Try to bury some bad news on Friday - Tony Franklin Resigns wow

44,032 Views | 259 Replies | Last: 10 yr ago by 68great
KingPosibear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842637603 said:

Here's more data for this discussion. Below, I've ranked our 2014 and 2015 conference opponents by scoring D, and given their ppg yielded in parentheses. Our stats against them in that year come after the colon:

[U]Cross-Season Conference Game Comparison (2014):[/U]
Stanford (19.4 ppg): 410 yards, 5.39 yards/play, 17 points
UO (23.8 ppg): 560 yards, 6.02 yards/play, 41 points
UW (24 ppg): 368 yards, 4.38 yards/play, 7 points
USC (24.6 ppg): 384 yards, 4.92 yards/play, 30 points
UCLA (28.7 ppg): 366 yards, 5.01 yards/play, 34 points
UA (29.3 ppg): 573 yards, 7.96 yards/play, 45 points
OSU (36.4 ppg): 546 yards, 5.81 yards/play, 45 points
WSU (41.9 ppg): 589 yards, 8.3 yards/play, 60 points
CU (43 ppg): 585 yards, 8.13 yards/play, 59 points

[U]Cross-Season Conference Game Comparison (2015):[/U]
UW (20 ppg): 481 yards, 5.23 yards/play, 30 points
Utah (23 ppg): 467 yards, 6.23 yards/play, 24 points
Stanford (24.1 ppg): 495 yards, 6.35 yards/play, 22 points
USC (28.1 ppg): 394 yards, 6.46 yards/play, 21 points
UCLA (28.8 ppg): 426 yards, 4.84 yards/play, 24 points
WSU (30.4 ppg): 469 yards, 6.25 yards/play, 34 points
ASU (35.9 ppg): 680 yards, 9.32 yards/play, 48 points
Oregon (37.8 ppg): 432 yards, 6.55 yards/play, 28 points
OSU (42.3 ppg): 760 yards, 9.16 yards/play, 54 points

In 2014, there was a pretty clear dividing line at 29 ppg. We played four defenses who gave up more than that, and scored 40+ against all of them while gaining 500+ yards. We went 3-1, with the loss obviously coming against UA on the hail mary. Above that line, we struggled with every team except Oregon. The numbers tell the story vs. Stanford and UW. We only scored 7 and 17 points in those games, so the offense obviously didn't work. Oregon was a positive outlier, with us scoring way more points than they usually gave up, and keeping it at under a 14 point differential for the first half, where we did most of our scoring. USC and UCLA look like good offensive games on the scoreboard, but notice how few yards we gained against them. Those stats are way closer to the awful UW game than to the rest of our schedule. That's because our offense came off of turnovers, or in a limited number of garbage time snaps. We weren't moving the ball in those games.

2015 is completely different. To start from the bottom again, there is one clear negative outlier in the Oregon game, which was a true WTF game for our offense, especially with only 10 first half points. That was really bad. Other than that, OSU and ASU went exactly as they should've. The interesting games all lie above those three, though.

To move to the top, let's look at how we did vs. the better defenses.

First comparison: UW 2015 vs. Stanford 2014. In the 2014 Stanford game we were down 24-7 at the half. We made it look more respectable in the second half by scoring a whopping 10 points, so that salvaged things, but it wasn't a close game and our offense didn't work at all when it mattered. We lost 38-17 to a Stanford team that was only 4-4 in conference at that point. In the 2015 UW game, we scored 20 first half points and never gave up the lead on our way to scoring 30. Advantage: 2015 offense.

The 2014 Oregon game was a clear positive outlier for us, so we'll put that down as a mark in favor of the 2014 offense vs. the 2015 offense.

Second Comparison: Utah and Stanford 2015 vs. UW and USC 2014. Against UW in 2014, we were losing 28-0 at the half and only scored seven points overall. The 2015 Utah game was within one score at the end of every quarter. Enough said on that front. Against USC in 2014, we gained 382 yards with 4.92 ypp. Against Stanford in 2015, we gained 495 yards at 6.35 ypp. We scored more against USC in 2014, but we were losing 31-9 at the half, and 31-16 at the end of the third. USC had a depleted roster and was milking clock for the entire second half. With all this considered, the 2015 games against both Utah and Stanford were better than both of the 2014 games against UW and USC.

