard Dykes recently talk about installing short pass protection (still not sure what that means) so I was intrigued by your post. My advice would be unless you sign your post Amy or drunkowski don't use terms like Achiles Heel until your post count reads about 5000 :-)

For the record though I learned from yours and Berks post so I count this as a good post :-)

---

Actually, his post was intelligent, articulate, and on point. But it made points you guys don't want to hear, so he must be a troll.

Unlike some of the fans, probably the best thing about the coaching staff is that they don't seem to be hanging on to strategies that people told them wouldn't work at this level just to try be proven right. They seem to be adjusting more controversial strategies to be more effective. I hope that the comments from the staff about taking shorter drops on the OL will be one such adjustment as it was extremely obvious that the OL strategy was not putting the OL in the best position to succeed.

And as for the "the offense isn't the problem" comments. Tell me when we are 14-0. The goal isn't to be good. It is to be your best. It is not enough to pile on 50 points against CU and WSU. We were okay, but not great on offense against top teams. The OL was clearly the worst aspect of the offense. Thankfully, the coaching staff isn't standing pat on the issue.

bleedblue;842525224 said:

---

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.

---

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I thought our OL last year did an absolutely terrible job using their hands re: punching...they were absorbing rushers and getting put back into Goffs face far too often. At some point you have to let your OL use their footwork and strength to their advantage. We really didn't do that last year and i'm not sure if it was only a coaching issue or a trust issue or both. I'm hopeful that this season we see a far more improvement into what they are trying to accomplish. I want to see angry offensive lineman that play smart fundamental football.

Bleedblue has some points - personally I hate the vertical drop/set particularly for interior linemen( my reasons mentioned too many times over past few years) - if that technique is employed against Texas, there is guy named Ridgeway who I suspect is going to be in Goff's grill all night long. My point in chiming in is I thought Berk just took apart the quoted article.

jhbchristopher;842525402 said:

---

Lol, you only have a "few" posts and used the text "Achiles Heel" so there are a few posters thinking your a fan of another team stiring the you know what. The other half of the poster are telling you we did OK last year with a young line, a not so established online coach (more experienced coach this year) and that there will be progress this year. Me, I don't understand the pass blocking methodology but I did see Goff under alot of pressure last year. I also heard Dykes recently talk about installing short pass protection (still not sure what that means) so I was intrigued by your post. My advice would be unless you sign your post Amy or drunkowski don't use terms like Achiles Heel until your post count reads about 5000 :-)

For the record though I learned from yours and Berks post so I count this as a good post :-)

---

I learned from both posts also. Until your post count rises, you suffer suspicion here. I think bleedblue came back with some salient points and lessened any troll tendencies in doing so. Keep it coming. The more I learn, the better.

has been our defense

BBBGOBEARS;842525458 said:

---

has been our defense

---

Achilles is all out of heels

to the point of the vertical drop stuff, it DOES sound like they are changing that up some. There was a quote somewhere early on where they said some of the stuff was gonna change. But regardless, it still comes back to last year we had moore playing LT with two bad shoulders, Rigs playing RT poorly, crosthwaite, while god bless his bleeding blue and gold heart, but was a clear weak link etc....I don't care what the scheme is, it ain't gonna look great, especially when you add in the # of NFL level DL we played last year (thankfully they have mostly moved on). This year we are hearing that Moore even with his shoulders better now may get shifted to the right, Cochran may take over the left, Rigs going back inside where he belongs and Uluave stepping up (he can't be worse than crossthwaite). Much more promising again, regardless of the quibbles with the technique. Jones is coming from outside of Sonny/TFS circles and it at least sounded like sonny/tfs were at least paying lip service to Jones wanting to change some stuff up.

