Spread or RPO (An offense that uses a dual threat QB)

I don't believe spread offenses must be bad for your defense

ducky23 said:

---

I would kill to take anyone off of shannahan's staff

---

I suppose people probably used to say the same thing about taking defensive coordinators off of Belichick's staff before they finally realized that the reason their defenses were good was because of the head coach.

Since Shanahan calls all the plays, you'd probably be hard pressed to say that any of those offensive coaches is giving a lot of value added for how their offense looks. Maybe we should hire Jon Embree, former coach at Colorado (4-21)? Wes Welker, first year at WR coach? Former Cal offensive line coach Zach Yenser? Mike LaFleur, passing game coordinator in his third year. He was OC for one year at Steph Curry's alma mater (0-11) and two years at St. Joseph's College (who quite frankly I can't find any info on). Mike McDaniel, run game coordinator (looks like most of his experience is with WR's, working under RB coach last 2 years). Ryan Day, QB coach (everybody loves to hire the QB coach). 1st year doing that, TE coach before that at Miami, offensive quality control assistant at SF before that. Probably not quite ready yet.

Maybe one of their older more experienced coaches. How about RB coach Robert Turner, Jr., 24 year veteran RB coach and former offensive coordinator at Purdue (1991-94)? Running game was good, but passing game wasn't and the team was pretty bad over that period. John Benton, OL coach? He's worked at Cal before (but it's Cal, PA) and was offensive coordinator for Colorado State from 2000-03. The 2003 team defeated Cal at Berkeley in Reggie Robertson's last full game for Cal and their QB, Van Pelt had a hell of a year though the team wasn't particularly great that year. They were in 2000, and 2002 though.

All of looking into this leads me to a few conclusions:

1. Coaches who weren't great at a higher level of responsibility can still be cogs in a winning team's coaching staff at their appropriate level of ability.

2. Just because a coach is part of a good team doesn't mean he was good when he had that higher level of responsibility. Most of the 49ers' staff wasn't.

3. Sometimes, the guy who seems like he's the one who is the most important actually is the most important. And since I don't think Cal is going to get Kyle Shanahan to come in any capacity, I think maybe we'd be better off hiring someone who is currently having success running a college offense and developing effective passing games.

71Bear said:

---

A run first mentality with the ability to go deep

---

You know who had a run heavy offense in 2019? Cal. They ran 36.5 times per game compared with 27.8 pass attempts per game.

If you want Pac 12 teams that were run heavy and successful doing it, you're talking about Utah. Utah's splits were 42.6/22.9, 4.9 YPA, and 6.8 YPP. Otherwise, you're looking at mostly balanced offenses like Oregon (36.6/32.6, 5.1 YPA, 6.5 YPP). I'm not counting below Arizona as successful and I think it's safe to say you don't want to do Mike Leach's pass heavy attack.

Should we get Andy Ludwig for a 2nd go round or will he be out of our price range as a Frank Broyles (TM 71Bear) finalist?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2019-team-offense.html

Personally, I still think GoldenOne had the most worthwhile post in the thread. As long as it's putting up between 30-35 PPG or more and we're winning games, I just don't care about how we get there.

KoreAmBear said:

---

I'd say no D has a chance with Sonny/TFS brand of air raid.

---

Washington State held teams to 23.3 PPG in 2018 and about middle of the pack in yards per play. I think if you have a good coordinator and good talent, it can be done. The fault lies with the attention given to it by the head coach IMO, not the offensive system that coach runs.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2018-team-defense.html

Pigskin Pete said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I'd say no D has a chance with Sonny/TFS brand of air raid.

---

Washington State held teams to 23.3 PPG in 2018 and about middle of the pack in yards per play. I think if you have a good coordinator and good talent, it can be done. The fault lies with the attention given to it by the head coach IMO, not the offensive system that coach runs.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2018-team-defense.html

---

I think more the exception than the rule. They went back to TFS style D this season Exh 1 is the UCLA game.

Ball control may help a defensive minded team. Shortens the game and D doesn't have to be overly depended on. Like a poster said in this thread, much easier to find personnel for ball control or running game than spread needing receivers and running backs with elite speed.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I'd say no D has a chance with Sonny/TFS brand of air raid.

---

Washington State held teams to 23.3 PPG in 2018 and about middle of the pack in yards per play. I think if you have a good coordinator and good talent, it can be done. The fault lies with the attention given to it by the head coach IMO, not the offensive system that coach runs.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2018-team-defense.html

---

They were even better in 2017: #28 in the country in fewest yards surrendered per play.


People often say playing fast on offense tires out your defense. Well it also tires out your opponent's defense and offense.

Chip Kelly at Oregon ran his offense at hyper speed. He emphasized conditioning for his offense and defense and it created an advantage that won multiple National Championships.

Dykes' problem was not that his offense made his defense bad. It was that his defense was bad and his offense exposed it. Wilcox's problem has been the opposite.

We just need an offense that moves the ball and scores. To do that an offense needs to create mismatches in one or more areas: size/strength, speed, height, conditioning or numbers. The last is achieved exclusively through play design and misdirection.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I'd say no D has a chance with Sonny/TFS brand of air raid.

---

Washington State held teams to 23.3 PPG in 2018 and about middle of the pack in yards per play. I think if you have a good coordinator and good talent, it can be done. The fault lies with the attention given to it by the head coach IMO, not the offensive system that coach runs.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2018-team-defense.html

---

I think more the exception than the rule. They went back to TFS style D this season Exh 1 is the UCLA game.

Ball control may help a defensive minded team. Shortens the game and D doesn't have to be overly depended on. Like a poster said in this thread, much easier to find personnel for ball control or running game than spread needing receivers and running backs with elite speed.

---

TFS style D? That doesn't even mean anything.

So you think we're not trying to find RB's with elite speed? And what the heck is a spread needing receiver? Are there receivers out there that can only be good in a spread offense?

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

The end of the Tedford era traumatized so many Cal fans so severely that they forgot how incredibly effective this style of offense can be when done well. During the Tedford era this offense seemed to go stale mostly because our head coach sucked at recruiting and developing good quarterbacks.

---

I fixed the typos in your post

---

I appreciate the attempted assistance, but you have your own peculiar style guide that's accepted by few minds outside your own.

Successful QBs recruited or developed by Tedford:

Trent Dilfer (developed)
David Carr (recruited)
Joey Harrington (developed)
Akili Smith (recruited and developed)
AJ Feely (recruited and developed)
Kyle Boller (developed)
Reggie Robertson (developed)
Aaron Rodgers (recruited and developed)
Nate Longshore (recruited and developed)
Kevin Riley (recruited and developed)
Jared Goff (recruited)
Marcus McMaryion (developed)

Tedford's QB coaching skills declined after 2004 and after 2007 sank to the point where he did indeed suck but before that happened he justly deserved his reputation as a QB guru. From 2008 onward he had the kiss of death but as he proved with McMaryion he was able to regenerate some of his old ability after leaving us.

Edit: I forgot a somewhat notable whose recruitment by Tedford was the reason Dykes wasn't fired 1-2 years before he actually was.

Big C said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Great thread question, KoreAm (and good timing!). I'm gonna go contrarian with it. NO, it doesn't need to compliment our defense. I honestly think that's something people say when they want to sound like they know football. What it needs to do is...

