sycasey said:

---

Amen to all of that. The second half of the UW game seems like the way forward. And honestly, we saw something similar in the second half against Davis too, but it was hard to say if it meant anything because it was Davis. Doing the same against a top Pac-12 defense tells you it's sustainable.

Ground and pound with Brown & Dancy and a lot of jumbo, 2-TE sets. Build in lots of options for Garbers to run. Control the pace, let the defense win it with just enough offense to support. Is that good enough to win the conference? No, not unless we get a lot of breaks. But it's good enough to improve on last season's record and get to a better bowl.

The sideline completion on our final drive was a real eye-opener to me. I didn't expect Garbers would be able to complete that throw, but he fit it right in there. Maybe if he can improve with those kinds of throws the offense can open up a bit.

---

It has been obvious since early in 2017 that we should be a run-oriented team operating out of jumbo sets, with our QBs throwing off of playaction or keepers on bootlegs. Mix in reverses and other counters. Bowers was much better outside the pocket.

Last year with Laird, Brown and Dancy at RB and McMorris at H-back. Garbers and McIllwain could both run, but Garbers was better with ball security. Having McIlwain throw 43 times against Arizona was nuts.

This year, again, we should be a run oriented team operating with jumbo sets. Brown, Dancy and Collins are our best offensive weapons. Garbers should be throwing off of playaction and bootlegs, mixed in with reverses. Run blocking is generally easier for a young line than pass protection.

We should drop the empty backfield sets (except maybe 3rd and 20). We should always have the threat of a run. The sets where we go empty backfield with Brown split out and then motion him back to line up behind Garbers for a run? Fools nobody.

The best development has been Baldwin using the Pistol. That really plays to our strength and helps Brown get a head of steam. It also makes playaction more convincing. I'd like to see more Dancy (And Colins) early so we can save Brown for pounding the defense late. We went with a lot of 2 tight end sets, but I think we only attempted one pass to a TE (Castles) and we did not set it up with playaction. Hopefully that changes.

Kekoa Crawford gives us a playmaker at WR, we missed having that last year. The guys who came back look better. I still think we do not have enough depth there for regular use of 4 WR sets. I'd rather we rotate and keep guys fresh and fast.

It will be interesting to see if Modster gets a chance and what he brings to the table.

Overall, Baldwin's "multiple" reminds me of late-Tedford "multiple." It needs an editor. We see glimpses of good stuff, but too often in the past we go away from what is working never to see it again. Focus on what we are best at, repeat until they stop it all while mixing in counters and variations off of that.
So, it would be good if, as the OP indicates, we are developing an "identity" (ie a focus on our strengths, what we do best).

UrsaMajor said:

---

Two quick comments:

1. I never buy the comment "we played over our heads." There is no such thing as over-achieving. By definition, if one achieves something he/she was capable of doing so. It may be that we performed at the very apex of our capability, but not above. Thus, we can do it again.

---

In addition, as the year begins we all predict how many wins and losses we will have. There is talk of the difficulty of the schedule this year with the arrangement of home and away games. I agree.

But now that you beat UW on the road in Husky Stadium, how can it get anymore difficult? Well, yes, maybe Utah and Oregon on the road. Certainly not 'furd on the road as that is a game 40 miles from home on what becomes a neutral field. So instead of 6-6 why not 9-3 as possible (of course 12-0 is still possible) with the two roadies and then another random unplanned loss. Unless we suffer multiple injuries during the season I see 8-4 as now a very reasonable goal, with the chance of going above that better than the chance of not making it.

No longer can we say we play UCLA or Ole Miss or 'furd on the road so a probably loss. I think UW was much more difficult than any of those three games. And yes, UW is in the rear view mirror and the others are to be played, so that in itself worries us all. But realistic it is.

sycasey said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

A stout run game compliments a stout defense very nicely, and vice versa.

---

I will get a lot of argument from some, but I firmly believe the offense we put on the field in the second half gave Cal a better chance of winning that game than if we joined the defense up with Spavital's offense.