Ultimately the teams real weakness last year tho was the pass D. And frankly the results this year will rest on the pass D improvement

Winning is such a difficult thing. And because of that, football is a "copy cat" sport. When coaches see what's working for others, they incorporate parts of it into their systems. The spread is a perfect example of this, as is the cyclical changing from a 3-4 to a 4-3 defense. The Vertical set has not caught on! Other than WSU, and many High Schools and Community Colleges, I can't find anyone else who does it( Particularly in the Power 5 conferences). You would think that if it was so effective, others would adopt it. Even most individuals from the Hal Mumme coaching tree do not incorporate it- Art Briles(Baylor), Kliff Kingsbury(Tech) and Dana Holgorsen( West Virginia). So why do we? I think it comes down to Tony Franklin.

Brandon Jones coached at ECU, where they DID NOT Vertical set. His connection to Dykes- Played in the system at Texas Tech(As a center). Yenser wasn't even a coach before. His connection- played in the system at Troy. If we continue to stay with this technique, we exclude 99.9% of the offensive line coaches out there. Very important coaching position to have "beginners".

I just feel that we continue to put our OL in a position to not be competitive, and when their not, we say they just aren't good. How do we know that some of these guys could have been the next great OL'ers from Cal? Freddy Tagaloa had all the tools to be a first round pick, but they dismissed that and let him go,( as if a 6'8", 310lb guy who is athletic can be found anywhere).

I obviously am venturing into an area of football that is more philosophical. - I'll leave it alone!

GO BEARS!

http://xandolabs.com/research/middle_and_outside_zone_xo_labs/

going4roses;842525475 said:

---

http://xandolabs.com/research/middle_and_outside_zone_xo_labs/

---

nice catch;
update

Brandon Jones, Offensive Line Coach, now University of California, Berkeley, aka Cal: Middle zone concept averaged 5.8 ypc.

bleedblue;842525469 said:

---

... I just feel that we continue to put our OL in a position to not be competitive, and when their not, we say they just aren't good. How do we know that some of these guys could have been the next great OL'ers from Cal? Freddy Tagaloa had all the tools to be a first round pick, but they dismissed that and let him go,( as if a 6'8", 310lb guy who is athletic can be found anywhere).
...

---

I believe Tag chose to go.
Tedford screwed his frosh year, only a few plays so blown 'shirt and was too new to be any good, athletically or physically.
Tag was a revolving door to DEs his second year, opening wide to Goff off mere head fakes, so he went to guard, then to the bench.
Hope he achieves his potential at AZ. Tag's a good guy.
[For your info: 75 [SIZE=3][COLOR="#000080"]Aaron Cochran OL LT 6-08 340[/COLOR][/SIZE] - on his way down to 320, and Cochran the Younger is competing strongly for 1st team LT.

The blocking had many of us intrigued and even concerned very early-on. It is integral to the TFS, literally part of the TFS education. Not sure that is the case these days, and I guess I really don't care. What we do is what matters to me / us...

The beauty of a System approach is that it should work wherever you apply it; and that has not exactly been the case here at Cal, in the Pac-12. I remember a game in season one where SD was mic'd (Pac-12 Network's, The Drive), went-up to TF and basically said 'WTF, this ain't working right'. I seem to recall that our very short passing game was getting blown-up, over and over...

I've said it before, and somewhat recently a few days ago, but I generally take this as a positive, that TF, and SD who defers to him with respect to the offense, is open to change, and something as drastic as this (our approach to blocking and the corresponding mentality). For anyone who has created anything before, it's not always easy to accept that it has flaws. I have several examples in my own life, one being an intercooler I conceived for a car. Neat concept that worked, but testing, in some situations showed it not all that great. Long story short, after allowing myself to be open to the idea that my "baby" needed some more work, modifications were made to improve the situation somewhat (removing material so heat-soak would be less problematic). I was initially obstinate though, and I've come to learn that is simply human nature. I commend TF for the recognition and then acting upon such by implementing changes, that are contrary to what was once the right way, so much so to make it into a System.

