Kaufman either needs to grow a pair or resign

8,703 Views | 60 Replies | Last: 9 yr ago by GranadaHillsBear
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am absolutely sick and tired of this bend and break defense.

The very worst defensive philosophy you can pair with our offense is a bend don't break. Especially when it's consistently breaking.

One of the keys to our offense is to run tempo, ideally to run a ton of plays to get the opposing defense tired. This strategy simply cannot work when the opposing offense dominates the time of possession and keeps our offense off the field. It's like, what's the point of running tempo if we never have the ball for enough possessions.

So rather than our tempo benefiting us, it actually hinders us because it just helps to keep our defense on the field longer. It's much preferable to let the offense score fast than score slow.

Am I asking to just blitz every time? No.

My biggest problem with the defense is our mentality. This mentality that we just need to do enough so our offense can win the game. THis loser mentality that we should just concede yards for fear of the other team making a big play. Playing passively or timidly is no way to play defense.

So we play our safeties deep and play our corners 10-15 yards off the line and put 6 people in the box. And we just hope that the other team makes a mistake.

We are basically telling the opposing team, go ahead....do whatever you want. Take 5-6 yards at a time. We won't even try to stop you. But just don't beat us deep.

Late in the game, it was like 3 and 4 and osu just needed a single first down to win the game. Instead of pressing the receivers, we played our corners 10 yards back. I'll repeat, osu needed 4 yards to win the game and we were playing our corners back. Predicably osu ran a little wr screen which would have easily worked if he didn't just drop the ball. So basically, our defense conceded the first down so we could defend the deep ball?!?!??

If we are playing against a top notch offense or a top notch qb, then I get that type of strategy. But when we are playing crappy offenses with crappy quarterbacks?

Rather than just conceding yards, why can't we dictate the terms. Force the offense to do things that they are uncomfortable doing. If the opposing team can only hurt you on the ground and throw short passes, then take that $hit away. How hard is that to understand?!????

Put some numbers in the box. Stop the run. Play the corners up and force the qb to throw the ball down the field. And by playing the corners up, you also have more defenders closer to the line of scrimmage to stop running plays.

Zone blitz. Show 8 in the box and drop everyone back into coverage. Corner blitz. Do something other than just running your base defense every single godamn play.

Change the mentality from passivity to aggressiveness. Force the opposing qb to make plays rather than just handing them yards on a silver platter.

If you get beat deep on occasion, you get beat. But you much rather get beat by the opposing team doing something they suck at rather than just conceding 5-6 yards at a time and HOPING for a penalty or turnover.

And please, don't tell me it's a personnel problem. Cause if we had Idaho states defense, we win that game handily.

Look, I don't think making these simple changes is going to make our defense into a juggernaut. But I'm positive that playing more aggressively will at least produce more than two godamn punts and probably cause more turnovers. And at the very least, it gets our offense back on the field and our defense off. The very worst thing our defense can do is to give up long sustained to scoring drives. And that's exactly what our defense is designed to do.

Oh and last thing....when everyone in the stadium knows that you are going to run qb read option.....I don't know....maybe put a spy on the dude?
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I normally think bitching about coaches is hindsight-fan-weak-sauce, but in this case you are really correct. There aren't too many games that the strategy is so clearly wrong.

That team was not a team to play soft against. Their QB obviously struggled on any deep or even mid range ball. We should have stacked the box and blitzed mercilessly. All we needed were a couple drive killing plays. We had no real negative plays--no sacks, no tackles for a loss, no forced holding. Giving up a quick strike TD mattered not. We needed to force him to throw and disrupt the long drives.

The lack of pressing at the end of the game on 3rd and 4 with everything on the line was shocking--cushion on the potential game deciding obvious pass play. When their RB got injured we should have REALLY ratchet up the pressure and spied him every play. Nope.
mvargus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I completely agree with this statement. In the second quarter I started to watch the defense trying to figure out why OSU could run at will and noticed the following.

1) Despite OSU not having a QB with a strong and accurate arm we were playing a lot of 4-2-5 defense and lining up most if not all the DBs at least 10 yards behind the LOS. This meant we had only 6 players in a position to stop the run.

2) Even after it became clear that OSU was not going to throw long and could not throw long with any accuracy (they threw 2 passes deep, both were out of bounds and uncatchable. Both were also well covered by the CB.) we kept at least one safety 15+ yards off the LOS at the snap.