1. Score points
2. Move the ball
3. Not shoot itself in the foot with turnovers, penalties, minus yards, etc

I would go with something like an AirRaid, maybe with a bit more emphasis on running. A QB who can, first and foremost pass, with a high completion percentage, and hopefully run a bit, too. (Of course, wouldn't that be nice to have, all the time?)

Folks here are living in the past, citing their favorite offenses from their glory days, but people, it's 2019 (and it's only even that for a few more weeks).

---

It can't just be that those of us who want an offense like those have valid reasons for doing so? How far in the past does one have to be living in to want the offense the Niners run?

If I wanted to be similarly dismissive I'd say folks who want an Air Raid are living in a video game. There's a reason Air Raid teams tend to have lousy defenses, and it's not simple coincidence.

---

Of course you think your reasons are valid.

Hey, the current 49ers offense is good, but is it that simple to just plug it in here? Can we trade Jake Tonges and two second rounders for George Kittle?

Don't look now, but a lot of the best teams in college football are using mostly spread concepts.

---

If you actually read before posting you would know I've already seen what most teams use today. We would benefit by being the lefty batter in a league or right handed pitchers.

Of course it's not simple to plug in the Niners offense, or any of the other offenses I suggested. We need a good coach to run a good scheme. If we're going to get a mediocre (or worse) coach then I agree, let's not try to install an offense that requires competent coaching. Let's go with the Air Raid instead.

We also don't need George Kittle to get effective play from our TEs. What we need is a coach who knows how to develop TEs. Instead we've had Tui coaching our TEs, which probably has something to do with our TEs struggling since it's not clear if Tui even knows how to coach his own position. If we get such a coach then I have confidence we'll get the play we need from that position, as we did when we had Garrett Cross, Craig Stevens, Cam Morrah, Anthony Miller or Richard Rodgers.

Cave Bear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

The end of the Tedford era traumatized so many Cal fans so severely that they forgot how incredibly effective this style of offense can be when done well. During the Tedford era this offense seemed to go stale mostly because our head coach sucked at recruiting and developing good quarterbacks.

---

I fixed the typos in your post

---

I appreciate the attempted assistance, but you have your own peculiar style guide that's accepted by few minds outside your own.

Successful QBs recruited or developed by Tedford:

Trent Dilfer (developed)
David Carr (recruited)
Joey Harrington (developed)
Akili Smith (recruited and developed)
AJ Feely (recruited and developed)
Kyle Boller (developed)
Reggie Robertson (developed)
Aaron Rodgers (recruited and developed)
Nate Longshore (recruited and developed)
Kevin Riley (recruited and developed)
Marcus McMaryion (developed)

Tedford's QB coaching skills declined after 2004 and after 2007 sank to the point where he did indeed suck but before that happened he justly deserved his reputation as a QB guru. From 2008 onward he had the kiss of death but as he proved with McMaryion he was able to regenerate some of his old ability after leaving us.

---

Someday, someone must tell me how QB's that played at Oregon and Fresno State matter at all in a discussion of all the ****ty QB's he produced for Cal.

Boller, by any measure you want to pick in 2002 (passer rating, YPA, comp %, passing yardage) was a bottom third QB in the conference. Look it up yourself. That Baltimore got suckered in to wasting a first round pick on him is one of the biggest gaffes in NFL draft history. Tedford improved his play quite a bit, but he was not a good QB.

Reggie Robertson was so good that he lost his job. He doesn't count as a success. He doesn't really count as anything one way or the other.

Longshore was a decent QB in 2006. He was anything but decent the rest of his career.

Riley was a below average QB every year of his career except his senior year where he was probably 5th out of 10. I think he had talent but was completely mismanaged by Tedford from the last play of the Oregon State game onward.

So from 2002-12, we had good QB'ing in 2003, 2004, and I'll even grant 2006. 3 out of 9 years. 2 of which required that a future NFL HOF QB fall into the coach's lap that the rest of the country didn't know about.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I'd say no D has a chance with Sonny/TFS brand of air raid.

---

Washington State held teams to 23.3 PPG in 2018 and about middle of the pack in yards per play. I think if you have a good coordinator and good talent, it can be done. The fault lies with the attention given to it by the head coach IMO, not the offensive system that coach runs.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2018-team-defense.html

---

WSU conference ranks in PPG/YPP under Leach:

2012 - 10th (34.1) / 9th (5.7)
2013 - 10th (32.5) / 9th (5.9)
2014 - 10th (38.6) / 10th (6.2)
2015 - 7th (27.7) / 7th (5.8)
2016 - 6th (26.4) / 9th (6.1)
2017 - 4th (25.8) / 3rd (5.1)
2018 - 5th (23.3) / 7th (5.6)
2019 - 8th (31.4) / 12th (6.8)

Note that for the period their defense was average to above average, they had a great DC in Alex Grinch (2015-2018). It is not an endorsement of your defensive system that it takes a great DC and a veteran 2-deep to produce an above average defense.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

The end of the Tedford era traumatized so many Cal fans so severely that they forgot how incredibly effective this style of offense can be when done well. During the Tedford era this offense seemed to go stale mostly because our head coach sucked at recruiting and developing good quarterbacks.

---

I fixed the typos in your post

---

I appreciate the attempted assistance, but you have your own peculiar style guide that's accepted by few minds outside your own.

Successful QBs recruited or developed by Tedford:

Trent Dilfer (developed)
David Carr (recruited)
Joey Harrington (developed)
Akili Smith (recruited and developed)
AJ Feely (recruited and developed)
Kyle Boller (developed)
Reggie Robertson (developed)
Aaron Rodgers (recruited and developed)
Nate Longshore (recruited and developed)
Kevin Riley (recruited and developed)
Marcus McMaryion (developed)

Tedford's QB coaching skills declined after 2004 and after 2007 sank to the point where he did indeed suck but before that happened he justly deserved his reputation as a QB guru. From 2008 onward he had the kiss of death but as he proved with McMaryion he was able to regenerate some of his old ability after leaving us.

---

Someday, someone must tell me how QB's that played at Oregon and Fresno State matter at all in a discussion of all the ****ty QB's he produced for Cal.

Boller, by any measure you want to pick in 2002 (passer rating, YPA, comp %, passing yardage) was a bottom third QB in the conference. Look it up yourself. That Baltimore got suckered in to wasting a first round pick on him is one of the biggest gaffes in NFL draft history. Tedford improved his play quite a bit, but he was not a good QB.

Reggie Robertson was so good that he lost his job. He doesn't count as a success. He doesn't really count as anything one way or the other.

Longshore was a decent QB in 2006. He was anything but decent the rest of his career.

Riley was a below average QB every year of his career except his senior year where he was probably 5th out of 10. I think he had talent but was completely mismanaged by Tedford from the last play of the Oregon State game onward.

So from 2002-12, we had good QB'ing in 2003, 2004, and I'll even grant 2006. 3 out of 9 years. 2 of which required that a future NFL HOF QB fall into the coach's lap that the rest of the country didn't know about.

---

The QBs that played at Oregon and Fresno State matter because you said Tedford sucked at recruiting and developing good QBs. Since Tedford also recruited and developed QBs at Oregon and Fresno State, those results bear on a discussion about how much Tedford didn't suck at recruiting and developing QBs.