Third Comparison: USC 2015 vs. USC 2014. In 2014, as I've said, we were down 31-9 at the half, and 31-16 at the end of the third quarter, before scoring two 4th quarter TD's to make things interesting. Our offense failed where it mattered. In 2015, we gained a few more yards, but had a way higher yards/play rating. The game was out of hand for a stretch in the third quarter, but was a one score game at the end of the first, second, and fourth quarters. Slight advantage to the 2015 offense, but to be fair USC's 2015 scoring defense was a little worse.

Fourth Comparison: UCLA 2015 vs. UCLA 2014. The 2014 UCLA game was close throughout, but only because of TO's deep in UCLA territory. In the first half, we punted every time that UCLA didn't hand us the ball. In the second half, we did have two 54 yard TD drives, one after a turnover on downs, and another after a punt, and the game was still competitive at this point, so that's a mark in favor of the 2014 offense. Our next TD in the 2014 game was only a 2-play, 32 yard drive after Hundley threw an interception. Until the last drive of the game, we had punted every single time that we got the ball inside of our own 40 yard line. The offense didn't work well in this game. It didn't work much better in the 2015 game, but our first FG drive was a 14-play, 66 yard drive. At the end of the half we went 75 yards in 8 plays for a TD to make it 23-10. In the third quarter we went 73 yards in 12 plays for a TD, although at that point the game was getting out of reach. Our 2014 offense did a better job at capitalizing on field position, but the 2015 offense was better able to drive the ball without their success being as dependent on field position. These two performances are close to a tie, with the big difference being the TO ratio.

So here's what I take away from these comparisons: Oregon was an outlier in both years, once in a positive direction, and once in a negative direction. It's only two games, but we can speculate that this is because of Oregon's boom or bust style of play. When you play them, you can either get completely overwhelmed and boat raced (2015) or you can get yourself into a wild shootout (2014). With the 2015 Oregon game as an exception, in both years the offense clearly worked against teams that gave up 29+ ppg, and this is what we should expect. Our ppg was lower against this tier in 2015, but the higher ppg in 2014 didn't help us win more games, with the loss to UA being an obvious case of a barnburner leading to lots of points in a losing effort. As I argued in my last post, we also wouldn't have scored as many points against WSU and CU in 2014 if our defense had been better, as it was in 2015. It should also be noted that OSU was the only truly atrocious (40+ ppg) defense we played in 2015, while both WSU and CU were awful in 2014 and accounted for 35% of our scoring in conference play.

The big difference between the two years is at the top of the conference, where in 2015 we actually moved the ball and scored some on the better defenses in the conference, occasionally looking downright good against these teams. In both years, we underperformed against USC and UCLA relative to the rest of the conference, and so it seems that we were less able than other teams to make up for deficiencies in athleticism against the two best recruiting teams in the conference, even though they weren't exceptional defenses overall. If you want to argue that our offense was worse in 2015, it can only be through quibbling over the fact that we should have scored more against the bad teams in the conference, and not through a comparative study of the entire schedule in each year, particularly at the top, where it matters most for many of us.

Of course, this is a relative comparison, and I think it's fair to say that in absolute terms there are coaches out there that would've won nine games with this roster, so there's still plenty of room for disappointment. That also sets the bar for the rest of Sonny's contract, though, since to my eye it would take relatively minor improvements to go from the seven-win regular season that we just had to a nine win regular season. There's no doubt that we're a lot closer to that now then we were when Sonny started with this group of players, though, so it's fair to say that he should be able to build on this new starting point in the next two seasons. If he does it, great. If he doesn't, then we haven't made that much of an extra commitment to him with this recent extension and should be able to get rid of him.



"Data," "yards" and "yards/play" are argumentative and unweighted (and ultimately generally irrelevant) "data" with no comparative form outside an "I can use Excel" argument purported by berk, "18."

What is the third-down conversion rate for those games (offense and defense) weighted based on sat (score at time)? Crunch the numbers in the basement of Evans and please return. Thanks.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses;842637955 said:

That would be prime ...although he might be eyeing Hc job at Oakland tech


Virdell Larkins (dad of former Bear db) took over for their longtime coach in recent years. Doubt that job will be open for a while.
jaccpot10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp;842637433 said:

This "family man" line rings a little hollow to me. These guys work crazy hours and he's still a 2 hour drive away from his family. Coaches struggle to spend time with their families when they live in the same city. Maybe TF actually believes what he saying...I just don't see it.




I agree.