---

I was totally surprised that we were able to run the ball so well in the second half and am still wondering how we pulled it off (I'm not complaining, mind you!). Figure we were suddenly thin on an already mediocre O-line and figure that our threat to move the ball through the air wasn't exactly drawing much attention. Was it the brilliance of the RBs? Is the UW defense not so hot? Did Baldwin make some adjustments that caught them by surprise?

I would LOVE to see us continue to run the ball like that, but I'm not counting on it happening, especially against stronger defenses, unless we can keep defenses honest with the pass. For those who like to note that the Air Raid isn't as successful against stronger defenses, well, this will be a similar situation... given our O-line struggles and -- again -- unless opponents fear our ability to pass downfield.

---

Yah are teams going to just stack the box and make Garbers beat them?

---

I mean . . . I assume they were already doing that.

---

LOL which would show how great our O-line was against a great D.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Amen to all of that. The second half of the UW game seems like the way forward. And honestly, we saw something similar in the second half against Davis too, but it was hard to say if it meant anything because it was Davis. Doing the same against a top Pac-12 defense tells you it's sustainable.

Ground and pound with Brown & Dancy and a lot of jumbo, 2-TE sets. Build in lots of options for Garbers to run. Control the pace, let the defense win it with just enough offense to support. Is that good enough to win the conference? No, not unless we get a lot of breaks. But it's good enough to improve on last season's record and get to a better bowl.

The sideline completion on our final drive was a real eye-opener to me. I didn't expect Garbers would be able to complete that throw, but he fit it right in there. Maybe if he can improve with those kinds of throws the offense can open up a bit.

---

It has been obvious since early in 2017 that we should be a run-oriented team operating out of jumbo sets, with our QBs throwing off of playaction or keepers on bootlegs. Mix in reverses and other counters. Bowers was much better outside the pocket.

Last year with Laird, Brown and Dancy at RB and McMorris at H-back. Garbers and McIllwain could both run, but Garbers was better with ball security. Having McIlwain throw 43 times against Arizona was nuts.

This year, again, we should be a run oriented team operating with jumbo sets. Brown, Dancy and Collins are our best offensive weapons. Garbers should be throwing off of playaction and bootlegs, mixed in with reverses. Run blocking is generally easier for a young line than pass protection.

We should drop the empty backfield sets (except maybe 3rd and 20). We should always have the threat of a run. The sets where we go empty backfield with Brown split out and then motion him back to line up behind Garbers for a run? Fools nobody.

The best development has been Baldwin using the Pistol. That really plays to our strength and helps Brown get a head of steam. It also makes playaction more convincing. I'd like to see more Dancy (And Colins) early so we can save Brown for pounding the defense late. We went with a lot of 2 tight end sets, but I think we only attempted one pass to a TE (Castles) and we did not set it up with playaction. Hopefully that changes.

Kekoa Crawford gives us a playmaker at WR, we missed having that last year. The guys who came back look better. I still think we do not have enough depth there for regular use of 4 WR sets. I'd rather we rotate and keep guys fresh and fast.

It will be interesting to see if Modster gets a chance and what he brings to the table.

Overall, Baldwin's "multiple" reminds me of late-Tedford "multiple." It needs an editor. We see glimpses of good stuff, but too often in the past we go away from what is working never to see it again. Focus on what we are best at, repeat until they stop it all while mixing in counters and variations off of that.
So, it would be good if, as the OP indicates, we are developing an "identity" (ie a focus on our strengths, what we do best).

---

I was completely with you for most of your thoughts, especially on the over use of an empty back field and the need to utilize more play action, but I disagree on Baldwin's "multiple". I think Baldwin was effective in tailoring his game plan to both Cal's strengths and our opponents specific weaknesses. Against UW, he had a patched up OL and was playing a team with a great D tradition, but with 9 new D starters. He didn't see much from the Eastern Washington tape, so I think he came in with a strategy to first try and find weaknesses, not make any serious mistakes, and save our best for the second half. Our major attack point in the first half was to have Garbers run. There was 2 QB draws, a designed QB run, and 4 scrambles for positive yardage. Most importantly, he didn't give UW any hint of what he would be doing in the second half so UW couldn't make halftime adjustments (which they are very good at). You can approach a game like this, if you have a great D of your own. If I'm right (and I might not be), that is some serious offensive coordinator coaching.