Since you've offered any measure I pick for Boller, I choose the somewhat significant stats called touchdowns (tied 2nd with 28) and TD/INT ratio (alone in 2nd at 2.8 / 1). Boller's failures in the NFL only serve to emphasize how good Tedford was at coaching QBs during his prime. He could take QBs who were successful under no one else and make them look so good they fooled NFL teams into making them 1st round picks. All it should take is a comparison of Boller's performance pre and post Tedford to demonstrate the quality of his coaching to anyone who isn't fatally biased.

Robertson became a good QB under Tedford. Being beaten out by Aaron f**ing Rodgers doesn't take that away.

Longshore was far better than "decent" in 2006. 1st in Yards Per Attempt, 2nd in Passer Rating, 2nd in TDs, 3rd in Yards. Trying to get away with the label "decent" only shows how much you're willing to distort the truth to serve your argument. Longshore was also far better than "decent" in 2007 before he was injured.

Calling Riley "below average" every year except his senior year again puts your ridiculous bias on display. In 2009 Riley was 3rd in Yards Per Attempt, 2nd in Yards, 4th in TDs and 3rd in TD to INT ratio. Seriously, are you this dishonest all of the time or just when you're wrong? I won't even bother explaining how ridiculous it is to say he was "below average" in his RS freshman year, I'll just point to the AF game and laugh at you.

2007 broke Tedford as a QB coach. He never recovered from what happened against OSU. The overreaction to Riley's boneheaded freshman moment in that game had him trot an obviously too injured to play Longshore out to get embarrassed every week and destroyed his confidence in the process. The tailspin we suffered that accompanied that blunder sent him into a tailspin as a QB coach, but before that happened he was one of the best in the business. Contradicting your assessment of him prior to that point is myself, a wealth of stats/facts and the opinions of a whole bunch of people who should know better than either of us.

Finally about Rodgers -- yeah, he had HOF talent that somehow everyone else missed in recruiting except Jeff Tedford. One highlight tape (in which Rodgers wasn't even the featured player) was all it took for Tedford to know Rodgers was a diamond in the rough. Then Tedford helped develop Rodgers from a QB with elite talent into an elite QB, a fact that Rodgers himself has testified to many times (and Rodgers isn't one to bestow credit capriciously).

You can say I told you so whenever you want. It won't make you any less wrong. Since you're not a dumb person I'm going to guess you have some special blinders regarding Tedford that pushes you to create an alternate reality in your mind wherein none of his enormous success coaching QBs happened.

LMAO. Now all of a sudden it doesn't matter to some what our offense is or isn't. Or people long for Sonny Days. OMG. I swear this board is a reflection of Telegraph Ave. A little crazy here and a little talking to oneself there.

Cave Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Great thread question, KoreAm (and good timing!). I'm gonna go contrarian with it. NO, it doesn't need to compliment our defense. I honestly think that's something people say when they want to sound like they know football. What it needs to do is...

1. Score points
2. Move the ball
3. Not shoot itself in the foot with turnovers, penalties, minus yards, etc

I would go with something like an AirRaid, maybe with a bit more emphasis on running. A QB who can, first and foremost pass, with a high completion percentage, and hopefully run a bit, too. (Of course, wouldn't that be nice to have, all the time?)

Folks here are living in the past, citing their favorite offenses from their glory days, but people, it's 2019 (and it's only even that for a few more weeks).

---

It can't just be that those of us who want an offense like those have valid reasons for doing so? How far in the past does one have to be living in to want the offense the Niners run?

If I wanted to be similarly dismissive I'd say folks who want an Air Raid are living in a video game. There's a reason Air Raid teams tend to have lousy defenses, and it's not simple coincidence.

---

I am officially declaring that the folks living in the past get no say in the future offense. Oh wait, that goes for everyone doesn't it?

Big C said:

---

Great thread question, KoreAm (and good timing!). I'm gonna go contrarian with it. NO, it doesn't need to compliment our defense. I honestly think that's something people say when they want to sound like they know football. What it needs to do is...

1. Score points
2. Move the ball
3. Not shoot itself in the foot with turnovers, penalties, minus yards, etc

I would go with something like an AirRaid, maybe with a bit more emphasis on running. A QB who can, first and foremost pass, with a high completion percentage, and hopefully run a bit, too. (Of course, wouldn't that be nice to have, all the time?)

Folks here are living in the past, citing their favorite offenses from their glory days, but people, it's 2019 (and it's only even that for a few more weeks).

---

Big C - I am not just citing my favorite offense. If I did that it would be Snyder's last one.

I very much think that Cal needs to stop just trying to hire good coaches. They need to use analytics to determine what is the best offense to run at Cal based on the recruits we can get and the opponents we play. We need to establish an identity that Cal is the "X" school. Whatever X is. Have recruits who think they would excel in system X think of us first.

I have not run analytics, nor am I going to, so I may be completely wrong in my speculation regarding what system X should be. But my thinking is this:

2004 is wrongly thought of as a passing team because Aaron Rodgers was an awesome QB. It wasn't. We ran for 256 yards a game on 42 carries and passed for 235 on 28 attempts. While it was awesome having Rodgers run the offense, it would have been fine with a consistent QB who just delivered the ball to his play makers when he had to. 2005 was similar. We ran for 235 yards a game on 40 carries and passed for 193 on 27 attempts. In 2005 we put in running plays specifically for Ayoob that we never had Rodgers run. I'm not a tremendous Garbers fan, but I think if you put Garbers on that team we challenge for a conference championship.

To be sure there is no question that 2004 was an exceptionally talented team and so was 2005 except for QB. We couldn't expect to have that combination of talent every year or any year.

My thinking is this. The most academically successful players tend to be O-Line. With an offense that revolves around O-line play we maximize our reputation around a recruiting pool that is easiest for us to get. Given the passing bent of the conference, we could become the school running backs want to go to and to be honest solid running backs are not hard to find. Fullbacks and tight ends as well. Plus, we would be a change up for the rest of the conference who has to defend the pass most weeks. You then don't rely on massive QB and wide receiver talent - I think the two positions that are hardest for us to recruit (even with our offenses, Dykes pretty much went 0-fer at QB recruiting other than getting Webb to transfer) You just need serviceable and consistent.

I'm not saying you dust off the same playbook. I'm saying that is the style I would run.

I would also say that Boller, Robertson, Rodgers and Longshore picked up that offense very quickly. I don't think it is hard to learn. I think when Tedford moved to Frankenoffense when he overreacted to Ayoob hampering 2005's offense, yes he ended up with an offense that was more pass first and harder to run than his original offense.

Bottom line - Cal can't run what everyone else is running. We are not on a level playing field. We will never get the best recruits. Cal needs to think Moneyball - what are the aspects to a good offense that are undervalued in the market or that Cal specifically has an advantage (or less of a disadvantage) in?

I don't think "getting a good coach" is enough. Getting a good coach in a system that works at Cal is necessary. We need both.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

2005 offense. 2004 adjusted for a QB better at running than passing.

---

Yeah, i really don't want to see a repeat of the 2005 offense, thanks.

6th in PPG, dead last in completion percentage, dead last in passing yards per game, 8th in interceptions and turnovers per game.

Even if we had the next Lynch and Forsett on our team, I don't want that offense. And we definitely don't have the next Desean.