This "doing it for the family" rationale sounds like an excuse to cover up the real reason for a departure, whether that was a falling out with Sonny Dykes or someone else in the athletic department, a firing, or something very embarrassing.

Remember, Urban Meyer used the same family excuse as his reason for stepping down from Florida (right after his star QB, Tim Tebow, finished his eligibility and left for the NFL, a la star QB Goff leaving for the NFL). Of course, just 1 year later, Meyer was back coaching at Ohio State, arguably a bigger pressure cooker than Florida. There have been tumors that part of the reason for Meyer stepping down at Florida were some indiscretions with Florida female undergraduates, a potentially very embarrassing situation for Meyer.

I cannot believe any such situation involving girls existed for Tony Franklin (mainly because there is a big difference between what the girls look like at Cal from Florida), but as a general comment, the "stepping away for the sake of the family" rationale always strikes me as disingenuous. If they cared that much about spending time with the family, then retire completely and move back home to Princeton, Kentucky, not Midde Tennessee, and don't interview at places like Texas.

I wish Tony Franklin well, but I don't think for a minute that the family is anything but a cover story.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jaccpot10;842638116 said:

I agree.

This "doing it for the family" rationale sounds like an excuse to cover up the real reason for a departure, whether that was a falling out with Sonny Dykes or someone else in the athletic department, a firing, or something very embarrassing.

Remember, Urban Meyer used the same family excuse as his reason for stepping down from Florida (right after his star QB, Tim Tebow, finished his eligibility and left for the NFL, a la star QB Goff leaving for the NFL). Of course, just 1 year later, Meyer was back coaching at Ohio State, arguably a bigger pressure cooker than Florida. There have been tumors that part of the reason for Meyer stepping down at Florida were some indiscretions with Florida female undergraduates, a potentially very embarrassing situation for Meyer.

I cannot believe any such situation involving girls existed for Tony Franklin (mainly because there is a big difference between what the girls look like at Cal from Florida), but as a general comment, the "stepping away for the sake of the family" rationale always strikes me as disingenuous. If they cared that much about spending time with the family, then retire completely and move back home to Princeton, Kentucky, not Midde Tennessee, and don't interview at places like Texas.

I wish Tony Franklin well, but I don't think for a minute that the family is anything but a cover story.


I'm not sure TFs reasons for leaving, but I don't understand your logic.
jaccpot10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003;842638149 said:

I'm not sure TFs reasons for leaving, but I don't understand your logic.




My logic is that these coaches typically don't really prioritize family first over career. If they did, they would be high school football coaches in their hometowns, not college coaches at major conferences on TV every week. Thus, when they publicly say they are taking a step down due to family reasons, that rationale is usually bogus.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So do we have any idea who is on the short list to replace TF? Sorry, being lazy... don't want to wade through all 15 pages of this thread.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe Asiasi told Sonny that he'd come to Cal if Franklin was gone and an OC that uses a TE was hired? Seems like as good a reason as wanting to be closer to his family.

[SIZE=1]don't make me use the sarcasm icon[/SIZE]
KegBear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy;842638195 said:

So do we have any idea who is on the short list to replace TF? Sorry, being lazy... don't want to wade through all 15 pages of this thread.


True, the wading is the hardest part.
berk18
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89;842638073 said:


With that, I’ll say however that garbage time happens, for us, all teams, at various times, in all seasons... And while one can cherry pick UW, that we scored 30 on them, versus the 20 they gave-up on average in the Pac-12, another can retort, what about UCLA, Southern Cal, Oregon, Stanford, where the offense failed to get the conference average on those guys... I choose not to go there, tit for tat, looking at a game here and there; because at this point, it doesn’t matter. Season is done and our point production as an offense rose to average in what had become the worst pass D in FBS.



How is it cherry-picking to compare our performance against the top five defenses we faced in each season? That's over half the schedule!

It's also completely false that garbage time just kind of averages out for everyone. Bad teams score more of their points in garbage time than good teams do, because their offenses aren't scoring early in the game, and so they get blown out. The good team, meanwhile, is doing all that scoring when the game is still close in order to turn it into a blowout. It matters that so many of our ppg in 2014 either came against awful defenses, or in garbage time against good ones. It seriously calls into question the value of those ppg, as 100 different people would've loved to point out if someone on here would've said, after the BYU game in 2014, "But we were close to 40 ppg!" Nobody, including yourself, thought that those ppg mattered then since we couldn't do anything against good conference teams. Why do they matter now?