On the flip side, we are in unchartered territory in some respects, with TF sort of flying on the edge of his seat. That said, getting out of one's comfort zone can elicit great results. The offense works well the majority of the time, and struggles clearly in others. I don't sense a need to wildly push buttons in desperation; and that is likely not happening...

The evolution of this team entails more than just the players.

For the record, I'm not trying to discredit bleedblue in any way, so I hope I didn't give that impression. He has way better stuff to say about technique then I do. I'm skeptical at best on the schematic benefits of the vertical set, so I just try to talk about how it's supposed to work and how that impacts the X's and O's of the offense as a whole. But yeah, the article had some strange things to say about scheme, which is more my area.

bleedblue

have you see any padded practices this fall ? have you gotten a chance to watch the OL and coach jones and oc hamlition ?

just asking .. no more no less

berk18;842525508 said:

---

For the record, I'm not trying to discredit bleedblue in any way, so I hope I didn't give that impression. He has way better stuff to say about technique then I do. I'm skeptical at best on the schematic benefits of the vertical set, so I just try to talk about how it's supposed to work and how that impacts the X's and O's of the offense as a whole. But yeah, the article had some strange things to say about scheme, which is more my area.

---

Honestly, I think a lot of people would like to hear more on this. Frankly, I think you have unwittingly become viewed as the champion of the vertical set.

OaktownBear;842525779 said:

---

Honestly, I think a lot of people would like to hear more on this. Frankly, I think you have unwittingly become viewed as the champion of the vertical set.

---

The theory is that the vertical set is closely connected to the spread and to the kind of pass protection that we use. In my last big post in this thread I talked about the numbers game for spread offenses. Because we can simplify the picture in the box so much, we use mostly man pass protection (WSU also does this, as did Texas Tech, which is where the wide splits originally came from). Plenty of teams in all systems use man protections. In addition to just being simpler in some ways (like man coverages), man is also good because it ensures that you'll always have OL blocking DL, whereas in some slide protections you can get RB's blocking DE's or something like that (slide protections correspond in a very loose sense to zone or combination coverages in the back-7). In man, you also make sure that your OL always carries as much of the load as possible, making it easier for backs to check release. This is obviously valuable in the Air Raid, where ideally you're in 5-man protections with 5-WR's out as often as possible. If you're in full- or half-slide protection, on the other hand, if one of your OL is sliding and nobody comes through his gap, he's just blocking space while meanwhile they might be overloading your RB on the backside.

You can get all of these benefits of man protection whether you use the vertical set or not. Beyond those listed above, the extra benefits of the vertical set are related specifically to getting advantages in your 1-on-1 man blocking, and are supposed to be: (1) the DL never has as much power as he does when he's down in a 3-point stance. Just watching our OL, though, it's obviously fair to ask if we're getting any power advantage at all. In season one I tried to stay agnostic about this, and I think agnosticism is what people read as support (I also had huge problems with Yenser, so I'll never fully trust results gotten with him). aTm might not have a great DL, but they're still a P5 DL, and LaTech didn't have comparable OL talent at all. If it could work at LaTech, maybe it could work with better talent at Cal? After two seasons, though, there just wasn't the same improvement in pass protection that we saw with every other aspect of the offense, and it's not just against the conference's best fronts.

The other extra benefit is supposed to be (2) the vertical set moves the LOS back, meaning one of two things. The first possibility is the DL does any of their stunts straight off the line, in which case the OL gets to see and sort out all of the movement before they engage. This is a legitimate benefit insofar as it minimizes assignment confusion, and confusion over exotic blitzes isn't usually our problem. Another aspect of this is that if the DL waits to stunt until they get to the new LOS that you've retreated to, then they're delaying their stunt by a good chunk of a second. The QB will often have the ball out of his hand in two seconds, so that extra time can be meaningful. I don't know that we're buying much extra time as it is, though, because instead of getting beaten by stunts straight off the line, we're just getting beaten 1-on-1 straight off the line. The comments about OT technique earlier in the thread are really interesting to me, since our tackles have looked awful in the vertical set, while the interior line has done a little better, so the argument that the technique is putting them at a physical disadvantage makes a lot of sense.