---

We had an atrocious QB. The fact that we were 6th in ppg despite the passing stats you cite should tell you something. We went 8-4 in a year with a gaping hole at the QB position. I would take that result all day. It is pretty much the "best offense with a terrible QB" we have ever had. The fact that not just Rodgers, but Robertson, Longshore and even Levy ran the same offense with massively more efficiency shows it isn't the offense. Ayoob completed 52% of his passes while the others were all in the 61-65% range.

If Ayoob is your QB you aren't going to be on top of the conference. 6th place with that level of QB'ing is a triumph. Levy ran it with a 150 passer rating and he really didn't have D-1 passing ability.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I'd say no D has a chance with Sonny/TFS brand of air raid.

---

Washington State held teams to 23.3 PPG in 2018 and about middle of the pack in yards per play. I think if you have a good coordinator and good talent, it can be done. The fault lies with the attention given to it by the head coach IMO, not the offensive system that coach runs.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2018-team-defense.html

---

I think more the exception than the rule. They went back to TFS style D this season Exh 1 is the UCLA game.

Ball control may help a defensive minded team. Shortens the game and D doesn't have to be overly depended on. Like a poster said in this thread, much easier to find personnel for ball control or running game than spread needing receivers and running backs with elite speed.

---

This


POUND....THE.....ROCK

Hairball showed that it can be extremely successful in the Pac-12 and Wilcox is a far better defensive coach than what the Furd has right now. We are NEVER going to outrecruit USC, Oregon, or the SEC for speed skill guys on the offensive side of the ball. Just are not. We can, however, go out and grab big beefy linemen who know they are likely going to be playing for 4 years and can look at the relatively short careers of NFL linemen and understand you could do a LOT worse than a degree from Cal. It fits. We would have to go out and recruit 2-3 backs a year - 1 speedster and 2 workhorses/bruisers. Use a scholarship on a punter so we can play field position. Continue to excell on the defensive side. Become Wisconsin of the Pac-12.

POUND.....THE....ROCK

Pigskin Pete said:

---

71Bear said:

---

A run first mentality with the ability to go deep

---

You know who had a run heavy offense in 2019? Cal. They ran 36.5 times per game compared with 27.8 pass attempts per game.

If you want Pac 12 teams that were run heavy and successful doing it, you're talking about Utah. Utah's splits were 42.6/22.9, 4.9 YPA, and 6.8 YPP. Otherwise, you're looking at mostly balanced offenses like Oregon (36.6/32/6, 5.1 YPA, 6.5 YPP). I'm not counting below Arizona as successful and I think it's safe to say you don't want to do Mike Leach's pass heavy attack.

Should we get Andy Ludwig for a 2nd go round or will he be out of our price range as a Frank Broyles (TM 71Bear) finalist?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2019-team-offense.html

Personally, I still think GoldenOne had the most worthwhile post in the thread. As long as it's putting up between 30-35 PPG or more and we're winning games, I just don't care about how we get there.

---

As I always like to point out, the stats you cited are skewed because of the way college football calculates sacks (as rushing attempts rather than passing attempts).

Resetting the sacks as passing attempts, Cal averaged 33.75 rushes/game and 30.67 passes/games. Also, the stats do not account for rushes past the LOS by Garbers when he set up to pass but was forced to run.

Forget the stats for a moment. What Cal needs is a stout OL that can impose their will on the DL and a couple RB's who can move the chains consistently thus wearing down the opposition. Pair that with a solid D and Cal will flourish. Yes, this means recruiting in a deeper pool. The new guy isn't going to be any better than BB unless Wilcox steps up his recruiting game.

I like Wilcox but I am concerned about his recruiting prowess. To date, he has not signed a Pied Piper (a guy like Russell White) and it does not appear that he will this cycle. Until he does, the ceiling is 8/9 wins depending on the schedule.

71Bear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

71Bear said:

---

A run first mentality with the ability to go deep

---

You know who had a run heavy offense in 2019? Cal. They ran 36.5 times per game compared with 27.8 pass attempts per game.

If you want Pac 12 teams that were run heavy and successful doing it, you're talking about Utah. Utah's splits were 42.6/22.9, 4.9 YPA, and 6.8 YPP. Otherwise, you're looking at mostly balanced offenses like Oregon (36.6/32/6, 5.1 YPA, 6.5 YPP). I'm not counting below Arizona as successful and I think it's safe to say you don't want to do Mike Leach's pass heavy attack.

Should we get Andy Ludwig for a 2nd go round or will he be out of our price range as a Frank Broyles (TM 71Bear) finalist?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2019-team-offense.html

Personally, I still think GoldenOne had the most worthwhile post in the thread. As long as it's putting up between 30-35 PPG or more and we're winning games, I just don't care about how we get there.

---

As I always like to point out, the stats you cited are skewed because of the way college football calculates sacks (as rushing attempts rather than passing attempts).

Resetting the sacks as passing attempts, Cal averaged 33.75 rushes/game and 30.67 passes/games. Also, the stats do not account for rushes past the LOS by Garbers when he set up to pass but was forced to run.

Forget the stats for a moment. What Cal needs is a stout OL that can impose their will on the DL and a couple RB's who can move the chains consistently thus wearing down the opposition. Pair that with a solid D and Cal will flourish. Yes, this means recruiting in a deeper pool. The new guy isn't going to be any better than BB unless Wilcox steps up his recruiting game.

I like Wilcox but I am concerned about his recruiting prowess. To date, he has not signed a Pied Piper (a guy like Russell White) and it does not appear that he will this cycle. Until he does, the ceiling is 8/9 wins depending on the schedule.

---

Garbers pulls the ball down and runs on designed passing plays A LOT.

I haven't looked at statistics, but I think Garbers is pretty tough to stop on third and short. (and if he isn't, he should be) A run offense that can consistently set him up with 2nd and medium and third and short situations where he can hit a short pass or pull it down and run is going to be successful. I point this out because Garbers - at least at this point - is not a great passer. He is smart, makes his reads, uses his feet and is a good leader, but he is killing teams with his arm talent. I think we can consistently develop guys at QB like Garbers or Reggie Robertson. With that and a running game and a good defense, you are consistently in the top third of the conference. Get one top flight guy at QB or RB or WR, you have a good chance at winning the division.

71Bear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

71Bear said:

---

A run first mentality with the ability to go deep

---

You know who had a run heavy offense in 2019? Cal. They ran 36.5 times per game compared with 27.8 pass attempts per game.

If you want Pac 12 teams that were run heavy and successful doing it, you're talking about Utah. Utah's splits were 42.6/22.9, 4.9 YPA, and 6.8 YPP. Otherwise, you're looking at mostly balanced offenses like Oregon (36.6/32/6, 5.1 YPA, 6.5 YPP). I'm not counting below Arizona as successful and I think it's safe to say you don't want to do Mike Leach's pass heavy attack.

Should we get Andy Ludwig for a 2nd go round or will he be out of our price range as a Frank Broyles (TM 71Bear) finalist?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2019-team-offense.html

Personally, I still think GoldenOne had the most worthwhile post in the thread. As long as it's putting up between 30-35 PPG or more and we're winning games, I just don't care about how we get there.

---

As I always like to point out, the stats you cited are skewed because of the way college football calculates sacks (as rushing attempts rather than passing attempts).

