Our offense last year:
Total Offense 11th
Scoring Offense 10th
Rushing Offense 10th
Passing Offense 5th
Passing Efficiency 11th
Red Zone Offense 11th
Tied for last in yards per play (5.2).

In the above what jumps out is we were 5th in passing yards and that was despite being 11th in passing efficiency (and 11th in completion percentage).

Individually, Laird:
Yards per carry: 5th (5.9 ypc)
Rushing yards: 7th
Rushing attempts: 8th

Ranking the teams in order of the ratio of running plays to passing plays (not correcting for sacks):
Arizona 2.1
Oregon 2.0
Washington 1.4
ASU 1.4
Stanford 1.3
Utah 1.2
Colorado 1.2
USC 1.1
OSU 1.1
Cal 0.9
UCLA 0.7
WSU 0.4

Only 3 teams passed more than they ran, Leach's WSU, UCLA with Josh Rosen, and Cal with a RS frosh QB and top two WRs out with injury. Cal was 5th in passing yards but 11th in passing efficiency--we got there by playing spread and putting too much pressure on our young QB. This even after Laird's emergence as a Top 5 running threat (mostly running out of those spread formations).

Going into this season we know we again will be without Robertson and Stoval, our proven deep threats. Our OL is a strength. We need to abandon the spread as our base formation. McMorris needs to be on the field. We have good TEs. Strategically, we need to have Laird's running be the primary focus of the offense. We need McMorris at FB in our base set. Bowers (or McIlwain) can then throw off play action to Laird and on bootlegs allowing receivers and TEs (and Laird) to get open behind the defense, or to take off running themselves.

If we can improve by 50 yards per game that will move us up from 11th to 6th on offense, which combined with further improvement in our #7 defense (in part by having a more effective offense), should put us solidly in the middle of the conference, put us in a bowl game and demonstrate the momentum needed to land more 4 and 5 star players on offense.

Good stuff calumnus. Thanks for sharing.

Worthy of note, I feel:

QB sacks allowed
Running game effectiveness
Playmaker availabilty
Overall youth and inexperience
First year HC and staff
First year starting QB

The sack rate (sacks per attempt) was high, the highest since Maynard 2012. We also had a very poor average yards per carry. Our worst in quite a few years. A green QB, with poor pass protection, coupled with an ineffective running game to lean on, makes for poor results. Also, one has to go back many years to find so few playmakers or just even speed on offense. So, when Bowers could get passes off, the degree of "openness", the margin for error, was not all that much...

Cal, per Phil Steele, fielded one of the most inexperienced teams in 2017 (100+, 11th in the conference). Yet, with a new HC and support staff, we were a much more competitive team last year (point deltas).

All of that considered, our lackluster offensive performance is explained, for me at least. We can look at SD's first year statistics, an offensive HC at that, and they were not pretty as well...

I agree we should run more this year.
But last year, we passed because defenses keyed against our running game.
Plus our OL was a question mark and very inconsistent.

To the degree that our OL improves as it is projected to do this year,
we should be able to run at will more often. That was not always the case last year.

Also, don't discount the quality of receiver play we had last year.
And many of those guys are back this year, including Laird, who caught a number of passes out of the backfield.

I've said it many times in the past: I think Baldwin is a good coach, but the spread is not a good fit for what Cal is trying to do as a program. It is good when your players can win individual matchups. Across the board, this is not an advantage for Cal. The Wisconsin model is a great idea for Cal, and Cal shouldn't do it halfway.

kad02002 said:

---

but the spread is not a good fit for what Cal is trying to do as a program.

---

Why ? Didn't Larid have a lot of success running out of 10 personal formations?

I wasn't thoroughly impressed with Beau last year as much as others on this board were, mostly because he still hasn't figured out how to use McMorris. And it always seemed when the offense went empty backfield, nothing good happened.

This year, let's get McMorris 10 plus carries a game and no more empty backfield formations, even on 3rd down! And call a run play on 3rd and 4 every now and then for heaven's sake. My wish is to see McMorris wear down the defense and run out the clock in the 4th quarter and have someone in the backfield give Bowers that extra second he needs.

going4roses said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

but the spread is not a good fit for what Cal is trying to do as a program.