Great post OTB.

The TL;DR version?

Welcome to Wisconsin West!

It's a damn good recipe for success. I'll take this model over the pass happy, zero D approach of JW'S predecessor. I hated seeing a score and knowing the other team would just run right through our D on the ensuing possession and god help us if we didn't hold serve!

Give me a heavy hitting, suffocating D that befuddles QBs and a smash mouth O that occasionally pops a big chunk play while wearing down and demoralizing the opposition and I see a path to sustained and high level success.

Go Bears!

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Amen to all of that. The second half of the UW game seems like the way forward. And honestly, we saw something similar in the second half against Davis too, but it was hard to say if it meant anything because it was Davis. Doing the same against a top Pac-12 defense tells you it's sustainable.

Ground and pound with Brown & Dancy and a lot of jumbo, 2-TE sets. Build in lots of options for Garbers to run. Control the pace, let the defense win it with just enough offense to support. Is that good enough to win the conference? No, not unless we get a lot of breaks. But it's good enough to improve on last season's record and get to a better bowl.

The sideline completion on our final drive was a real eye-opener to me. I didn't expect Garbers would be able to complete that throw, but he fit it right in there. Maybe if he can improve with those kinds of throws the offense can open up a bit.

---

It has been obvious since early in 2017 that we should be a run-oriented team operating out of jumbo sets, with our QBs throwing off of playaction or keepers on bootlegs. Mix in reverses and other counters. Bowers was much better outside the pocket.

Last year with Laird, Brown and Dancy at RB and McMorris at H-back. Garbers and McIllwain could both run, but Garbers was better with ball security. Having McIlwain throw 43 times against Arizona was nuts.

This year, again, we should be a run oriented team operating with jumbo sets. Brown, Dancy and Collins are our best offensive weapons. Garbers should be throwing off of playaction and bootlegs, mixed in with reverses. Run blocking is generally easier for a young line than pass protection.

We should drop the empty backfield sets (except maybe 3rd and 20). We should always have the threat of a run. The sets where we go empty backfield with Brown split out and then motion him back to line up behind Garbers for a run? Fools nobody.

The best development has been Baldwin using the Pistol. That really plays to our strength and helps Brown get a head of steam. It also makes playaction more convincing. I'd like to see more Dancy (And Colins) early so we can save Brown for pounding the defense late. We went with a lot of 2 tight end sets, but I think we only attempted one pass to a TE (Castles) and we did not set it up with playaction. Hopefully that changes.

Kekoa Crawford gives us a playmaker at WR, we missed having that last year. The guys who came back look better. I still think we do not have enough depth there for regular use of 4 WR sets. I'd rather we rotate and keep guys fresh and fast.

It will be interesting to see if Modster gets a chance and what he brings to the table.

Overall, Baldwin's "multiple" reminds me of late-Tedford "multiple." It needs an editor. We see glimpses of good stuff, but too often in the past we go away from what is working never to see it again. Focus on what we are best at, repeat until they stop it all while mixing in counters and variations off of that.
So, it would be good if, as the OP indicates, we are developing an "identity" (ie a focus on our strengths, what we do best).

---

They don't motion the RB into the backfield to "fool" anybody. The defense has their personnel in before we show our formation so I don't know what you think they would be trying to fool them about. Often sending someone in motion forces the defense to show something. I don't know what it is trying to show, but I would assume that is what is going on

UrsineMaximus said:

---

We've lost 2 starters on the OL. That will test the team going forward and their performance going forward will be key to the success and identity of the team. In terms of losing players the OL unit is probably the toughest to overcome.

We will need a lot of Thunder and Lighting (Brown / Dancy) storms going forward.

---

The RB tandem actually has a new nickname: Cookies and Milk!

Off the top of my head, we're probably going to struggle against the defenses of Oregon, Utah, and Bama/Clemson (in the playoffs).

OaktownBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Amen to all of that. The second half of the UW game seems like the way forward. And honestly, we saw something similar in the second half against Davis too, but it was hard to say if it meant anything because it was Davis. Doing the same against a top Pac-12 defense tells you it's sustainable.