Resetting the sacks as passing attempts, Cal averaged 33.75 rushes/game and 30.67 passes/games. Also, the stats do not account for rushes past the LOS by Garbers when he set up to pass but was forced to run.

Forget the stats for a moment. What Cal needs is a stout OL that can impose their will on the DL and a couple RB's who can move the chains consistently thus wearing down the opposition. Pair that with a solid D and Cal will flourish. Yes, this means recruiting in a deeper pool. The new guy isn't going to be any better than BB unless Wilcox steps up his recruiting game.

I like Wilcox but I am concerned about his recruiting prowess. To date, he has not signed a Pied Piper (a guy like Russell White) and it does not appear that he will this cycle. Until he does, the ceiling is 8/9 wins depending on the schedule.

---

I would also point out that the three times Cal has approached national success - under White, Snyder, and Tedford, were basically 70's, 90's, and 00's version of the same thing - offenses lead by dominating line play, excellent running backs, very good fullbacks/tight ends, smart QB play and a power focus. The point isn't to run those offenses but a 2020 version.

And no I don't care what offense we run as long as we win. The point of the thread is what we think would be successful

CALiforniALUM said:

---

LMAO. Now all of a sudden it doesn't matter to some what our offense is or isn't. Or people long for Sonny Days. OMG. I swear this board is a reflection of Telegraph Ave. A little crazy here and a little talking to oneself there.

---

I said it and I stand by it. The O can be successful as Air Raid, RPO, pro style, PAP/TE heavy, etc. The philosophy doesn't really matter. What matters is having competent coaches who can teach it and that the players execute it supremely well.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

I'd say no D has a chance with Sonny/TFS brand of air raid.

---

Washington State held teams to 23.3 PPG in 2018 and about middle of the pack in yards per play. I think if you have a good coordinator and good talent, it can be done. The fault lies with the attention given to it by the head coach IMO, not the offensive system that coach runs.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2018-team-defense.html

---

I think more the exception than the rule. They went back to TFS style D this season Exh 1 is the UCLA game.

Ball control may help a defensive minded team. Shortens the game and D doesn't have to be overly depended on. Like a poster said in this thread, much easier to find personnel for ball control or running game than spread needing receivers and running backs with elite speed.

---

TFS style D? That doesn't even mean anything.

So you think we're not trying to find RB's with elite speed? And what the heck is a spread needing receiver? Are there receivers out there that can only be good in a spread offense?

---

"TFS D" means basically your rapid tempo O causing your D to be on the field all the time, which is not really good for your D and the amount of plays it has to defend. As someone pointed out by bearing out the Wazzu D over the years, the overwhelming trend is that they don't have a good D to complement their O -- pretty much they can't. They have to win by putting up 40. This doesn't seem too controversial.

For spread, I think it's pretty obvious you are going to need a volume of fast receivers and running backs to optimize it. Guys like Treggs, Harper, Anderson, Lawler, Harris, Powe, Lasco, Muhammed, etc. in bunches. Air Raid -- attacking in waves. We simply don't have those type of guys anymore in volume, unless you see something in our recruiting I don't see. We simply don't recruit that kind of skill and speed, which is disappointing but not surprising because there is no buzz with the offense. So I would think it's better to focus more towards power ball with TEs and getting backs like Brown, with the occasional home run threat at the skill position somewhere if we get lucky recruiting once in a while. But like someone said, if our recruiting profile continues to be what we've been getting on offense, we need to fit the system that works for that kind of talent.

OaktownBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

71Bear said:

---

A run first mentality with the ability to go deep

---

You know who had a run heavy offense in 2019? Cal. They ran 36.5 times per game compared with 27.8 pass attempts per game.

If you want Pac 12 teams that were run heavy and successful doing it, you're talking about Utah. Utah's splits were 42.6/22.9, 4.9 YPA, and 6.8 YPP. Otherwise, you're looking at mostly balanced offenses like Oregon (36.6/32/6, 5.1 YPA, 6.5 YPP). I'm not counting below Arizona as successful and I think it's safe to say you don't want to do Mike Leach's pass heavy attack.

Should we get Andy Ludwig for a 2nd go round or will he be out of our price range as a Frank Broyles (TM 71Bear) finalist?

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-12/2019-team-offense.html

Personally, I still think GoldenOne had the most worthwhile post in the thread. As long as it's putting up between 30-35 PPG or more and we're winning games, I just don't care about how we get there.

---

As I always like to point out, the stats you cited are skewed because of the way college football calculates sacks (as rushing attempts rather than passing attempts).

Resetting the sacks as passing attempts, Cal averaged 33.75 rushes/game and 30.67 passes/games. Also, the stats do not account for rushes past the LOS by Garbers when he set up to pass but was forced to run.

Forget the stats for a moment. What Cal needs is a stout OL that can impose their will on the DL and a couple RB's who can move the chains consistently thus wearing down the opposition. Pair that with a solid D and Cal will flourish. Yes, this means recruiting in a deeper pool. The new guy isn't going to be any better than BB unless Wilcox steps up his recruiting game.

I like Wilcox but I am concerned about his recruiting prowess. To date, he has not signed a Pied Piper (a guy like Russell White) and it does not appear that he will this cycle. Until he does, the ceiling is 8/9 wins depending on the schedule.

---

I would also point out that the three times Cal has approached national success - under White, Snyder, and Tedford, were basically 70's, 90's, and 00's version of the same thing - offenses lead by dominating line play, excellent running backs, very good fullbacks/tight ends, smart QB play and a power focus. The point isn't to run those offenses but a 2020 version.

And no I don't care what offense we run as long as we win. The point of the thread is what we think would be successful

---

...and I believe that winning requires an offense that is the 2020 version of what was successful in past eras. For example, at the pro level, San Francisco is playing very well utilizing a run-oriented attack. Of course, that type of O requires a great TE and an mobile OL. The zone blocking scheme employed by Shanahan is the key to their success. Circling back to Cal, is it possible to develop the cohesion needed to effectively zone blocking given the turnover in personnel at the college level every year? If so, that is the way to go........

The best part about watching our defense last year was watching them outsmart the opposition.

They had presnap movements. They changed assignments postsnap. The QB had no idea what coverage was coming until it was too late. We changed things up so much that they were anticipating things to happen that never came which caused more panic and broke down opposing quarterbacks.

It was sad to see less presnap motion this year...but that is what I want to go to on Offense. I want to outsmart our competition. I want them thinking one thing is coming while we do another. I want those broken defensive plays where we end up with a man down field wide open with no one near him. How is it that we haven't had a single play where an offensive player was all alone and walked into the endzone untouched over the past three years? You see it at least once a game everywhere else including the NFL.

I want play one to set up play two to set up play three. I don't want every play to exist in a vacuum where we go empty set on first down, bring in a tight end on second, then a completely different formation on third. Every play should be significant, even if it doesn't succeed it should plant the seeds for success later.

I want an offense that makes the defense uncomfortable. Second guessing themselves. Hesitating on that first step. Running right when we go left. Running left when we go right. Standing still when they should be moving because they aren't sure where the ball is going.

In short I want a defense that forces the opposition to stay disciplined, not overpursue, and that punishes mistakes by the defense. This is college football, they will make mistakes, we need to learn how to force them and to capitalize on them.

tequila4kapp said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

LMAO. Now all of a sudden it doesn't matter to some what our offense is or isn't. Or people long for Sonny Days. OMG. I swear this board is a reflection of Telegraph Ave. A little crazy here and a little talking to oneself there.