---

Why ? Didn't Larid have a lot of success running out of 10 personal formations?

---

We had a lot more success with both Laird and McMorris in the backfield, Laird is really good at following his blocks and/or bouncing outside.

We don't need to rehash last year. I completely understand starting out with spread as our base when we were Bear Raid the year before and our our best playmakers were Robertson and Stoval. I think we were slow to recognize Laird as a transcendent talent and adjust our strategy accordingly, but I get that it is easier to make a 180 change in strategy from the comfort of my keyboard than it is in practice when your playbook and practices have been spread all year. Still, using the empty backfield sets late in the season was inexcusable.

However, this year, we know what we have. We need to have the run as our primary weapon and pass off play action. The model is Harbaugh's early Stanford teams.

The spread formations allowed us to have success running the ball. It creates space and opportunities. We are not good enough to play Wisconsin style power football. That would be stupid. Baldwin's offense is good, we were decimated by injuries.

tequila4kapp said:

---

The spread formations allowed us to have success running the ball. It creates space and opportunities. We are not good enough to play Wisconsin style power football. That would be stupid. Baldwin's offense is good, we were decimated by injuries.

---

Who was injured that we will get back? With Rosen gone, if we make no changes, we will likely be 11th in run/pass ratio. Do you think we should continue to pass as much as we did last year? If we make no changes, how much of an improvement from the #11 offense do you see? How and why? Thanks

calumnus said:

---

Our offense last year:
Total Offense 11th
Scoring Offense 10th
Rushing Offense 10th
Passing Offense 5th
Passing Efficiency 11th
Red Zone Offense 11th
Tied for last in yards per play (5.2).

In the above what jumps out is we were 5th in passing yards and that was despite being 11th in passing efficiency (and 11th in completion percentage).

Individually, Laird:
Yards per carry: 5th (5.9 ypc)
Rushing yards: 7th
Rushing attempts: 8th

Ranking the teams in order of the ratio of running plays to passing plays (not correcting for sacks):
Arizona 2.1
Oregon 2.0
Washington 1.4
ASU 1.4
Stanford 1.3
Utah 1.2
Colorado 1.2
USC 1.1
OSU 1.1
Cal 0.9
UCLA 0.7
WSU 0.4

Only 3 teams passed more than they ran, Leach's WSU, UCLA with Josh Rosen, and Cal with a RS frosh QB and top two WRs out with injury. Cal was 5th in passing yards but 11th in passing efficiency--we got there by playing spread and putting too much pressure on our young QB. This even after Laird's emergence as a Top 5 running threat (mostly running out of those spread formations).

Going into this season we know we again will be without Robertson and Stoval, our proven deep threats. Our OL is a strength. We need to abandon the spread as our base formation. McMorris needs to be on the field. We have good TEs. Strategically, we need to have Laird's running be the primary focus of the offense. We need McMorris at FB in our base set. Bowers (or McIlwain) can then throw off play action to Laird and on bootlegs allowing receivers and TEs (and Laird) to get open behind the defense, or to take off running themselves.

If we can improve by 50 yards per game that will move us up from 11th to 6th on offense, which combined with further improvement in our #7 defense (in part by having a more effective offense), should put us solidly in the middle of the conference, put us in a bowl game and demonstrate the momentum needed to land more 4 and 5 star players on offense.

---

When was Stovall a proven deep threat with 9 yards a reception? Our leading receivers last year were all way over that number. Melquise is not Robertson.

calumnus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Who was injured that we will get back? With Rosen gone, if we make no changes, we will likely be 11th in run/pass ratio. Do you think we should continue to pass as much as we did last year? If we make no changes, how much of an improvement from the #11 offense do you see? How and why? Thanks

---

---

I don't know the answer. Maybe OL?? But even if we return nobody that was injured it is still disruptive to have the injuries occur during the season, much less a game. Merely starting the season - getting through camp - with the new guys working as first team people, gaining continuity, having space/time to improve themselves, etc., will be different.