Ground and pound with Brown & Dancy and a lot of jumbo, 2-TE sets. Build in lots of options for Garbers to run. Control the pace, let the defense win it with just enough offense to support. Is that good enough to win the conference? No, not unless we get a lot of breaks. But it's good enough to improve on last season's record and get to a better bowl.

The sideline completion on our final drive was a real eye-opener to me. I didn't expect Garbers would be able to complete that throw, but he fit it right in there. Maybe if he can improve with those kinds of throws the offense can open up a bit.

---

It has been obvious since early in 2017 that we should be a run-oriented team operating out of jumbo sets, with our QBs throwing off of playaction or keepers on bootlegs. Mix in reverses and other counters. Bowers was much better outside the pocket.

Last year with Laird, Brown and Dancy at RB and McMorris at H-back. Garbers and McIllwain could both run, but Garbers was better with ball security. Having McIlwain throw 43 times against Arizona was nuts.

This year, again, we should be a run oriented team operating with jumbo sets. Brown, Dancy and Collins are our best offensive weapons. Garbers should be throwing off of playaction and bootlegs, mixed in with reverses. Run blocking is generally easier for a young line than pass protection.

We should drop the empty backfield sets (except maybe 3rd and 20). We should always have the threat of a run. The sets where we go empty backfield with Brown split out and then motion him back to line up behind Garbers for a run? Fools nobody.

The best development has been Baldwin using the Pistol. That really plays to our strength and helps Brown get a head of steam. It also makes playaction more convincing. I'd like to see more Dancy (And Colins) early so we can save Brown for pounding the defense late. We went with a lot of 2 tight end sets, but I think we only attempted one pass to a TE (Castles) and we did not set it up with playaction. Hopefully that changes.

Kekoa Crawford gives us a playmaker at WR, we missed having that last year. The guys who came back look better. I still think we do not have enough depth there for regular use of 4 WR sets. I'd rather we rotate and keep guys fresh and fast.

It will be interesting to see if Modster gets a chance and what he brings to the table.

Overall, Baldwin's "multiple" reminds me of late-Tedford "multiple." It needs an editor. We see glimpses of good stuff, but too often in the past we go away from what is working never to see it again. Focus on what we are best at, repeat until they stop it all while mixing in counters and variations off of that.
So, it would be good if, as the OP indicates, we are developing an "identity" (ie a focus on our strengths, what we do best).

---

They don't motion the RB into the backfield to "fool" anybody. The defense has their personnel in before we show our formation so I don't know what you think they would be trying to fool them about. Often sending someone in motion forces the defense to show something. I don't know what it is trying to show, but I would assume that is what is going on

---

We line up empty backfield with Brown split out and a UW LB covering him. Brown then motions back to his normal RB position. The LB returns to his normal position. We run the ball, usually for little yardage.

If someone can explain how that supposedly gives us an advantage, I'd appreciate it. My thought was they are hoping that when they split Brown out, no one covers him? And then they would run the play and throw to him. But when someone does cover him they just motion him back for the standard run up the middle play?

I'd accept it is genius I don't understand if it resulted in a good gain. Curiously, they did the same thing several times with the same middling result.

OaktownBear said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Our offensive personnel is completely different from last years. Both Baldwin and Garbers were limited if not handcuffed by not having either a power back or one that could break it. Our limited receivers also kept our offense in check - especially on 3rd downs. Did Garbers have a bad throwing shoulder 1/2 through the season?And we aren't switching QBs like we tried last season. I think it's way too early to say we have the "identity" that you mention, but I hope we do get one!!

---

No question our run game is much better as is our offensive personnel overall. My understanding is that Garbers arm issue was more in the last couple games than halfway through. I think much of the year we had okay, not great, receivers (I do think this year's are a significantly better). But we weren't that hamstringed by that until injuries mounted late in the year.

Still, coaching is about putting your players in the best place to succeed. I don't think we found that last year.