As for our seasons, the difference in ppg is almost completely accounted for in how we performed against the four worst defenses on our schedule in each year. We scored 53 more total points in conference in 2014. You make up 45 of those points just with the differential in the bottom part of the schedule. One more garbage time TD against the Ducks in 2015, and those four games alone would've accounted for the entire difference. Would that seriously have made our offense better? Does anyone care that we scored 59 points in double overtime vs. Colorado in 2014 but "only" 48 points against ASU in 2015? Certainly not. Everyone knows that those differences are meaningless, but in your method of evaluation, they look significant.

When our offense was truly tested, by good defenses in tight games, our offense improved from 2014 to 2015. Our offense certainly wasn't good against USC and UCLA in 2015, but overall, against the top of the schedule, it improved. We only scored seven points against UW in 2014. We couldn't even put up meaningless TD's in garbage time! Nothing came close to that in 2015. We scored 17 on Stanford in 2014, and 7 of those came in the fourth quarter when we were down 28. Those were complete offensive failures, and scoring 60 on an awful WAZZU defense doesn't make up for them, or change the fact that our offense just wasn't good enough to compete at that level. Would you trade the 2014 games against UW, Stanford, and Oregon for the 2015 games against UW, Utah, and Stanford? I can't imagine that anyone would. The 2014 USC and UCLA games were certainly more fun to watch than the 2015 ones, but it wasn't because the offense could drive the ball when it mattered (thank you defense and 7-win Sark trying to protect his 22-point half-time lead!).

At the end of the day, if you base your analysis on ppg, you're left with the awkward conclusion that you'd think our offense was better if our defense would've given up 50 to Utah and USC so that we could've pumped in some meaningless TD's late. The offense and defense work together and impact each other, and the fact of the matter is that our improved defense led to fewer opportunities for easy, meaningless points for the offense. Fortunately, this combination of offense and defense worked a lot better than the one we saw in 2014, and so we won two more regular season games (the ultimate goal, as you keep pointing out) and went to a bowl for the first time in a while.
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KegBear83;842638227 said:

True, the wading is the hardest part.


Nice commentary on BI by Tom Petty, I mean KegBear83!
Nasal Mucus Goldenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842638251 said:

At the end of the day, if you base your analysis on ppg, you're left with the awkward conclusion that you'd think our offense was better if our defense would've given up 50 to Utah and USC so that we could've pumped in some meaningless TD's late. The offense and defense work together and impact each other, and the fact of the matter is that our improved defense led to fewer opportunities for easy, meaningless points for the offense. Fortunately, this combination of offense and defense worked a lot better than the one we saw in 2014, and so we won two more regular season games (the ultimate goal, as you keep pointing out) and went to a bowl for the first time in a while.


berk18, I don't understand why we couldn't this past season go up tempo for more than the 1 or 2 drives per game at the end of halves. In several games, it looks to me we would have been better off going hurry up for a couple of drives at the start the game, &/or the start of the 2nd half, or during the 4th quarter, or whenever near the red zone or goal line. Picking and choosing some choice spots to go up tempo (without the prairie dog or meerkat routine) wouldn't have killed our defense from exhaustion and would have made it harder on opposing defenses to react on time.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Combination of many factors two of which where

No lasco/ adjustment/ no Rb coach
+
Tf let Goff run things for draft purposes */ show development for scouts

And the wr drops did not help

In short
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
so MB, what's the eta for the announcement on the new OC?
KingPosibear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tequila4kapp;842638471 said:

so MB, what's the eta for the announcement on the new OC?


Love the drift reference. IMO, tequila4kapp wins the internet today.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn’t get an email alert for some odd reason, but I see that there have been responses. Berk, I’m under-the-weather, but I want to say a few things.

The term “garbage time” loosely means points being scored when the outcome of the game is perceived to be a forgone conclusion. Deck chairs on the Titanic so-to-speak. A few examples, 2015:

Cal down to UCLA 40-16, score a TD with under 3 minutes left
Cal down to Stanford 35-16, score a TD with less than 2 minutes left
Cal over OSU 47-24, score a TD with about 7 minutes left
Cal down to the Ducks by 20 half way through the 4th, score a TD

Heck, I feel somewhat the same about the Trojan game where Cal was down 27-14, score a TD with about 4 minutes left. But, since an onside kick and score could win it for Cal, no garbage time. I’ll leave it out of the 2015 GT, as it was technically close. That said, just two TD’s up until the final 4 minutes, against the worst Trojan D in at least 5 years, sucks. Before and after our game with Southern Cal, these offenses managed better against that D: Stanford, Notre Dame, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, UCLA and Wisconsin. To the 4 minute mark left in the game, even UW’s offense, with a true freshman QB who completed 50% of his passes, 4 yards per attempt, found a way to get 17 points on the board, to our 14. UW’s offense finished 10th in scoring in Pac-12 games. Garbage time, for Cal, happens too.