3) With only 2 LBs we surrendered one side of the field to a wide play and/or we surrendered the middle of the field to a run up the middle.

In the end we gave up far too many long runs, and all because the defensive scheme was all about preventing a long pass THAT WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. It was disgusting to think that Cal could have and should have been able to stop OSU regularly. Their last 2 drives had Cal playing with a safety up and in a more traditional 4-3-4 defense, and we managed to make OSU go 3 and out twice. But it was only when we were desperate to get stops that Kaufman abandoned his "I have no testicles and will defend to the death a long pass that we won't see because any offensive coordinator with the brain of a snail can see you beat Cal by running on every down system."

Bluntly, if Sonny wants Cal to reach the next level he needs to find an defensive coordinator that will take risks and will put his players in positions where they can make plays even if it means we give up a few long passes. As it was we gave up several huge runs up the middle because with only 6 men in the box and the safeties spread wide to cover the WRs the middle of the field is this huge void that any RB with a pulse can rumble through for 15+ yards if he gets halfway decent blocking up front.
ThesePretzels
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would understand playing 10-15 yards off the line of scrimmage if we were good tacklers. But we're not. We took away the long ball against a guy who couldn't throw the long ball anyway. But then we get killed on slants and other shorter passes.

Just a weird choice of scheme against that particular quarterback last night...
72CalBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Scheme? Or the Bears had no heart last night? My grandma (who is dead) could have played with more heart on defense last night. It happens.
staygolden2001
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder if Kaufman and co. ever base their schemes off of what other teams have done in previous games. Clearly Anderson and the Beavs saw what Utah and ASU did against us and used that as a road map to success. Press coverage on D and run the ball up our throat and bleed the clock.
BerlinerBaer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
72CalBear;842743525 said:

Scheme? Or the Bears had no heart last night? My grandma (who is dead) could have played with more heart on defense last night. It happens.


The OP described specific instances where a change in scheme would have changed the odds on each play considerably. Not saying you're wrong, though.

Just to play devil's advocate... would playing the corners 5-10 yards off the WR at the snap allow them to more quickly react to the run?
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mvargus;842743515 said:

I completely agree with this statement. In the second quarter I started to watch the defense trying to figure out why OSU could run at will and noticed the following.

1) Despite OSU not having a QB with a strong and accurate arm we were playing a lot of 4-2-5 defense and lining up most if not all the DBs at least 10 yards behind the LOS. This meant we had only 6 players in a position to stop the run.

2) Even after it became clear that OSU was not going to throw long and could not throw long with any accuracy (they threw 2 passes deep, both were out of bounds and uncatchable. Both were also well covered by the CB.) we kept at least one safety 15+ yards off the LOS at the snap.

3) With only 2 LBs we surrendered one side of the field to a wide play and/or we surrendered the middle of the field to a run up the middle.

In the end we gave up far too many long runs, and all because the defensive scheme was all about preventing a long pass THAT WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. It was disgusting to think that Cal could have and should have been able to stop OSU regularly. Their last 2 drives had Cal playing with a safety up and in a more traditional 4-3-4 defense, and we managed to make OSU go 3 and out twice. But it was only when we were desperate to get stops that Kaufman abandoned his "I have no testicles and will defend to the death a long pass that we won't see because any offensive coordinator with the brain of a snail can see you beat Cal by running on every down system."

Bluntly, if Sonny wants Cal to reach the next level he needs to find an defensive coordinator that will take risks and will put his players in positions where they can make plays even if it means we give up a few long passes. As it was we gave up several huge runs up the middle because with only 6 men in the box and the safeties spread wide to cover the WRs the middle of the field is this huge void that any RB with a pulse can rumble through for 15+ yards if he gets halfway decent blocking up front.


The long pass for OSU is/was an aberration. Look at the QBs stats going in...They rarely ever complete a pass over 10 yards, or even have it go 10 yards with catch and carry. So Kaufman's defense is what? Go figure.
FCBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Break don't Bend D isn't working
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Heres the worst part of all of this.

Stanfurd is extremely beatable at home. Extremely beatable.

And every single person on this board knows how to stop their offense. Theyve been conpletely figured out.