---

I tend to agree. Some of this is online injuries translating into being poor on pass blocking. With a strong defense, you can succeed with a run first team like Wisconsin or Furd a few years ago. It also helps to have may one or more WRs (e.g, Crawford) with the speed to break one. And so far, you are dead on in addressing the offenses' identity. Over the season, opposing defenses will adjust, so we shall see what happens.

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Our offensive personnel is completely different from last years. Both Baldwin and Garbers were limited if not handcuffed by not having either a power back or one that could break it. Our limited receivers also kept our offense in check - especially on 3rd downs. Did Garbers have a bad throwing shoulder 1/2 through the season?And we aren't switching QBs like we tried last season. I think it's way too early to say we have the "identity" that you mention, but I hope we do get one!!

---

No question our run game is much better as is our offensive personnel overall. My understanding is that Garbers arm issue was more in the last couple games than halfway through. I think much of the year we had okay, not great, receivers (I do think this year's are a significantly better). But we weren't that hamstringed by that until injuries mounted late in the year.

Still, coaching is about putting your players in the best place to succeed. I don't think we found that last year.

---

I tend to agree. Some of this is online injuries translating into being poor on pass blocking. With a strong defense, you can succeed with a run first team like Wisconsin or Furd a few years ago. It also helps to have may one or more WRs (e.g, Crawford) with the speed to break one. And so far, you are dead on in addressing the offenses' identity. Over the season, opposing defenses will adjust, so we shall see what happens.

---

...read somewhere that we threw a grand total of SIX passes more than FIVE yards in UDub game. Wow. Feels like the opposing defensive adjustments are on the way. Air it out!...keep em honest.

Quote:

---

We line up empty backfield with Brown split out and a UW LB covering him. Brown then motions back to his normal RB position. The LB returns to his normal position. We run the ball, usually for little yardage.

If someone can explain how that supposedly gives us an advantage, I'd appreciate it. My thought was they are hoping that when they split Brown out, no one covers him? And then they would run the play and throw to him. But when someone does cover him they just motion him back for the standard run up the middle play?

I'd accept it is genius I don't understand if it resulted in a good gain. Curiously, they did the same thing several times with the same middling result.

---

I'd need to find specific plays, but I can tell you the kind of thing that this can accomplish. It's goal will be different against different defenses, but it's often about manipulating the formation.

Basically, the DC has to decide how he wants his guys to line up on every play, and he'll have several different cues that they can use to determine where to go. Let's say that one side of their defense will have a true Defensive End on the edge and a nickelback in coverage, while the other side will have an OLB on the edge and a Safety in coverage. The defensive call will include information about which side each of those pairs should go to. For example, they could make a "Tight" call, that would tell the SDE/NB to go to the side with a TE. They could make a "Strong" call, which would tell them to go wherever there are more receivers. They could make a "Field" call, which would tell them to go to the wide side of the field, etc. The key is that the defense has to decide on every play what cue they're going to use to get lined up.

Now, let's say that the SDE/NB pair is stouter against the run than the OLB/NB pair. The defense knows this, and so they're going to make a call that puts the SDE/NB away from the RB's alignment (runs usually go to the side opposite the RB's alignment, since he has to start crossing the formation to get the ball from the QB in the first place). If I'm the OC then I'll never be able to run toward that OLB/NB, because they're always just setting their better run defenders to the run side.

The question then becomes, what happens if there isn't a RB in the backfield? What will the defense do if the offense splits out three receivers to one side, and two receivers to the other? They still need some cue to tell them how to line up. Well, in that case they can't set their defense based on the RB, so maybe they'll set it based on the receivers; maybe they'll want more coverage to the three WR side, and so they'll set their OLB/Safety to those three receivers to get that coverage.

Once the defense is set, then the offense can motion the RB into the backfield to whichever side will let him run toward those weaker run defenders. In this case, they've used the empty set to get the defense into a certain look, and then motioned to get the advantage.

Empty sets can also work wonders for getting the defense out of blitz calls. Lots of times when you go Empty the defense will check into a certain coverage, or out of a certain blitz. Empty sets are specialty formations, and so the defense's playbook will be drastically reduced when you empty out the backfield. This gets them out of their base playcall, and depending on how their system is set up, they might not be able to get back into it just by reacting to motion.