---

I said it and I stand by it. The O can be successful as Air Raid, RPO, pro style, PAP/TE heavy, etc. The philosophy doesn't really matter. What matters is having competent coaches who can teach it and that the players execute it supremely well.

---

Your last sentence is completely true. What some of us are talking about is what type of offense we think Cal can attract competent coaches and the right players to execute it. I don't care if we run Andy Smith's offense and win. But that isn't really the point of the thread. If you think there is no advantage at Cal of running a particular offense over another, that is cool. I disagree, but that is fine.

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

LMAO. Now all of a sudden it doesn't matter to some what our offense is or isn't. Or people long for Sonny Days. OMG. I swear this board is a reflection of Telegraph Ave. A little crazy here and a little talking to oneself there.

---

I said it and I stand by it. The O can be successful as Air Raid, RPO, pro style, PAP/TE heavy, etc. The philosophy doesn't really matter. What matters is having competent coaches who can teach it and that the players execute it supremely well.

---

Your last sentence is completely true. What some of us are talking about is what type of offense we think Cal can attract competent coaches and the right players to execute it. I don't care if we run Andy Smith's offense and win. But that isn't really the point of the thread. If you think there is no advantage at Cal of running a particular offense over another, that is cool. I disagree, but that is fine.

---

Thank you for the civil back and forth.

I just think certain coaches have the "it" factor. Players tend to gravitate toward them; others want to be part of their successes. IMO find that guy and the rest will fall into place.

tequila4kapp said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

LMAO. Now all of a sudden it doesn't matter to some what our offense is or isn't. Or people long for Sonny Days. OMG. I swear this board is a reflection of Telegraph Ave. A little crazy here and a little talking to oneself there.

---

I said it and I stand by it. The O can be successful as Air Raid, RPO, pro style, PAP/TE heavy, etc. The philosophy doesn't really matter. What matters is having competent coaches who can teach it and that the players execute it supremely well.

---

Your last sentence is completely true. What some of us are talking about is what type of offense we think Cal can attract competent coaches and the right players to execute it. I don't care if we run Andy Smith's offense and win. But that isn't really the point of the thread. If you think there is no advantage at Cal of running a particular offense over another, that is cool. I disagree, but that is fine.

---

Thank you for the civil back and forth.

I just think certain coaches have the "it" factor. Players tend to gravitate toward them; others want to be part of their successes. IMO find that guy and the rest will fall into place.

---

Yeah, I don't think that position is unreasonable. I just think Cal isn't a place that attracts and retains "it" factor coaches. And they sure as hell don't seem to have the ability to identify them.

MrGPAC said:

---

The best part about watching our defense last year was watching them outsmart the opposition.

They had presnap movements. They changed assignments postsnap. The QB had no idea what coverage was coming until it was too late. We changed things up so much that they were anticipating things to happen that never came which caused more panic and broke down opposing quarterbacks.

It was sad to see less presnap motion this year...but that is what I want to go to on Offense. I want to outsmart our competition. I want them thinking one thing is coming while we do another. I want those broken defensive plays where we end up with a man down field wide open with no one near him. How is it that we haven't had a single play where an offensive player was all alone and walked into the endzone untouched over the past three years? You see it at least once a game everywhere else including the NFL.

I want play one to set up play two to set up play three. I don't want every play to exist in a vacuum where we go empty set on first down, bring in a tight end on second, then a completely different formation on third. Every play should be significant, even if it doesn't succeed it should plant the seeds for success later.

I want an offense that makes the defense uncomfortable. Second guessing themselves. Hesitating on that first step. Running right when we go left. Running left when we go right. Standing still when they should be moving because they aren't sure where the ball is going.

In short I want a defense that forces the opposition to stay disciplined, not overpursue, and that punishes mistakes by the defense. This is college football, they will make mistakes, we need to learn how to force them and to capitalize on them.

---

Agreed.

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Great thread question, KoreAm (and good timing!). I'm gonna go contrarian with it. NO, it doesn't need to compliment our defense. I honestly think that's something people say when they want to sound like they know football. What it needs to do is...

1. Score points
2. Move the ball
3. Not shoot itself in the foot with turnovers, penalties, minus yards, etc

I would go with something like an AirRaid, maybe with a bit more emphasis on running. A QB who can, first and foremost pass, with a high completion percentage, and hopefully run a bit, too. (Of course, wouldn't that be nice to have, all the time?)

Folks here are living in the past, citing their favorite offenses from their glory days, but people, it's 2019 (and it's only even that for a few more weeks).

---

Big C - I am not just citing my favorite offense. If I did that it would be Snyder's last one.

I very much think that Cal needs to stop just trying to hire good coaches. They need to use analytics to determine what is the best offense to run at Cal based on the recruits we can get and the opponents we play. We need to establish an identity that Cal is the "X" school. Whatever X is. Have recruits who think they would excel in system X think of us first.

I have not run analytics, nor am I going to, so I may be completely wrong in my speculation regarding what system X should be. But my thinking is this:

2004 is wrongly thought of as a passing team because Aaron Rodgers was an awesome QB. It wasn't. We ran for 256 yards a game on 42 carries and passed for 235 on 28 attempts. While it was awesome having Rodgers run the offense, it would have been fine with a consistent QB who just delivered the ball to his play makers when he had to. 2005 was similar. We ran for 235 yards a game on 40 carries and passed for 193 on 27 attempts. In 2005 we put in running plays specifically for Ayoob that we never had Rodgers run. I'm not a tremendous Garbers fan, but I think if you put Garbers on that team we challenge for a conference championship.

To be sure there is no question that 2004 was an exceptionally talented team and so was 2005 except for QB. We couldn't expect to have that combination of talent every year or any year.

My thinking is this. The most academically successful players tend to be O-Line. With an offense that revolves around O-line play we maximize our reputation around a recruiting pool that is easiest for us to get. Given the passing bent of the conference, we could become the school running backs want to go to and to be honest solid running backs are not hard to find. Fullbacks and tight ends as well. Plus, we would be a change up for the rest of the conference who has to defend the pass most weeks. You then don't rely on massive QB and wide receiver talent - I think the two positions that are hardest for us to recruit (even with our offenses, Dykes pretty much went 0-fer at QB recruiting other than getting Webb to transfer) You just need serviceable and consistent.

I'm not saying you dust off the same playbook. I'm saying that is the style I would run.

I would also say that Boller, Robertson, Rodgers and Longshore picked up that offense very quickly. I don't think it is hard to learn. I think when Tedford moved to Frankenoffense when he overreacted to Ayoob hampering 2005's offense, yes he ended up with an offense that was more pass first and harder to run than his original offense.

Bottom line - Cal can't run what everyone else is running. We are not on a level playing field. We will never get the best recruits. Cal needs to think Moneyball - what are the aspects to a good offense that are undervalued in the market or that Cal specifically has an advantage (or less of a disadvantage) in?

I don't think "getting a good coach" is enough. Getting a good coach in a system that works at Cal is necessary. We need both.

---

All this sounds very logically planned out. But let's say we do all of those analytics to plan out the very best offense for Cal. Then, we go to hire an Offensive Coordinator and we say, "And here is the offense you're going to coordinate! Look, we've already done a lot of your work for you! You're welcome." Who is going to want that job?