And yet, kaufmans going to run the same bs defense and mccaffrey is going to break some sort of single game rushing record against us.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
72CalBear;842743525 said:

Scheme? Or the Bears had no heart last night? My grandma (who is dead) could have played with more heart on defense last night. It happens.


You had a hell of a grandma.
May she rest in peace.
chelseabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No more sacrificial lambs. No way Dykes should get to hire another defensive coordinator when he's the problem.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky: one of the things I like about you is that your posts are specific. You are a very good communicator.
When I come out supporting the coaching etc., it is really a response to poor arguments. Either the OP has not observed well, or is not being logical or is vague and general.

In your post, most of what you observed I observed as well. And I said as much during the game thread. That is why I think this game is on the defense. Some here are throwing the offense in as well. Cal scored 44 points, 41 in regulation. They finally committed to the run and did it well. That is a break through for us offensively. There is one possible legitimate critique, which is that Webb should have been replaced. But what if Forrest/Bowers did just as poorly. We probably would have been even more pissed.

Anyway, I appreciate your OP and I totally agree. Plus you made an interesting insight. With the type of offense we run, Cal is better off with a risk/reward type of D like Pendy uses. That way the Cal D gets off the field more quickly either way. I also think it would attract more recruits. I don't know who would want to play this kind of exhausting D.
calgo430
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842743619 said:

ducky: one of the things I like about you is that your posts are specific. You are a very good communicator.
When I come out supporting the coaching etc., it is really a response to poor arguments. Either the OP has not observed well, or is not being logical or is vague and general.

In your post, most of what you observed I observed as well. And I said as much during the game thread. That is why I think this game is on the defense. Some here are throwing the offense in as well. Cal scored 44 points, 41 in regulation. They finally committed to the run and did it well. That is a break through for us offensively. There is one possible legitimate critique, which is that Webb should have been replaced. But what if Forrest/Bowers did just as poorly. We probably would have been even more pissed.

Anyway, I appreciate your OP and I totally agree. Plus you made an interesting insight. With the type of offense we run, Cal is better off with a risk/reward type of D like Pendy uses. That way the Cal D gets off the field more quickly either way. I also think it would attract more recruits. I don't know who would want to play this kind of exhausting D.
i

completely agree with these posts. we should have had 7 in the box to stop the beaver running attack. we did not. shame on art kaufman. we need to take some risk. the bend not break ala bob gregory should be burried forever.
Nofado
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It wasn't just the alignment but how many times did our DE chase the flow rather than stay home and seal off the edge? That is poor coaching. No excuses on that one
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842743619 said:

ducky: one of the things I like about you is that your posts are specific. You are a very good communicator.
When I come out supporting the coaching etc., it is really a response to poor arguments. Either the OP has not observed well, or is not being logical or is vague and general.

In your post, most of what you observed I observed as well. And I said as much during the game thread. That is why I think this game is on the defense. Some here are throwing the offense in as well. Cal scored 44 points, 41 in regulation. They finally committed to the run and did it well. That is a break through for us offensively. There is one possible legitimate critique, which is that Webb should have been replaced. But what if Forrest/Bowers did just as poorly. We probably would have been even more pissed.

Anyway, I appreciate your OP and I totally agree. Plus you made an interesting insight. With the type of offense we run, Cal is better off with a risk/reward type of D like Pendy uses. That way the Cal D gets off the field more quickly either way. I also think it would attract more recruits. I don't know who would want to play this kind of exhausting D.


Thanks I appreciate the kind words.

During the game I was somewhat critical of both spav and Webb. Particularly Spavs insistence on calling all those wr screen passes when osu was determined to take that away.

But once you learn after the game that Webb is hurt....it's much more defensible.

Sure you can argue that you replace Webb, but there's a lot more to playing qb then just throwing the ball. For all his faults, he's pretty good at managing a game. Who knows how the backup will react being thrown into a game like that?

Plus just the threat of webb being out there allows us to run more easily.

Bottom line, the offense played reasonably well considering the injury circumstances. The defense cannot simply rely on the offense to bail them out every game.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who's the best QB we've faced this year? The Texas true freshman? Darnold, Browning, Faulk will snap this bbdb. Rosen if healthy.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23;842743662 said:

Thanks I appreciate the kind words.

During the game I was somewhat critical of both spav and Webb. Particularly Spavs insistence on calling all those wr screen passes when osu was determined to take that away.

But once you learn after the game that Webb is hurt....it's much more defensible.