Did the 49rs pass too much under Bill Walsh or did they do it because the short passes were an opportunity? Does WSU pass too much or do they do it because it's the best way for them to move the ball? We should do whatever gives us the best chance to succeed, regardless of the ratios or statistics.

I think our offense improvement will be directly proportional to QB play. I thought our QB play was quite substandard last year - inaccurate and unable to make certain throws. I thought that hamstrung the play calling.

So in general, I see Baldwin as having overcome massive injuries to the OL, our WRs and RBs, having a very average first year QB and still finding some ways to have succes. Instead of seeing all the negatives I give BB a ton of credit for what he acccomolished given all the circumstances.

We should also remember Laird got hurt in the middle of the season, which makes it hard to adjust to him mid-season.

calumnus said:

---

going4roses said:

---

kad02002 said:

---

but the spread is not a good fit for what Cal is trying to do as a program.

---

Why ? Didn't Larid have a lot of success running out of 10 personal formations?

---

We had a lot more success with both Laird and McMorris in the backfield, Laird is really good at following his blocks and/or bouncing outside.

We don't need to rehash last year. I completely understand starting out with spread as our base when we were Bear Raid the year before and our our best playmakers were Robertson and Stoval. I think we were slow to recognize Laird as a transcendent talent and adjust our strategy accordingly, but I get that it is easier to make a 180 change in strategy from the comfort of my keyboard than it is in practice when your playbook and practices have been spread all year. Still, using the empty backfield sets late in the season was inexcusable.

However, this year, we know what we have. We need to have the run as our primary weapon and pass off play action. The model is Harbaugh's early Stanford teams.

---

Your numbers absolutely confirm what you suggest. Throw in the fact that as you look at our offense where is the perceived overall weakness. Not the OL, not the TE this year, not the RB. It is in speed to open up the passing game underneath in the WRs (specifically loss of Robertson), and Bowers himself still a question mark. So I would definitely start out the season running much more percentage wise than in the past, and if the passing game is made more viable with the increased running making it so, and if Bowers develops as we hope, not as we have witnessed so far, then pass more as time goes on.

That thinking in itself will throw opposing teams off as the season progresses. The film they look at in early games may not be the team they see as the passing game increases. Good numbers calumnus

Not to burst any delusions of adequacy here, but don't we think Wilcox knows how to use his players?

oskirules said:

---

I wasn't thoroughly impressed with Beau last year as much as others on this board were, mostly because he still hasn't figured out how to use McMorris. And it always seemed when the offense went empty backfield, nothing good happened.

This year, let's get McMorris 10 plus carries a game and no more empty backfield formations, even on 3rd down! And call a run play on 3rd and 4 every now and then for heaven's sake. My wish is to see McMorris wear down the defense and run out the clock in the 4th quarter and have someone in the backfield give Bowers that extra second he needs.

---

I like him, too, but TEN carries per game for McMorris is crazy.

BearGreg said:

---

Couple of things:

• Baldwin runs a multiple offense not a spread. The lack of TEs on the roster last season led to more spread formations as Baldwin looked to build the offense around his personnel
• We go from virtually no true TEs last year to 3 good ones in 2018 with Hudson, Bunting and a far larger and more experienced Reinwald
• We finished the year running the ball more than we passed. The OL started to find its groove as did Laird, thus the run/pass balance shifted vs. Oregon State, Stanford and UCLA.
• This Spring saw the Bears in far, far less four wide and far more TE and FB formations
• With RBs who gained over 1000 yards in 2017, Patrick Laird finished 5th in YPC at 5.9 in the Pac 12
• YPC overall is a stat that is materially impacted by lost yardage from sacks
• Our pass protection improved markedly at the end of year as well. In November, we allowed but 1.33 sacks per game, tied for 4th in the Pac 12

---

People can say it is multiple as much as they want, but it was the spread. Ie, it was run primarily from spread formations. There are very few spread teams anymore who don't consider themselves multiple or label themselves multiple (Washington State being an exception). Sonny Dykes wanted to run the ball, used the "bone" formation (or whatever he called it). Maybe things will change this year, but based on last year, this was a vanilla spread offense.