I think you have to hire a good OC and let him install his offense. If it's too weird an offense, like the Navy one, you don't go with that guy. Other than that, lots of different offenses can work here. I don't discount the value of differentiating yourself from the competition (like Stanfurd did... with a little help from The Glove), but that's just one possibility. I get that a lot of folks here don't like Air Raid-type offenses. I think they are largely misguided, but I get it.

Big C said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C said:

---

Great thread question, KoreAm (and good timing!). I'm gonna go contrarian with it. NO, it doesn't need to compliment our defense. I honestly think that's something people say when they want to sound like they know football. What it needs to do is...

1. Score points
2. Move the ball
3. Not shoot itself in the foot with turnovers, penalties, minus yards, etc

I would go with something like an AirRaid, maybe with a bit more emphasis on running. A QB who can, first and foremost pass, with a high completion percentage, and hopefully run a bit, too. (Of course, wouldn't that be nice to have, all the time?)

Folks here are living in the past, citing their favorite offenses from their glory days, but people, it's 2019 (and it's only even that for a few more weeks).

---

Big C - I am not just citing my favorite offense. If I did that it would be Snyder's last one.

I very much think that Cal needs to stop just trying to hire good coaches. They need to use analytics to determine what is the best offense to run at Cal based on the recruits we can get and the opponents we play. We need to establish an identity that Cal is the "X" school. Whatever X is. Have recruits who think they would excel in system X think of us first.

I have not run analytics, nor am I going to, so I may be completely wrong in my speculation regarding what system X should be. But my thinking is this:

2004 is wrongly thought of as a passing team because Aaron Rodgers was an awesome QB. It wasn't. We ran for 256 yards a game on 42 carries and passed for 235 on 28 attempts. While it was awesome having Rodgers run the offense, it would have been fine with a consistent QB who just delivered the ball to his play makers when he had to. 2005 was similar. We ran for 235 yards a game on 40 carries and passed for 193 on 27 attempts. In 2005 we put in running plays specifically for Ayoob that we never had Rodgers run. I'm not a tremendous Garbers fan, but I think if you put Garbers on that team we challenge for a conference championship.

To be sure there is no question that 2004 was an exceptionally talented team and so was 2005 except for QB. We couldn't expect to have that combination of talent every year or any year.

My thinking is this. The most academically successful players tend to be O-Line. With an offense that revolves around O-line play we maximize our reputation around a recruiting pool that is easiest for us to get. Given the passing bent of the conference, we could become the school running backs want to go to and to be honest solid running backs are not hard to find. Fullbacks and tight ends as well. Plus, we would be a change up for the rest of the conference who has to defend the pass most weeks. You then don't rely on massive QB and wide receiver talent - I think the two positions that are hardest for us to recruit (even with our offenses, Dykes pretty much went 0-fer at QB recruiting other than getting Webb to transfer) You just need serviceable and consistent.

I'm not saying you dust off the same playbook. I'm saying that is the style I would run.

I would also say that Boller, Robertson, Rodgers and Longshore picked up that offense very quickly. I don't think it is hard to learn. I think when Tedford moved to Frankenoffense when he overreacted to Ayoob hampering 2005's offense, yes he ended up with an offense that was more pass first and harder to run than his original offense.

Bottom line - Cal can't run what everyone else is running. We are not on a level playing field. We will never get the best recruits. Cal needs to think Moneyball - what are the aspects to a good offense that are undervalued in the market or that Cal specifically has an advantage (or less of a disadvantage) in?

I don't think "getting a good coach" is enough. Getting a good coach in a system that works at Cal is necessary. We need both.

---

All this sounds very logically planned out. But let's say we do all of those analytics to plan out the very best offense for Cal. Then, we go to hire an Offensive Coordinator and we say, "And here is the offense you're going to coordinate! Look, we've already done a lot of your work for you! You're welcome." Who is going to want that job?

I think you have to hire a good OC and let him install his offense. If it's too weird an offense, like the Navy one, you don't go with that guy. Other than that, lots of different offenses can work here. I don't discount the value of being differentiating yourself from the competition (like Stanfurd did... with a little help from The Glove), but that's just one possibility. I get that a lot of folks here don't like Air Raid-type offenses. I think they are largely misguided, but I get it.

---

I agree. We want an OC who can develop a long term strategy that takes our advantages and limitations into consideration but is flexible enough to put out an effective offense every year that maximizes the pieces that we have. In short we want someone smart and creative. Baldwin actually said all the right things coming in, about tailoring the offense to the players. And to an extent he did, only it took him all of 2017 to figure out we should be a running team, most of 2018 to figure out Garbers can run almost as well as McIlwain and it is more effective because we don't signal the defense it will be a QB run and took most of 2019 to figure out Brown is a more effective runner when the QB is under center and that opens up everything, oh and Collins is our most dynamic runner and deserves some carries.

Cave Bear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

So from 2002-12, we had good QB'ing in 2003, 2004, and I'll even grant 2006. 3 out of 9 years. 2 of which required that a future NFL HOF QB fall into the coach's lap that the rest of the country didn't know about.

---

The QBs that played at Oregon and Fresno State matter because you said Tedford sucked at recruiting and developing good QBs. Since Tedford also recruited and developed QBs at Oregon and Fresno State, those results bear on a discussion about how much Tedford didn't suck at recruiting and developing QBs.

---

Beau Baldwin had good offense at Eastern Washington, both as an offensive coordinator and as a head coach.

DNGAF

Quote:

---

Since you've offered any measure I pick for Boller, I choose the somewhat significant stats called touchdowns (tied 2nd with 28) and TD/INT ratio (alone in 2nd at 2.8 / 1).

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote:

---

Longshore was far better than "decent" in 2006. 1st in Yards Per Attempt, 2nd in Passer Rating, 2nd in TDs, 3rd in Yards. Trying to get away with the label "decent" only shows how much you're willing to distort the truth to serve your argument. Longshore was also far better than "decent" in 2007 before he was injured.

---

Other than the last sentence, that's all true, but it wasn't a great year for QB's that year. Best QBR (which you're suddenly interest in now that we're not talking about Boller) in the conference was 144, which would have placed fourth in the conference the year before. YPA (which you magically seem interested in now that we're not talking about Boller) would have been sixth the year before. Yards - you're magically interested in now that we're not talking about Boller.

Quote:

---

Calling Riley "below average" every year except his senior year again puts your ridiculous bias on display. In 2009 Riley was 3rd in Yards Per Attempt, 2nd in Yards, 4th in TDs and 3rd in TD to INT ratio. Seriously, are you this dishonest all of the time or just when you're wrong? I won't even bother explaining how ridiculous it is to say he was "below average" in his RS freshman year, I'll just point to the AF game and laugh at you.

---

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-10/2009-passing.html

Really, nothing else is needed. People can look at all the stats you didn't mention.

Quote:

---

2007 broke Tedford as a QB coach.

---

I might buy that except for 2005. He dug his own grave there. And then repeated it throughout his tenure.

There is a great political anecdote for the type of argument you put forth there, but I'll save it for Off Topic.

OaktownBear said:

---

Big C - I am not just citing my favorite offense. If I did that it would be Snyder's last one.