Every defense will have different ways of getting lined up, but if you're the OC, then the key is to understand the rules that they're using to align. Once you know what rules they're using you can manipulate those rules to get an advantage. Most motion/shifting is aimed at doing this kind of thing.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Two quick comments:

1. I never buy the comment "we played over our heads." There is no such thing as over-achieving. By definition, if one achieves something he/she was capable of doing so. It may be that we performed at the very apex of our capability, but not above. Thus, we can do it again.

2. I also disagree in part that fans prefer high-octane offense. While poor offense is boring, if you notice, it is the big hits--tfl's and sacks that generate the biggest cheers. A dominant defense is a crowd-pleaser.

---

winning is crowd pleaser, except maybe across the Bay.

The problem with Sonny style is the games last longer than is convenient in today's hectic world, especially for night games. Getting to hotel's at 2:00 a.m. (or home), doesn't work for a lot of people.

SmellinRoses said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Our offensive personnel is completely different from last years. Both Baldwin and Garbers were limited if not handcuffed by not having either a power back or one that could break it. Our limited receivers also kept our offense in check - especially on 3rd downs. Did Garbers have a bad throwing shoulder 1/2 through the season?And we aren't switching QBs like we tried last season. I think it's way too early to say we have the "identity" that you mention, but I hope we do get one!!

---

No question our run game is much better as is our offensive personnel overall. My understanding is that Garbers arm issue was more in the last couple games than halfway through. I think much of the year we had okay, not great, receivers (I do think this year's are a significantly better). But we weren't that hamstringed by that until injuries mounted late in the year.

Still, coaching is about putting your players in the best place to succeed. I don't think we found that last year.

---

I tend to agree. Some of this is online injuries translating into being poor on pass blocking. With a strong defense, you can succeed with a run first team like Wisconsin or Furd a few years ago. It also helps to have may one or more WRs (e.g, Crawford) with the speed to break one. And so far, you are dead on in addressing the offenses' identity. Over the season, opposing defenses will adjust, so we shall see what happens.

---

...read somewhere that we threw a grand total of SIX passes more than FIVE yards in UDub game. Wow. Feels like the opposing defensive adjustments are on the way. Air it out!...keep em honest.

---

I agree, but some of those few passes, like the one to Crawford on the last drive, we're imperative to winning the game. Shaw is often quoted as saying is if you have a good defense, there are around six plays you call for home runs, and if you hit half them or more, you win (this assumes you are not turning the ball over).

I feel that we sometimes wrongly assume that an exciting, "high octane" offense is a good, productive or effective one.

By almost all accounts we had such an offense for four years. Despite all the hoopla, "Bear Raid" talk, through all of the smoke and mirrors, and noise, we had a rather average offensive production in conference games over those four years:

Scoring = 30 PPG or about 6th best
Yards/Play = 5.9 or about 6th best
3rd Down Conv = 39.7% or 6th best

There were other Pac-12 offenses doing much better, even with less recruited talent, but we were somehow entertaining and marketed as such...

Coupled with that D, the worst in the Pac-12 and even FBS over four years, the results were the 11th fewest conference wins. We had the Beavs by one victory.

That identify is GONE.

The defense led the conference last year in yards per play allowed. Wow. Their identify is pretty well-established.

Our offensive identify is still in the works I feel, but it's clearly a more physical one. The days of extreme back-pedaling offensive lineman are over, thankfully.

Motions and shifts are used to allow the QB to see what type of defense is being played. e.g. man vs zone. It is then incumbent upon the QB to recognize the desirable match-up for the offense and exploit it.

That's the theory, execution is an entirely different matter.

Yes, I think we are developing an identity. Actually, I think it has existed all along but we've had such serious issues at QB and WR that it's been harder to see. The identity is this: a run first offense out of the spread (or whatever you'd call it) look. We've been thatbthe past two years also. I think that's why we can look especially pedestrian in the first half but we start to grind out running plays in the second half, including some really nice late drives to seal wins. It doesn't work - and looks especially hideous - when we don't have any passing game threat and the D can seriously load the box.