Be better or be different in football. That's the problem I have. Cal is not better talent wise. They won't gain an advantage by doing the same thing as everyone else. Stanford is different. Wisconsin is different. Georgia Tech is different. Navy is different. The Wisconsin model is a great idea because academically successful grinding linemen and tight ends are available to be recruited by Cal. I like the way recruiting is going. But schematics do matter. The talent needs to be coupled with the proper scheme. As many have pointed out, an argument could be made that the spread fit last year's wide receiver heavy roster (though I disagree, believing that Cal has a terrific fullback, had multiple talented running backs, and an offensive line that could have benefited from less isolation). So let's see it this year. The roster is no longer built for the spread. Let's be different, let's grind, let's not play in isolation, and let's shrink the game a bit to rely on and benefit our defense. No more hurry up spread. Of course Baldwin is capable of doing this. It does not need to be from under center. Let's see it.

tequila4kapp said:

---

calumnus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Who was injured that we will get back? With Rosen gone, if we make no changes, we will likely be 11th in run/pass ratio. Do you think we should continue to pass as much as we did last year? If we make no changes, how much of an improvement from the #11 offense do you see? How and why? Thanks

---

---

I don't know the answer. Maybe OL?? But even if we return nobody that was injured it is still disruptive to have the injuries occur during the season, much less a game. Merely starting the season - getting through camp - with the new guys working as first team people, gaining continuity, having space/time to improve themselves, etc., will be different.

Did the 49rs pass too much under Bill Walsh or did they do it because the short passes were an opportunity? Does WSU pass too much or do they do it because it's the best way for them to move the ball? We should do whatever gives us the best chance to succeed, regardless of the ratios or statistics.

I think our offense improvement will be directly proportional to QB play. I thought our QB play was quite substandard last year - inaccurate and unable to make certain throws. I thought that hamstrung the play calling.

So in general, I see Baldwin as having overcome massive injuries to the OL, our WRs and RBs, having a very average first year QB and still finding some ways to have succes. Instead of seeing all the negatives I give BB a ton of credit for what he acccomolished given all the circumstances.

---

Agree. Baldwin's going to know what to do, what adaptations to make. If we do pretty much what we did last year, but our supposedly-improved QB makes some better decisions and throws, that'd be huge right there.

If operate out of a power formation, using power personnel, it's easy for defenses to stop, unless we are able to overrun them, which I doubt we can do.

I'm still mourning the loss of our lone deep threat and worrying how that's going to limit what we can do, but I need to get over it. Hope Laird stays healthy!

bearchamp said:

---

Not to burst any delusions of adequacy here, but don't we think Wilcox knows how to use his players?

---

Well, Wilcox will make the call. Tis his baby, but can we discuss and even disagree a bit? Sheesh.

OdontoBear66 said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Not to burst any delusions of adequacy here, but don't we think Wilcox knows how to use his players?

---

Well, Wilcox will make the call. Tis his baby, but can we discuss and even disagree a bit? Sheesh.

---

It's not the disagreeing, it's the opinions expressed as 'I/we know what's best and if the coach dooen't do it he's an idiot'...

Cal_79 said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

bearchamp said:

---

Not to burst any delusions of adequacy here, but don't we think Wilcox knows how to use his players?

---

Well, Wilcox will make the call. Tis his baby, but can we discuss and even disagree a bit? Sheesh.

---

It's not the disagreeing, it's the opinions expressed as 'I/we know what's best and if the coach dooen't do it he's an idiot'...

---

This a fan discussion boardit is just our opinions. The coaches are essentially employed by us, we are allowed to have opinions on what they have done and what they should do. In the past, coaches have been called "clown shoes" and worse. No one called anyone an "idiot" or any other name.

I am not really interested in relitigating last year. It was the first year for the coaches and as I said starting out the year in spread was understandable.

I am more interested in Cal being better this year. Especially now that we know Robertson isn't returning. We were 11th in the conference on offense thanks only to an even more pathetic OSU. The only major difference in personnel from last year I see is we will have more TEs, including Hudson. Laird and McMorris have proven their value and the later deserves to be on the field more than a handful of times as a gimmick. It does not require a pro-set with the QB under center, we could roll out a "spread" with McMorris at H-back and Hudson and maybe even another TE on the field. The key is recognizing that Laird is currently our best weapon so we should be either using him or almost better, using play fakes to him to open up other options.