I very much think that Cal needs to stop just trying to hire good coaches. They need to use analytics to determine what is the best offense to run at Cal based on the recruits we can get and the opponents we play. We need to establish an identity that Cal is the "X" school. Whatever X is. Have recruits who think they would excel in system X think of us first.

I have not run analytics, nor am I going to, so I may be completely wrong in my speculation regarding what system X should be. But my thinking is this:

2004 is wrongly thought of as a passing team because Aaron Rodgers was an awesome QB. It wasn't. We ran for 256 yards a game on 42 carries and passed for 235 on 28 attempts. While it was awesome having Rodgers run the offense, it would have been fine with a consistent QB who just delivered the ball to his play makers when he had to. 2005 was similar. We ran for 235 yards a game on 40 carries and passed for 193 on 27 attempts. In 2005 we put in running plays specifically for Ayoob that we never had Rodgers run. I'm not a tremendous Garbers fan, but I think if you put Garbers on that team we challenge for a conference championship.

To be sure there is no question that 2004 was an exceptionally talented team and so was 2005 except for QB. We couldn't expect to have that combination of talent every year or any year.

My thinking is this. The most academically successful players tend to be O-Line. With an offense that revolves around O-line play we maximize our reputation around a recruiting pool that is easiest for us to get. Given the passing bent of the conference, we could become the school running backs want to go to and to be honest solid running backs are not hard to find. Fullbacks and tight ends as well. Plus, we would be a change up for the rest of the conference who has to defend the pass most weeks. You then don't rely on massive QB and wide receiver talent - I think the two positions that are hardest for us to recruit (even with our offenses, Dykes pretty much went 0-fer at QB recruiting other than getting Webb to transfer) You just need serviceable and consistent.

I'm not saying you dust off the same playbook. I'm saying that is the style I would run.

I would also say that Boller, Robertson, Rodgers and Longshore picked up that offense very quickly. I don't think it is hard to learn. I think when Tedford moved to Frankenoffense when he overreacted to Ayoob hampering 2005's offense, yes he ended up with an offense that was more pass first and harder to run than his original offense.

Bottom line - Cal can't run what everyone else is running. We are not on a level playing field. We will never get the best recruits. Cal needs to think Moneyball - what are the aspects to a good offense that are undervalued in the market or that Cal specifically has an advantage (or less of a disadvantage) in?

I don't think "getting a good coach" is enough. Getting a good coach in a system that works at Cal is necessary. We need both.

---

I wouldn't necessarily come to the same conclusion you have here, but you put out very cogent reasoning for it.

Whatever offense we run, I'd like to have the offensive line we had in 2004. Unfortunately, we've had a damn tough time recreating it, both under Tedford and the coaches since.

Pigskin Pete said:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Pigskin Pete said:

---

So from 2002-12, we had good QB'ing in 2003, 2004, and I'll even grant 2006. 3 out of 9 years. 2 of which required that a future NFL HOF QB fall into the coach's lap that the rest of the country didn't know about.

---

The QBs that played at Oregon and Fresno State matter because you said Tedford sucked at recruiting and developing good QBs. Since Tedford also recruited and developed QBs at Oregon and Fresno State, those results bear on a discussion about how much Tedford didn't suck at recruiting and developing QBs.

---

Beau Baldwin had good offense at Eastern Washington, both as an offensive coordinator and as a head coach.

DNGAF

Quote:

---

Since you've offered any measure I pick for Boller, I choose the somewhat significant stats called touchdowns (tied 2nd with 28) and TD/INT ratio (alone in 2nd at 2.8 / 1).

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Quote:

---

Longshore was far better than "decent" in 2006. 1st in Yards Per Attempt, 2nd in Passer Rating, 2nd in TDs, 3rd in Yards. Trying to get away with the label "decent" only shows how much you're willing to distort the truth to serve your argument. Longshore was also far better than "decent" in 2007 before he was injured.

---

Other than the last sentence, that's all true, but it wasn't a great year for QB's that year. Best QBR (which you're suddenly interest in now that we're not talking about Boller) in the conference was 144, which would have placed fourth in the conference the year before. YPA (which you magically seem interested in now that we're not talking about Boller) would have been sixth the year before. Yards - you're magically interested in now that we're not talking about Boller.

Quote:

---

Calling Riley "below average" every year except his senior year again puts your ridiculous bias on display. In 2009 Riley was 3rd in Yards Per Attempt, 2nd in Yards, 4th in TDs and 3rd in TD to INT ratio. Seriously, are you this dishonest all of the time or just when you're wrong? I won't even bother explaining how ridiculous it is to say he was "below average" in his RS freshman year, I'll just point to the AF game and laugh at you.

---

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/conferences/pac-10/2009-passing.html

Really, nothing else is needed. People can look at all the stats you didn't mention.

Quote:

---

2007 broke Tedford as a QB coach.

---

I might buy that except for 2005. He dug his own grave there. And then repeated it throughout his tenure.

There is a great political anecdote for the type of argument you put forth there, but I'll save it for Off Topic.

---

I'm sure you realize this, but you had no substantive response to anything I wrote except Boller's stats and even then you didn't bother to try and make an argument for why TDs and TD:INTs aren't important stats (because any such argument would be idiotic). Not surprising because there is no response you can make to the rest of it except to acknowledge that you began the process of cherry picking stats and then called foul when you got blown out with your own tactic. Let's negotiate a list of QB stats that are significant and then we can draw up those stats on every QB Tedford recruited or developed, sound good? Didn't think so.

Once upon a time, Tedford was a great QB coach. There is a long list of good college QBs recruited and developed by him to support this. All you can do against this list is close your eyes and laugh like a fool. Now that you have been dispatched you may return to your delusional world in which Tedford always sucked at recruiting and developing QBs.

P.S. Baldwin's pre-Cal QBs were FCS. Tedford's were FBS and most even in the same conference. There's no equivalence there, but nice try.

P.P.S. I have no doubt you have plenty of political anecdotes that illustrate your delusional argumentation logic.

It seems to me that Wilcox is building something of a coaches factory, and positioning Cal as an attractive, comfortable safe space for up-and-comers or folks that need to rehabilitate their resume. Just look at the care that has gone into showing BB the door and ensuring he has a soft landing, which I totally applaud. Also look at the staff's consistent comments about how great their peers are, and how well everyone works together.

Does an "It" guy really fit this meat and potatoes staff?

Fyght4Cal said:

---

I'm still trying to figure out Baldwin's system. But I do like our emphasis on the run/pass balance. Wilcox always emphasizes the importance of explosive plays (20+ yards). So clearly he wants quick strike capability, along with the ability to sustain drives. I expect that we will remain 'multiple', with increased attention on an effective ground game.

---

I don't understand the confusion about Baldwin's system. To my (admittedly inexpert) eye, it is what about 80% of the teams in college ball run: QB set deep, receivers set wide with pre-snap motion incorporating some "RPO" or read option elements. It may be too multiple for our skill position talent which, IMO, is rather middling but I think Beau is trying to do what nearly everyone else is doing. The main alternatives seem to be: 1) some version of Leach's Air Raid; 2) some version of a ground based triple option; 3) traditional pro set or some modification thereof. I don't think we have the personnel for either option 1 or 2 and option 3 seems to be evolving at most schools that still use to something more like what we are doing, so I have no problem sticking with what we're doing and continuing to upgrade talent.