In 2014, and I just made time to look, those games:

Arizona = dogfight, no garbage time points for Cal
Buffs = dogfight, no garbage time points for Cal
Cougs = dogfight, no garbage time points for Cal
UW = no garbage points for Cal
UCLA = dogfight, no garbage points for Cal
Ducks = Cal battled, kept it exciting, but let’s call 7 garbage points for Cal
Beavs = dogfight, no garbage points for Cal
Trojans = That final TD qualifies as GT for most maybe, but with an onside kick, same as 2015 Trojan game though
Stanford = Garbage TD with about 3 minutes left

So, if we include the Trojan game as having a GT TD, that would be 21 GT points in conference play, in 2014. No different than 2015, actually I’d say there were more GT points for Cal in 2015 (28 vs 21). As stated, trivial BS that over the course of an entire season, comparing seasons, generally washes-out. Degrading the 2014 offensive point production due to GT has no legs, and in actuality the contrary case can be made.

The next position taken to discount 2014’s PPG was that the D’s played in 2014 were particularly horrific. Sure, the Buff and Coug Ds were bad alright, 10th and 11th in PPG. The Wildcats were not nearly as bad though, approaching decent actually at 29 PPG allowed in 2014, placing them 8th. Those are the three games were Cal racked-up 164 points. In 2015 Cal played the 10th and 12th worst conference Ds (Oregon schools). This does not include ASU and by the far the worst pass D in FBS. We played very bad conference Ds in 2015 also, and the offense was simply less productive, as it was generally.

Some have postulated that superior athletes on the other side of the ball, not necessarily great or even good Ds, have been problematic for the TFS as well. In 2014, UW’s D was not nearly as productive at 24 PPG allowed, but still quite solid. They had several guys who were drafted into the first round a few months later. No UW defenders are projected in the 2016 draft, despite having a very productive D in CP’s second season. A six TO delta is huge between the 2014 and 2015 UW games. This past season, our Golden Bears had the luxury of being +3 in Seattle, compared to –3 at home in 2014. The Ducks had the worst pass D in the nation when we played them, yet the Bear Raid was a limp dick, struggling much of time, completing 44% of its passes. They got some pretty highly-rated athletes out there though. There might be something there for those who profess that the more gifted defenders, NFL-like material, present real issues for the TFS, even when those defenders don’t comprise a particularly good defense. Even our UCLA game comes-to-mind now. That D was quite depleted when we played them, got waxed in recent games, even against ASU as I recall. Yet, we could only manage two TDs, minus the GT one at the end. Texas has some highly talented guys on D though, but some here speculated that once they caught-on they too were better able to defend us, as witnessed in the fourth quarter. At this point, I really don’t care. Just an observation, and slight digression.

Here’s a look at 2014 and 2015, not just one team (UW), but the top 5 conference Ds:

2014 – Defense PPG Allowed, conference play

Stanford = 19
Oregon = 24
UW = 24
Southern Cal = 25
UCLA = 29

2014 - Cal’s point delta against those team averages

Stanford = -2 (Cal scored 17)
Oregon = +17 (Cal scored 41)
UW = -17 (Cal scored 7)
Southern Cal = +5 (Cal scored 30)
UCLA = +5 (Cal scored 34)

2015 – Defense PPG Allowed, conference play

UW = 20
Utah = 23
Stanford = 24
Southern Cal = 28
UCLA = 29

2015 - Cal’s point delta against those team averages

UW = +10 (Cal scored 30)
Utah = +1 (Cal scored 24)
Stanford = -2 (Cal scored 22)
Southern Cal = -7 (Cal scored 21)
UCLA = -5 (Cal scored 24)

Cal’s offense in 2015, against top 5 conference Ds, 3 times failed to score the Pac-12 average points. That happened twice in 2014. I’ll refrain from using "cherry-pick" again, but UW, in 2014 and 2015 is ripe for such. I’d rather look at more than just one game, the entire Pac-12 season ideally, and here the top 5 most productive conference Ds.