It seemed like Baldwin didn't quite know what he had talent wise last year for his offense. New young players and injuries. I'm hoping the scheme and experience improve dramatically this season.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

It seemed like Baldwin didn't quite know what he had talent wise last year for his offense. New young players and injuries. I'm hoping the scheme and experience improve dramatically this season.

---

Concise, excellent, spot on. Second year for coaching staff, systems in place, second year for QB starting, and improved depth. Looking promising.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

It seemed like Baldwin didn't quite know what he had talent wise last year for his offense. New young players and injuries. I'm hoping the scheme and experience improve dramatically this season.

---

Agreed. Go Bears!

OdontoBear66 said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

It seemed like Baldwin didn't quite know what he had talent wise last year for his offense. New young players and injuries. I'm hoping the scheme and experience improve dramatically this season.

---

Concise, excellent, spot on. Second year for coaching staff, systems in place, second year for QB starting, and improved depth. Looking promising.

---

Agree. Second year under the same offensive AND defensive coordinators is a big deal. Each side of the ball will be able to play faster.

calumnus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The spread formations allowed us to have success running the ball. It creates space and opportunities. We are not good enough to play Wisconsin style power football. That would be stupid. Baldwin's offense is good, we were decimated by injuries.

---

Who was injured that we will get back? With Rosen gone, if we make no changes, we will likely be 11th in run/pass ratio. Do you think we should continue to pass as much as we did last year? If we make no changes, how much of an improvement from the #11 offense do you see? How and why? Thanks

---

Hudson. Having him back will make a huge difference in blocking and short yardage situations.

XXXBEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

The spread formations allowed us to have success running the ball. It creates space and opportunities. We are not good enough to play Wisconsin style power football. That would be stupid. Baldwin's offense is good, we were decimated by injuries.

---

Who was injured that we will get back? With Rosen gone, if we make no changes, we will likely be 11th in run/pass ratio. Do you think we should continue to pass as much as we did last year? If we make no changes, how much of an improvement from the #11 offense do you see? How and why? Thanks

---

Hudson. Having him back will make a huge difference in blocking and short yardage situations.

---

So you think less spread and more running?

BearGreg said:

---

Couple of things:

• Baldwin runs a multiple offense not a spread. The lack of TEs on the roster last season led to more spread formations as Baldwin looked to build the offense around his personnel
• We go from virtually no true TEs last year to 3 good ones in 2018 with Hudson, Bunting and a far larger and more experienced Reinwald
• We finished the year running the ball more than we passed. The OL started to find its groove as did Laird, thus the run/pass balance shifted vs. Oregon State, Stanford and UCLA.
• This Spring saw the Bears in far, far less four wide and far more TE and FB formations
• With RBs who gained over 1000 yards in 2017, Patrick Laird finished 5th in YPC at 5.9 in the Pac 12
• YPC overall is a stat that is materially impacted by lost yardage from sacks
• Our pass protection improved markedly at the end of year as well. In November, we allowed but 1.33 sacks per game, tied for 4th in the Pac 12

---

This. Expect Cal to be much higher on the percentage of runs. I didn't appreciate just how poorly the offensive stats were. To stay 5-7 with such a loss of offensive production is really a testament to the improvement in the defense. Also surprised that Furd wasn't more of a running team. Good OP.

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Couple of things:

• Baldwin runs a multiple offense not a spread. The lack of TEs on the roster last season led to more spread formations as Baldwin looked to build the offense around his personnel
• We go from virtually no true TEs last year to 3 good ones in 2018 with Hudson, Bunting and a far larger and more experienced Reinwald
• We finished the year running the ball more than we passed. The OL started to find its groove as did Laird, thus the run/pass balance shifted vs. Oregon State, Stanford and UCLA.
• This Spring saw the Bears in far, far less four wide and far more TE and FB formations
• With RBs who gained over 1000 yards in 2017, Patrick Laird finished 5th in YPC at 5.9 in the Pac 12
• YPC overall is a stat that is materially impacted by lost yardage from sacks
• Our pass protection improved markedly at the end of year as well. In November, we allowed but 1.33 sacks per game, tied for 4th in the Pac 12

---

This. Expect Cal to be much higher on the percentage of runs. I didn't appreciate just how poorly the offensive stats were. To stay 5-7 with such a loss of offensive production is really a testament to the improvement in the defense. Also surprised that Furd wasn't more of a running team. Good OP.