You can never say for sure what all of the implications of going to a different technique would be, since it's possible that some problems would be worse without the vertical set, like they were in Tedford's last year. There are definitely plays where the DL is stunting around, looking tired and uncertain while Goff's able to get the pass away, and those positive plays have to be factored in. Still, it seems that we'd be better if we focused on using good coaching (novel!) to beat bigger, stronger DL and sort out stunts instead of trying to scheme a new way to block them.

bleedblue;842525469 said:

---

Winning is such a difficult thing. And because of that, football is a "copy cat" sport. When coaches see what's working for others, they incorporate parts of it into their systems. The spread is a perfect example of this, as is the cyclical changing from a 3-4 to a 4-3 defense. The Vertical set has not caught on! Other than WSU, and many High Schools and Community Colleges, I can't find anyone else who does it( Particularly in the Power 5 conferences). You would think that if it was so effective, others would adopt it. Even most individuals from the Hal Mumme coaching tree do not incorporate it- Art Briles(Baylor), Kliff Kingsbury(Tech) and Dana Holgorsen( West Virginia). So why do we? I think it comes down to Tony Franklin.

---

Bruce Feldman made an interesting comment regarding Mike Leach on Scout's Pac-12 podcast. Pointed out that when Leach began his run at Texas Tech, his offense was such a unique prep for other teams, opposing coaches hated playing TT because you just didn't face an offense like Leach's at any other time during the year. It was unique and so really challenging for opposing teams. But now, a decade later, with so many teams running dynamic passing offenses, defenses have adjusted and the prep isn't such the challenge anymore.

jhbchristopher;842525152 said:

---

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?

---

I think he or Jones said that they are teaching them to pick up the DL earlier in the drop back. Maybe at one step back. They said, to prevent the DLs from rushing and jumping, before being engaged. Saw a lot of that last year. Makes sense and is, maybe, a concession to the long vert set drop not working as they imaged. If they do that, they're de facto just doing the standard pass blocking drop...without having to admit that vert set doesn't work.

berk18;842525801 said:

---

The theory is that the vertical set is closely connected to the spread and to the kind of pass protection that we use. In my last big post in this thread I talked about the numbers game for spread offenses. Because we can simplify the picture in the box so much, we use mostly man pass protection (WSU also does this, as did Texas Tech, which is where the wide splits originally came from). Plenty of teams in all systems use man protections. In addition to just being simpler in some ways (like man coverages), man is also good because it ensures that you'll always have OL blocking DL, whereas in some slide protections you can get RB's blocking DE's or something like that (slide protections correspond in a very loose sense to zone or combination coverages in the back-7). In man, you also make sure that your OL always carries as much of the load as possible, making it easier for backs to check release. This is obviously valuable in the Air Raid, where ideally you're in 5-man protections with 5-WR's out as often as possible. If you're in full- or half-slide protection, on the other hand, if one of your OL is sliding and nobody comes through his gap, he's just blocking space while meanwhile they might be overloading your RB on the backside.

You can get all of these benefits of man protection whether you use the vertical set or not. Beyond those listed above, the extra benefits of the vertical set are related specifically to getting advantages in your 1-on-1 man blocking, and are supposed to be: (1) the DL never has as much power as he does when he's down in a 3-point stance. Just watching our OL, though, it's obviously fair to ask if we're getting any power advantage at all. In season one I tried to stay agnostic about this, and I think agnosticism is what people read as support (I also had huge problems with Yenser, so I'll never fully trust results gotten with him). aTm might not have a great DL, but they're still a P5 DL, and LaTech didn't have comparable OL talent at all. If it could work at LaTech, maybe it could work with better talent at Cal? After two seasons, though, there just wasn't the same improvement in pass protection that we saw with every other aspect of the offense, and it's not just against the conference's best fronts.