I’m done with the exercise. The more I look, the more I find that further highlights that the 2015 Cal offense was worse than the 2014 one, a TD less a game in conference play, when we should have improved.


The 2014 team delivered more conference points, in the face of being the most penalized team (just 44 yards/game in 2015)
The 2014 team delivered more conference points, while overcoming a negative TO margin (positive in 2015)
The 2015 team had a more seasoned, rare talent of a QB, likely a 1st round pick, possibly first overall.
The 2015 team had a more experienced, talented set of receivers, some have argued the best or deepest ever at Cal.
The 2015 was recognized as not just a veteran offensive squad, but overall as the "most experienced" P5 team, 3rd most in all FBS.
The 2015 team was its third year under TF and TFS, supposedly the break-out year.

GT doesn’t explain this one bit, and as stated above GT favors otherwise, that the 2015 offense benefited in that respect, relatively speaking. Nor does racking-up tons of points against very bad conference Ds in 2014, as Cal played even lower rated conference D’s in 2015. Against the top 5 conference Ds, Cal offense outperformed in 2014.

TF is gone, because his offense was not working as designed at Cal, in the Pac-12. What could have, should have been a banner year for this Goff-led offense, rose only to 6th best in the conference after playing ASU’s pass D, dead last in FBS, by a margin.

TF and his System left for MTSU because he’ll be getting a nice salary bump in the “lateral” move. He left because living in the Nashville area dwarfs that of the Bay Area. He left because C-USA > Pac-12 with respect to academics, athletics, prestige and how that translates to peddling the TFS. No, none of the that of course.

While I don’t doubt that he's at Middle for the reasons provided (family), he’s out for the reasons noted above. The decision-makers see the same. Allow face-saving, say the right things, he’s owed that courtesy, IMO.

The TFS failed to live-up to expectation at Cal and TF is gone. That simple. Go SD and Go Bears!
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Do you feel better now sheesh
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses;842638686 said:

Do you feel better now sheesh


Well, still a bit ill, might have a doc visit, lol.

Seriously, to your point, f*** ya!
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aww
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses;842638698 said:

Aww


Thanks again for the post game clips (hoops). Nice having you back.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89;842638689 said:

Well, still a bit ill, might have a doc visit, lol.

Seriously, to your point, f*** ya!


Take it easy on the DayQuil, bruh.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Calcoholic;842637119 said:

If the speculation is right that Dykes forced him out, I hope he's not underestimating Franklin's value in spite of the vertical sets and simple playbook (which can be a good thing.) I disagree with those who say Dykes' offense at Arizona (without Franklin) was better than at Cal (with Franklin). I'd like to see a statistical comparison, but don't have time to do that right now.


I'd like to see a statistical comparison between him and Mike Dunbar who did a pretty good job as OC for Cal in his one year (2006). There are other OCs that can rack up stats and Dunbar beat Oregon, furd and UCLA, something Franklin has not done.

BTW: In 12 games against the teams that matter (USC, furd, UCLA and the Quacks), Franklin has scored over 30 points just 2 times. And he had great personnel as did Dunbar.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYCGOBEARS;842638711 said:

Take it easy on the DayQuil, bruh.


Haven't got there yet, thankfully. Nothing more to be said until until we make the hire. I'm out. The best to you NYCGB.
NYCGOBEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89;842638750 said:

Haven't got there yet, thankfully. Nothing more to be said until until we make the hire. I'm out. The best to you NYCGB.


To you as well. Feel better!
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mr. Triangle;842637147 said:

Middle Tennessee? Not even the edges of Tennessee, which really are the best parts.


I didn't know Tennessee had a middle.
It's pretty skinny.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842638737 said:

I'd like to see a statistical comparison between him and Mike Dunbar who did a pretty good job as OC for Cal in his one year (2006). There are other OCs that can rack up stats and Dunbar beat Oregon, furd and UCLA, something Franklin has not done.




2006 Stanford = Won 8% of its games.
2006 Oregon = Won 54% of its games.
2006 UCLA = Won 54% of its games.


2013-15 Stanford = Won 76% of its games.
2013-15 Oregon = Won 80% of its games.
2013-15 UCLA = Won 72% of its games.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hmm

Conference passed us up and low and behold we still have a gap to make up...
GATC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo;842638810 said:

2006 Stanford = Won 8% of its games.
2006 Oregon = Won 54% of its games.
2006 UCLA = Won 54% of its games.


2013-15 Stanford = Won 76% of its games.
2013-15 Oregon = Won 80% of its games.
2013-15 UCLA = Won 72% of its games.