---

Yes.

Total defense improved from #10 to #7

Total offense dropped from #1 to #11

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Couple of things:

• Baldwin runs a multiple offense not a spread. The lack of TEs on the roster last season led to more spread formations as Baldwin looked to build the offense around his personnel
• We go from virtually no true TEs last year to 3 good ones in 2018 with Hudson, Bunting and a far larger and more experienced Reinwald
• We finished the year running the ball more than we passed. The OL started to find its groove as did Laird, thus the run/pass balance shifted vs. Oregon State, Stanford and UCLA.
• This Spring saw the Bears in far, far less four wide and far more TE and FB formations
• With RBs who gained over 1000 yards in 2017, Patrick Laird finished 5th in YPC at 5.9 in the Pac 12
• YPC overall is a stat that is materially impacted by lost yardage from sacks
• Our pass protection improved markedly at the end of year as well. In November, we allowed but 1.33 sacks per game, tied for 4th in the Pac 12

---

This. Expect Cal to be much higher on the percentage of runs. I didn't appreciate just how poorly the offensive stats were. To stay 5-7 with such a loss of offensive production is really a testament to the improvement in the defense. Also surprised that Furd wasn't more of a running team. Good OP.

---

Yes.

Total defense improved from #10 to #7

Total offense dropped from #1 to #11

---

Re fourth bullet: Could DR have noticed the change and seen the handwriting on the wall?

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Couple of things:

• Baldwin runs a multiple offense not a spread. The lack of TEs on the roster last season led to more spread formations as Baldwin looked to build the offense around his personnel
• We go from virtually no true TEs last year to 3 good ones in 2018 with Hudson, Bunting and a far larger and more experienced Reinwald
• We finished the year running the ball more than we passed. The OL started to find its groove as did Laird, thus the run/pass balance shifted vs. Oregon State, Stanford and UCLA.
• This Spring saw the Bears in far, far less four wide and far more TE and FB formations
• With RBs who gained over 1000 yards in 2017, Patrick Laird finished 5th in YPC at 5.9 in the Pac 12
• YPC overall is a stat that is materially impacted by lost yardage from sacks
• Our pass protection improved markedly at the end of year as well. In November, we allowed but 1.33 sacks per game, tied for 4th in the Pac 12

---

This. Expect Cal to be much higher on the percentage of runs. I didn't appreciate just how poorly the offensive stats were. To stay 5-7 with such a loss of offensive production is really a testament to the improvement in the defense. Also surprised that Furd wasn't more of a running team. Good OP.

---

Yes.

Total defense improved from #10 to #7

Total offense dropped from #1 to #11

---

Re fourth bullet: Could DR have noticed the change and seen the handwriting on the wall?

---

Possibly, which would be really unfortunate. With a greater emphasis on running should come a greater emphasis on deep passing off of play actionwhich would have been DR all day.

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Couple of things:

• Baldwin runs a multiple offense not a spread. The lack of TEs on the roster last season led to more spread formations as Baldwin looked to build the offense around his personnel
• We go from virtually no true TEs last year to 3 good ones in 2018 with Hudson, Bunting and a far larger and more experienced Reinwald
• We finished the year running the ball more than we passed. The OL started to find its groove as did Laird, thus the run/pass balance shifted vs. Oregon State, Stanford and UCLA.
• This Spring saw the Bears in far, far less four wide and far more TE and FB formations
• With RBs who gained over 1000 yards in 2017, Patrick Laird finished 5th in YPC at 5.9 in the Pac 12
• YPC overall is a stat that is materially impacted by lost yardage from sacks
• Our pass protection improved markedly at the end of year as well. In November, we allowed but 1.33 sacks per game, tied for 4th in the Pac 12

---

This. Expect Cal to be much higher on the percentage of runs. I didn't appreciate just how poorly the offensive stats were. To stay 5-7 with such a loss of offensive production is really a testament to the improvement in the defense. Also surprised that Furd wasn't more of a running team. Good OP.