The other extra benefit is supposed to be (2) the vertical set moves the LOS back, meaning one of two things. The first possibility is the DL does any of their stunts straight off the line, in which case the OL gets to see and sort out all of the movement before they engage. This is a legitimate benefit insofar as it minimizes assignment confusion, and confusion over exotic blitzes isn't usually our problem. Another aspect of this is that if the DL waits to stunt until they get to the new LOS that you've retreated to, then they're delaying their stunt by a good chunk of a second. The QB will often have the ball out of his hand in two seconds, so that extra time can be meaningful. I don't know that we're buying much extra time as it is, though, because instead of getting beaten by stunts straight off the line, we're just getting beaten 1-on-1 straight off the line. The comments about OT technique earlier in the thread are really interesting to me, since our tackles have looked awful in the vertical set, while the interior line has done a little better, so the argument that the technique is putting them at a physical disadvantage makes a lot of sense.

You can never say for sure what all of the implications of going to a different technique would be, since it's possible that some problems would be worse without the vertical set, like they were in Tedford's last year. There are definitely plays where the DL is stunting around, looking tired and uncertain while Goff's able to get the pass away, and those positive plays have to be factored in. Still, it seems that we'd be better if we focused on using good coaching (novel!) to beat bigger, stronger DL and sort out stunts instead of trying to scheme a new way to block them.

---

This is part of the issue that never made sense to me. Doesn't the offensive strategy of getting the ball out quickly already negate the advantage of any kind of complicated stunting? Go ahead and stunt because while that is developing our QB has already made his read and thrown the ball. I would think with our offense the main goal of pass protection would be to give our QB vision and passing lanes so that he can make those quick strikes. The deeper drops our offensive line have been taking essentially give the defense the ground so they are by design in the QB's face. It seems like we are saying we will give the defensive line the ability to be in the QB's face within 1 second to lower the chance that they sack the QB within 3 seconds. I'm not sure they are accomplishing the latter, but I would think the advantage is marginal at best. Any decent line should be able to hold on long enough for our QB to normally get the ball out with our designed quick reads. Why wouldn't we go the opposite direction and engage the DL earlier than the traditional method to focus on giving the QB more vision and figure that if there is a break it will still be tough for the DL to get there in time.

It seems to me that the result of the deep drop 1) reduces our QB's vision; 2) increases the DL's vision into the backfield because he doesn't have an OL in his face. The DL can see the play that is being run rather than having to rely more on feel from where the blocking is coming from - no guessing necessary; 3) reduces the passing lanes.

It seems to me that we are giving up a lot on the theory that it swings the power advantage. A lot of people are dubious about the power advantage, and the results so far have indicated they were right to be. (obviously the results could be influenced by Yenser or the overall talent on the line). I'm very concerned, though about what Stanford's DL did several times - choosing not to engage our OL at all in order to maintain the vision advantage that we were giving them so that they could block the passing lanes. I don't see how that is not a very easy counter that any defense, even one with a lousy DL, could employ.

I hope that we will be taking shorter drops and giving Goff more room to work. Honestly, I'd trade a few more sacks for that.

tommie317;842525160 said:

---

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.

---

Some people just don't like the spread system and are going to p*ss and moan about it no matter how productive it is. At this point, I'm putting every single complaint that starts with "Franklin" or "TFS" and filing it under "BS said by stubborn cranks." Anyone who watches football, has half a brain, and isn't stubbornly attached to pro-set football can see the spread systems like ours (or TTech, or Baylor, or TCU, or any number of teams - oh look, Ohio State just won an NC with a spread system, beating another spread offense in the championship game) work very well. And the advantage this has over the "pro set" is you can be competitive without superstar talent - in other words, it wins games AND it works very well with our academic requirements.