So much for that argument.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
berk18;842637627 said:

Just to piggyback off of this for those who like numbers, I broke down the UT game by formation, and we played with a true TE on 37% of our snaps.

For some more general comments on the overall discussion of personnel groupings, for my money, 11 personnel (1 RB, 1 TE, 3 WR's) is the best grouping in football right now, and I think that our shift in that direction has been huge. If everyone on here only listened to one point that I make, I'd want that point to be that whenever you go to 2-backs, you strongly encourage the defense to rotate their safeties and put an extra player in the box. This is the case because of the distribution of your immediate vertical receiving threats. When you're in two back, you have, by definition, a 2x1 receiver distribution, with a TE and a WR to one side, and a single WR to the other. If you don't have a truly kick-ass split end, you're strongly encouraging the defense to man up on that single WR and spin one of their safeties into the box. If you're in the I-formation, you're practically asking teams to play with an 8-man box against your seven blockers (4 DL + 3 LB's + 1 S vs. 5 OL + 1 TE + 1 FB) unless you have a truly kick-ass split end. In 11 personnel you have two receiving threats to each side of the formation (1 TE + 1 WR on one side, and 2 WR's on the other side) giving you a lot more power to force defenses into 2-high coverages, so that they'll only be playing with a six-man box against your 5 OL + 1 TE. By incorporating a third WR into your personnel, you don't just gain more potential for sophistication in the passing game, you also gain the ability to swing numbers +1 in your favor in the run game.


Interesting:

I've been developing a database of pac-12 teams and their roster make-up and I have sort of gleaned that the 3 WR and 1 TE is superior to the 4 WR because the RB has an additional blocker inside and you still have plenty of options throwing the ball. I think most teams in the conference use this personnel package as well as some type of nickel or 3 down defense. As far as I know, only WSU uses the 4 wide, basically using a short passing game in leu of a running game. But the run is superior because the run can control the clock better than the pass. Every incomplete stops the clock and the screen pass requires WRs to block like the OLs would inside. I think, as good as Cal and WSU were this year, they have suffered from not being able to run when needed. And a good portion of their improvement is due to a greater ability to get turnovers on defense.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We must have paid our coaches a lot more back then :-)

going4roses;842638817 said:

Hmm

Conference passed us up and low and behold we still have a gap to make up...
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lol
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89;842638073 said:

On travel with the family, and I don't have time to find a prior post, but more thoughts.

Objective = Winning. The one who wins does so by outscoring the opponent. That simple. With that, the bottomline effectiveness for an offense is point production. For defense, the prevention of such.

I wouldn't call that an analysis, as it doesn't merit such. Season is done, its late January. We are not inquiring about a particular game, drive or possession, but effectiveness of an offense, and its leader, the OC.
It's rather commonsensical. I've had deeper dives here, with more under-the-hood type metrics, that this does not necessitate... Our offense was mediocre and producing points in conference play in 2015. That is an unfortunate fact. Not a trivial one, or an interesting one that might explain some other metric, but points on the board that determine if we win the game.

With that, I'll say however that garbage time happens, for us, all teams, at various times, in all seasons... And while one can cherry pick UW, that we scored 30 on them, versus the 20 they gave-up on average in the Pac-12, another can retort, what about UCLA, Southern Cal, Oregon, Stanford, where the offense failed to get the conference average on those guys... I choose not to go there, tit for tat, looking at a game here and there; because at this point, it doesn't matter. Season is done and our point production as an offense rose to average in what had become the worst pass D in FBS.

I find there to be no acceptable explanation for this occurrence, and the production of a TD less a Pac-12 game compared to 2014. I've commented about our plays a game going down every year (89->84->78). I recognize that of course can explain in part there being fewer points, with fewer opportunities. But, I / we should be seeking acceptable explanations, and that is not one. Someone decided (TF and /or SD), for whatever reason/s, to slow the pace down.