---

Yes.

Total defense improved from #10 to #7

Total offense dropped from #1 to #11

---

Re fourth bullet: Could DR have noticed the change and seen the handwriting on the wall?

---

Possibly, which would be really unfortunate. With a greater emphasis on running should come a greater emphasis on deep passing off of play actionwhich would have been DR all day.

---

Yeah, except in the meantime, he'd have had to block.

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Couple of things:

• Baldwin runs a multiple offense not a spread. The lack of TEs on the roster last season led to more spread formations as Baldwin looked to build the offense around his personnel
• We go from virtually no true TEs last year to 3 good ones in 2018 with Hudson, Bunting and a far larger and more experienced Reinwald
• We finished the year running the ball more than we passed. The OL started to find its groove as did Laird, thus the run/pass balance shifted vs. Oregon State, Stanford and UCLA.
• This Spring saw the Bears in far, far less four wide and far more TE and FB formations
• With RBs who gained over 1000 yards in 2017, Patrick Laird finished 5th in YPC at 5.9 in the Pac 12
• YPC overall is a stat that is materially impacted by lost yardage from sacks
• Our pass protection improved markedly at the end of year as well. In November, we allowed but 1.33 sacks per game, tied for 4th in the Pac 12

---

This. Expect Cal to be much higher on the percentage of runs. I didn't appreciate just how poorly the offensive stats were. To stay 5-7 with such a loss of offensive production is really a testament to the improvement in the defense. Also surprised that Furd wasn't more of a running team. Good OP.

---

Yes.

Total defense improved from #10 to #7

Total offense dropped from #1 to #11

---

Re fourth bullet: Could DR have noticed the change and seen the handwriting on the wall?

---

Possibly, which would be really unfortunate. With a greater emphasis on running should come a greater emphasis on deep passing off of play actionwhich would have been DR all day.

---

I too am very sad that DR is leaving. And like almost everyone on this Board I believe it will adversely affect our long passing game.

BUT All signs say DR left for serious family reasons. He wanted to be closer to home.
Do we really need to belabor the point with coulda woulda shoulda

GivemTheAxe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Couple of things:

• Baldwin runs a multiple offense not a spread. The lack of TEs on the roster last season led to more spread formations as Baldwin looked to build the offense around his personnel
• We go from virtually no true TEs last year to 3 good ones in 2018 with Hudson, Bunting and a far larger and more experienced Reinwald
• We finished the year running the ball more than we passed. The OL started to find its groove as did Laird, thus the run/pass balance shifted vs. Oregon State, Stanford and UCLA.
• This Spring saw the Bears in far, far less four wide and far more TE and FB formations
• With RBs who gained over 1000 yards in 2017, Patrick Laird finished 5th in YPC at 5.9 in the Pac 12
• YPC overall is a stat that is materially impacted by lost yardage from sacks
• Our pass protection improved markedly at the end of year as well. In November, we allowed but 1.33 sacks per game, tied for 4th in the Pac 12

---

This. Expect Cal to be much higher on the percentage of runs. I didn't appreciate just how poorly the offensive stats were. To stay 5-7 with such a loss of offensive production is really a testament to the improvement in the defense. Also surprised that Furd wasn't more of a running team. Good OP.

---

Yes.

Total defense improved from #10 to #7

Total offense dropped from #1 to #11

---

Re fourth bullet: Could DR have noticed the change and seen the handwriting on the wall?

---

Possibly, which would be really unfortunate. With a greater emphasis on running should come a greater emphasis on deep passing off of play actionwhich would have been DR all day.

---

I too am very sad that DR is leaving. And like almost everyone on this Board I believe it will adversely affect our long passing game.

BUT All signs say DR left for serious family reasons. He wanted to be closer to home.
Do we really need to belabor the point with coulda woulda shoulda

---

Agreed. My apologies to all, especially Demetrius and his family and will keep them in my prayers.