Some people will complain... and complain... and complain... not because they can find any real fault with our offense but because they want the pro set. Too bad. Dykes or no Dykes I don't see the spread going away at Cal. If you're that married to the old fashioned system, subscribe to the SEC Network or go watch Furd games. They've got plenty of empty seats at every home game and nobody in the country has a more boring, predictable pro-set offense aside from perhaps the Baltimore Ravens.

Lot of great stuff on here. Good thread. A sub issue - true of all spread offenses where you are blocking with five versus a four man front. One thing to look for is some four man fronts will line up their best DT in almost a NG position - variations , but let's say shaded half over the center , sometimes angled a bit - if that DL is a beast he has to be doubled by the closest guard and if that happens vulnerable to inside blitz. You will see some of this in Texas game.

berk18;842525801 said:

---

The theory is that the vertical set is closely connected to the spread and to the kind of pass protection that we use. In my last big post in this thread I talked about the numbers game for spread offenses. Because we can simplify the picture in the box so much, we use mostly man pass protection (WSU also does this, as did Texas Tech, which is where the wide splits originally came from). Plenty of teams in all systems use man protections. In addition to just being simpler in some ways (like man coverages), man is also good because it ensures that you'll always have OL blocking DL, whereas in some slide protections you can get RB's blocking DE's or something like that (slide protections correspond in a very loose sense to zone or combination coverages in the back-7). In man, you also make sure that your OL always carries as much of the load as possible, making it easier for backs to check release. This is obviously valuable in the Air Raid, where ideally you're in 5-man protections with 5-WR's out as often as possible. If you're in full- or half-slide protection, on the other hand, if one of your OL is sliding and nobody comes through his gap, he's just blocking space while meanwhile they might be overloading your RB on the backside.

You can get all of these benefits of man protection whether you use the vertical set or not. Beyond those listed above, the extra benefits of the vertical set are related specifically to getting advantages in your 1-on-1 man blocking, and are supposed to be: (1) the DL never has as much power as he does when he's down in a 3-point stance. Just watching our OL, though, it's obviously fair to ask if we're getting any power advantage at all. In season one I tried to stay agnostic about this, and I think agnosticism is what people read as support (I also had huge problems with Yenser, so I'll never fully trust results gotten with him). aTm might not have a great DL, but they're still a P5 DL, and LaTech didn't have comparable OL talent at all. If it could work at LaTech, maybe it could work with better talent at Cal? After two seasons, though, there just wasn't the same improvement in pass protection that we saw with every other aspect of the offense, and it's not just against the conference's best fronts.

The other extra benefit is supposed to be (2) the vertical set moves the LOS back, meaning one of two things. The first possibility is the DL does any of their stunts straight off the line, in which case the OL gets to see and sort out all of the movement before they engage. This is a legitimate benefit insofar as it minimizes assignment confusion, and confusion over exotic blitzes isn't usually our problem. Another aspect of this is that if the DL waits to stunt until they get to the new LOS that you've retreated to, then they're delaying their stunt by a good chunk of a second. The QB will often have the ball out of his hand in two seconds, so that extra time can be meaningful. I don't know that we're buying much extra time as it is, though, because instead of getting beaten by stunts straight off the line, we're just getting beaten 1-on-1 straight off the line. The comments about OT technique earlier in the thread are really interesting to me, since our tackles have looked awful in the vertical set, while the interior line has done a little better, so the argument that the technique is putting them at a physical disadvantage makes a lot of sense.

You can never say for sure what all of the implications of going to a different technique would be, since it's possible that some problems would be worse without the vertical set, like they were in Tedford's last year. There are definitely plays where the DL is stunting around, looking tired and uncertain while Goff's able to get the pass away, and those positive plays have to be factored in. Still, it seems that we'd be better if we focused on using good coaching (novel!) to beat bigger, stronger DL and sort out stunts instead of trying to scheme a new way to block them.