I've heard some comment about a tougher 2015 Pac-12 schedule for Cal, compared to 2014. The Pac-12 D's we played in 2015 were not all that different from 2014, actually very similar with respect to PPG allowed:

2014 = 30.12 PPG allowed, for Cal's 9 conference opponents
2015 = 30.04 PPG allowed, for Cal's 9 conference opponents

The overall number of points scored in conference play says it all though, without the need of getting into this silliness now

Before the season I was jacked about the potential for this offense. No, I wasn't expecting the nearly 52 PPG in La Tech's 3rd season with SD and TF, but the 37.6 PPG of 2014 (Pac-12 games) was encouraging. I had however expressed concerns mid and late 2014 about the offense's point production though... I was thinking how nice it would be to bump our point production by a TD, or to nearly 45 PPG (even posted such). Having a couple Pac-12 teams a year do so is not uncommon. TFS, Bear Raid in its 3rd season, Goff's as well, our best QB in a decade for sure, one of the best in college football, the most experienced team in all of the P5, surely the offense must improve, a FG even to 40+ PPG. Nope. A TD less a game in conference play. Unbelievable. TF is gone for that reason, IMO.

I suppose in a couple of so years when the Blue Raiders are scoring 50 PPG there will be some here on BI who will regret having lost him. I wouldn't be surprised if the TFS flourishes once again. Whether playing the worst Texas D or team in decades, Beavs as well, the Sun Devils pass D which was the worst in FBS, an FCS team of the Mtn West, the TFS clearly shines in such instances.

TF seems like a neat guy, a good person, and I trust that he'll do well at MTSU, but I'm well beyond putting much weight on such touchy feely stuff now. I was excited as any when he was part of the SD hire. Honeymoon very much over.

What SD has done on the academic side of the house, the often noted family atmosphere he has fostered, I really want him to succeed here. The DC hire was a massive mistake and the OC, an experimentation that clearly did not produce the desired results... Really hoping for an appealing hire!


I agree.

And let's not forget that either Tony or Sonny (likely both) were responsible for the loss of Lasco to injury in 2015. There was no reason for the first unit, which included Goff, to be playing up by at least 3 scores with less than 10 minutes to play in a game that our D dominated. And it's a good thing that Goff was not hurt instead.

Also, the TFS, for all it's statistical production, was maddenly inconsistent within and across games. Almost every game, the TFS would stall for a quarter or a half at a time. Often the lesser teams would get back in the game and the better teams would put us away. This was most apparent during the 2nd quarter of the Oregon game this year when Oregon put the game away with a series of 3 and outs and D and TDs on O for a 28-0 advantage. But it happened to some extent almost every game. The reason is that throwing 3 incomplete passes happens much more quickly than running 3 times for no gain. Our D had no rest. TF has made comments to the effect that the D doesn't need to be good.

Recently, the media coverage of the Chip Kelley hire in SF included some details about the negative effects of the quick tempo offense on the Eagle defense. This was not speculation. This was scouts and insiders who had worked Kelley in Phily. The arrogance and disregard that TF showed for our defense has something to do with what happened to it. Very little of TFs football philosophy thinks about both sides of the ball.

Maybe now we can mature into a program that develops all phases.

This all sounds like I'm a hater. No, I love the passing offense. It is how I became a Cal fan. Actually I hated the Tedford run first stuff because it was so boring. But there needs to be some balance. If you are trying to spear a tomatoe seed with a fork, it doesn't work to over compensate. You have to hit dead center. At Cal, we keep jumping from one extreme to another. I'm hoping we can be at least decent at all phases. That means having both a run game and a pass game. It means having a run and pass defense. It means having coverage teams and field goal kicks. Under Franklin, Cal was biased in so many ways. And Franklin wanted it his way. Well his way lands him in the middle of Tennessee far away from the critics here.

Franklin wants us to look at stats to show how he did. But he would say the biggest stat is wins.
Franklin= 14 wins in 3 years for a 4.67 win per year average.

So no it does not work.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GATC;842638821 said:

So much for that argument.


Actually it does nothing for my main arguement.
Was Dunbar an effective OC that led Cal to win big in 2006 or not?
There are other OCs that can generate points. Some also generate wins.
With TF, not so much with the wins. Unless you are going to credit him with what Goff and the Calgang#12 did at WR.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Loss of lasco? Coaches fault hmm ?
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842638862 said:

Actually it does nothing for my main arguement.
Was Dunbar an effective OC that led Cal to win big in 2006 or not?
There are other OCs that can generate points. Some also generate wins.
With TF, not so much with the wins. Unless you are going to credit him with what Goff and the Calgang#12 did at WR.



It's a way bigger picture than w/L record or stats
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal89;842638708 said:

Thanks again for the post game clips (hoops). Nice having you back.


Np and Thx
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.