Sure you can argue that you replace Webb, but there's a lot more to playing qb then just throwing the ball. For all his faults, he's pretty good at managing a game. Who knows how the backup will react being thrown into a game like that?

Plus just the threat of webb being out there allows us to run more easily.

Bottom line, the offense played reasonably well considering the injury circumstances. The defense cannot simply rely on the offense to bail them out every game.


I am pretty done with Kaufman at this point and I don't know how a guy like him motivates players. He has no fire in his personality. But I also have some sympathy for any D coach working under Dykes. I mean we have countless scholie WRs sitting on the bench and we are short LBs. Currently we have 2 WR commits for 2017 and 1 LB commit.

People say that the system requires more WRs. But we have not been rotating many WRs this season (maybe 8 total). And we have many more sitting the bench. That is just so obviously a problem that I don't know why the AD puts up with it. It is not a new problem either. It has been going on for years.
southseasbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My favorite Cal defense was the early 1990's under Kent Baer. He would put 10 in the box to threaten the QB. Of course, some would pull out but the offense had no idea who was coming. At times they got burned, but they often made the big play.

I'm thinking that Kaufman is too conservative for wide-open Pac 12 offenses.

For all the criticism of Buh, at least he made half time adjustments.
SmellinRoses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842743668 said:

I am pretty done with Kaufman at this point and I don't know how a guy like him motivates players. He has no fire in his personality. But I also have some sympathy for any D coach working under Dykes. I mean we have countless scholie WRs sitting on the bench and we are short LBs. Currently we have 2 WR commits for 2017 and 1 LB commit.

People say that the system requires more WRs. But we have not been rotating many WRs this season (maybe 8 total). And we have many more sitting the bench. That is just so obviously a problem that I don't know why the AD puts up with it. It is not a new problem either. It has been going on for years.


Agree - remember the first time seeing Buh interviewed and thinking, can't see this guy connecting with the players. Felt same way about Kaufman and turns out he is no better. But in the end, it's all on Dykes and we're going nowhere.
grrrah76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SmellinRoses;842743681 said:

Agree - remember the first time seeing Buh interviewed and thinking, can't see this guy connecting with the players. Felt same way about Kaufman and turns out he is no better. But in the end, it's all on Dykes and we're going nowhere.


I am beginning to think its more about not having enough experienced players. We lost four starters on defense (two safeties and two linebackers) before the season began and we were short on depth on those positions to start with. And there has been fairly poor balance recruiting on the defensive side of the ball for several years. It seems to be a very undisciplined defense. I don't even remember Loony's name being mentioned at all last night.

Just when you think the Bears are turning the corner, they rip your heart out again and again and again.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm wondering why I place so much emotional well-being and faith on teenagers.
Just a thought.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chelseabear;842743618 said:

No more sacrificial lambs. No way Dykes should get to hire another defensive coordinator when he's the problem.


That's just it, if you don't have confidence in Dykes to hire a DC...than you can't keep Dykes. That's literally one of the most important jobs for a HC is picking the OC/DC lol.
OdontoBear66
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brainsmile;842743660 said:

It wasn't just the alignment but how many times did our DE chase the flow rather than stay home and seal off the edge? That is poor coaching. No excuses on that one


Some of the times it was Saffle and Weaver....Gotta give them a break on youth....These were disguised pretty well. A mistake yes, but somewhat forgivable for young players.
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hmm, what is Greathouse referring to?

AJ Greathouse
AJ Greathouse‏ @Tha_Great_14
A change needs to be made... Its very evident
Oct 9, 2016, 11:54 AM from Berkeley, CA
Calcoholic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23;842743491 said:

So we play our safeties deep and play our corners 10-15 yards off the line and put 6 people in the box. And we just hope that the other team makes a mistake.

We are basically telling the opposing team, go ahead....do whatever you want. Take 5-6 yards at a time. We won't even try to stop you. But just don't beat us deep.


It's also frustrating that this has how Cal has played defense ever since 2002, with the exception of the Clancy Pendergast years. Bob Gregory and AK are apparently from the same school, except at least under BG, we were more committed to stopping the run. Now we're somehow simultaneously horrible at both. I miss the Pendergast years. Sometimes we got burned deep (not too often actually) but the defense had attitude and swagger, it was easier to recruit good players, and it was fun to watch.
SRBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First crack.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert;842743729 said:

Hmm, what is Greathouse referring to?