---

So if it's about 1-on-1 man, wouldn't superior OL talent, like at Texas AM, help greatly? They had those 3-4 first round OL go in two years.

beelzebear;842525856 said:

---

So if it's about 1-on-1 man, wouldn't superior OL talent, like at Texas AM, help greatly? They had those 3-4 first round OL go in two years.

---

It is always about talent first and foremost but great technique can make up for a lot. Different style of ball, but I think about Wisconsin for years recruiting 2 and some 3 star linemen and then turning them into superior OL with just great technique. Cal can do the same with the right coach. On TAMU The thing about Joeckel and Matthews is they had talent but I almost think more importantly they were raised and taught the game by former OL. Joeckel's technique at the college level was about as good as you will ever see.

BeachyBear;842525838 said:

---

Some people just don't like the spread system and are going to p*ss and moan about it no matter how productive it is. At this point, I'm putting every single complaint that starts with "Franklin" or "TFS" and filing it under "BS said by stubborn cranks." Anyone who watches football, has half a brain, and isn't stubbornly attached to pro-set football can see the spread systems like ours (or TTech, or Baylor, or TCU, or any number of teams - oh look, Ohio State just won an NC with a spread system, beating another spread offense in the championship game) work very well. And the advantage this has over the "pro set" is you can be competitive without superstar talent - in other words, it wins games AND it works very well with our academic requirements.

Some people will complain... and complain... and complain... not because they can find any real fault with our offense but because they want the pro set. Too bad. Dykes or no Dykes I don't see the spread going away at Cal. If you're that married to the old fashioned system, subscribe to the SEC Network or go watch Furd games. They've got plenty of empty seats at every home game and nobody in the country has a more boring, predictable pro-set offense aside from perhaps the Baltimore Ravens.

---

For the love of god, Ohio State and Oregon do not run an offense that is remotely similar to ours. They do not come from the same tree or have the same historical background AT ALL.

Within the Air Raid tree, TFS is supposed to be a different variant from other Air Raids - so we were told as being a big advantage to the hire in the first place. One big variant is the offensive blocking scheme. WSU's offense, which does come from the same tree as ours, has a much different blocking scheme. Questioning our blocking scheme is not questioning the Air Raid and it is certainly not questioning the effectiveness of Oregon's or Ohio State's offense. I'd be thrilled to have Oregon's offensive coaching at Cal. And, I've said many times that almost any offense can be effective or ineffective. Bill Walsh running the West Coast offense is not the same as Paul Hackett running the West Coast offense.

And I guess Sonny Dykes and Tony Franklin and Brandon Jones must just be bitter people who want to run the pro set since they are making changes to our blocking schemes.

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.

---

isnt this the same conclusion with all offenses? theyre not as good against better defenses

If the vertical set was any good, Cal would have averaged 10 more points per game last year. 36.73 is unacceptable. 46.73 is more like it.

my only complaint of Tony Franklin is just his side selling of the TFS. other than that the offense itself is fine

gobears725;842525931 said:

---

my only complaint of Tony Franklin is just his side selling of the TFS. other than that the offense itself is fine

---

Here's the positive- It creates relationships that will in turn help recruiting players in those programs who like the offense and have ties to our OC.

bleedblue;842525469 said:

---

Winning is such a difficult thing. And because of that, football is a "copy cat" sport. When coaches see what's working for others, they incorporate parts of it into their systems. The spread is a perfect example of this, as is the cyclical changing from a 3-4 to a 4-3 defense. The Vertical set has not caught on! Other than WSU, and many High Schools and Community Colleges, I can't find anyone else who does it( Particularly in the Power 5 conferences). You would think that if it was so effective, others would adopt it. Even most individuals from the Hal Mumme coaching tree do not incorporate it- Art Briles(Baylor), Kliff Kingsbury(Tech) and Dana Holgorsen( West Virginia). So why do we? I think it comes down to Tony Franklin.

Brandon Jones coached at ECU, where they DID NOT Vertical set. His connection to Dykes- Played in the system at Texas Tech(As a center). Yenser wasn't even a coach before. His connection- played in the system at Troy. If we continue to stay with this technique, we exclude 99.9% of the offensive line coaches out there. Very important coaching position to have "beginners".

I just feel that we continue to put our OL in a position to not be competitive, and when their not, we say they just aren't good. How do we know that some of these guys could have been the next great OL'ers from Cal? Freddy Tagaloa had all the tools to be a first round pick, but they dismissed that and let him go,( as if a 6'8", 310lb guy who is athletic can be found anywhere).

I obviously am venturing into an area of football that is more philosophical. - I'll leave it alone!

GO BEARS!

---

still think the main thing to fix is the defense. freddy tagaloa is not the only athletic tackle we had and i still dont think he had great feet. he could have stuck it out, competed, got his job back, he chose to go. bottomline, if you are good enough to play, the scheme will only effect it a little. he wasnt good enough

Ncsf;842525937 said:

---

Here's the positive- It creates relationships that will in turn help recruiting players in those programs who like the offense and have ties to our OC.

---

yea its just more annoying than anything, but agree that there are some benefits. overall though, its something i can live with

OaktownBear;842525831 said:

---

This is part of the issue that never made sense to me. Doesn't the offensive strategy of getting the ball out quickly already negate the advantage of any kind of complicated stunting? Go ahead and stunt because while that is developing our QB has already made his read and thrown the ball. I would think with our offense the main goal of pass protection would be to give our QB vision and passing lanes so that he can make those quick strikes. The deeper drops our offensive line have been taking essentially give the defense the ground so they are by design in the QB's face. It seems like we are saying we will give the defensive line the ability to be in the QB's face within 1 second to lower the chance that they sack the QB within 3 seconds. I'm not sure they are accomplishing the latter, but I would think the advantage is marginal at best. Any decent line should be able to hold on long enough for our QB to normally get the ball out with our designed quick reads. Why wouldn't we go the opposite direction and engage the DL earlier than the traditional method to focus on giving the QB more vision and figure that if there is a break it will still be tough for the DL to get there in time.

---

The "get the ball out quick" thing is different from our problems, though, because you have to differentiate the quick game from the downfield game. We don't give up many sacks in the quick game if any, and it's been really effective for us even with the vertical set. You could attribute Goff's early tipped balls to the vertical set, but that's a problem that got a lot better in year two.

The sacks come in the downfield passing game, where Goff's taking a deeper drop and the routes take more time to develop, so an extra second would still be useful if we were definitely getting it. I don't have the exact numbers any more, but at one point in 2013 there was a ridiculous stat correlating negative plays (whether penalties, TFL's in the run/screen game, or whatever) to 3-and-outs. Basically, our offense was pretty effective until we got a negative play, at which point our success rate was basically zero. Somewhat true for lots of teams, but we were as bad as I've seen. When we inevitably got a penalty or a -2 yard run, the drive was over, and that's where the vertical set really came into play. We did better in 2014, but for me that's about (1) Lawler on the back shoulder throw and/or curl, which gave us a quick hitting money route on deeper plays, and (2) an increased and smarter use of playaction, which uses a different protection scheme and was bolstered by our improved run game. I don't think much of our offensive improvement came from the vertical set protection getting significantly better. I do think that the vertical set hurts our ability to throw over the middle for reasons you mention though, and because of insufficient time (since crossing routes also take more time to develop), which is why Air Raid staples like "mesh" (two receivers rubbing in the middle of the field) and "shallow" (a shallow cross from one side with a dig on the other) haven't ever gotten going for us.

For me, pass protection is where we favor simplicity a little too much. At ECU Jones had a few different protections in. Sometimes it's just useful to be able to half-slide toward an obvious blitz. If we are changing up the vertical set, as has been reported, I'm 100% certain it's because Jones said "hell no," something Yenser never could've done because of his position and experience.