AJ Greathouse
AJ Greathouse‏ @Tha_Great_14
A change needs to be made... Its very evident
Oct 9, 2016, 11:54 AM from Berkeley, CA


Who is Greathouse?
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doesn't matter if it is teenagers, 80 year old men or 45 year old men. All have their problems and at some time immaturity. As followers of this team, we have the right to question what they do. Age has no bearing on if we are reasonably allowed to do this.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear;842743619 said:

ducky: one of the things I like about you is that your posts are specific. You are a very good communicator.
When I come out supporting the coaching etc., it is really a response to poor arguments. Either the OP has not observed well, or is not being logical or is vague and general.

In your post, most of what you observed I observed as well. And I said as much during the game thread. That is why I think this game is on the defense. Some here are throwing the offense in as well. Cal scored 44 points, 41 in regulation. They finally committed to the run and did it well. That is a break through for us offensively. There is one possible legitimate critique, which is that Webb should have been replaced. But what if Forrest/Bowers did just as poorly. We probably would have been even more pissed.

Anyway, I appreciate your OP and I totally agree. Plus you made an interesting insight. With the type of offense we run, Cal is better off with a risk/reward type of D like Pendy uses. That way the Cal D gets off the field more quickly either way. I also think it would attract more recruits. I don't know who would want to play this kind of exhausting D.


I agree. Ducky a great writer and poster.
philbert
How long do you want to ignore this user?
82gradDLSdad;842743811 said:

Who is Greathouse?


AJ Greathouse University of California-Berkeley | student-athlete |DB 14 | RS Sophomore
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philbert;842743902 said:

AJ Greathouse University of California-Berkeley | student-athlete |DB 14 | RS Sophomore


Thanks. Sounds like he's going to slip down a few rungs on the 'buy-in' chart.
ktownbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ducky your point about the need to match up the defense with the offense is spot on and something that I've also been thinking about. If you sort defenses from high % gamblers to bend-but-not-break wouldn't high gamblers better match this defense? Lots of blitzes. And when it gets burned we get the offense back on the field quicker. And especially if we can't anyone anyway most of the time - one successful blitz ends the drive most of the time ... and blitzes that result in rushed throwaways are almost as good ...

Maybe the CEO/coach should be looking for hat type of DC? I'm not ready to crucify Kaufman yet when we're just so overmatched physically. But what would it take to get a DC who could recruit better? How many DC's are known for that. This should not be a bad place to recruit to...
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SmellinRoses;842743681 said:

Agree - remember the first time seeing Buh interviewed and thinking, can't see this guy connecting with the players. Felt same way about Kaufman and turns out he is no better. But in the end, it's all on Dykes and we're going nowhere.


Well Pendergast didn't exactly connect with players or recruit either. But he is good with Xs and Os, and I like his aggressive style. We don't need charisma (that's Sonny's job), we need someone who does D that fits our program. We thought maybe the D was turning the corner after the crazy goal line stand we had last week (and the first half of the ASU game). But that thinking was just obliterated losing to a terrible one-dimensional Oregon State team, in that kind of fashion. We at Cal like to implode in absolutely fantastic ways (see week of the NCAA tournament in basketball).
BearBoarBlarney
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Art Kaufman should get a ton of flak for his defenses, and it's good to finally see concerns being raised about the D he's "coordinating."

But as others have noted, the root cause of the problem seems to be Sonny's own inability to properly hire coaches who can actually coach defense.

Here are the NCAA Total Defense rankings rankings from 2010 to 2016 for teams coached by Sonny:

Year Rank
2010 116th (out of 120) at La Tech
2011 57 / 120 at La Tech
2012 124 / 124 at La Tech
2013 124 / 125 at Cal
2014 124 / 128 at Cal
2015 109 / 128 at Cal
2016 122 / 128 at Cal

So, the average ranking for Total Defense is 111 out of 125 Football Bowl Subdivision teams.

If you remove the best and worst Total Defense seasons (2011 - best, 2012 - worst) defensive performances, the avg ranking is 119 ouf of 126 FBS teams.

If you look at the Total Defense rankings for just Sonny's Cal years, the average ranking for Total Defense is 120 out of 128 teams.

There's simply no discernible pattern of improvement to the defenses under Sonny.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.