SB Nation - Anthony Felder

Poinsettia Bowl Q&A with California Golden Blogs

Jeremy Mauss — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:00:17 -0000

The Poinsettia Bowl with Utah vs. Cal is coming up on Wednesday December 23rd, so it is time to question the opposing team in a short question and answer session. Today's we are talking with SB Nation's very own California Golden Blogs. Make sure to check out their site when they answer my questions, as well as other bowl info.

1. All of Cal's losses have been blowouts, what seems to go wrong when Cal does lose?

In a word? Everything. The secondary can't cover properly (they run their coverage patterns without looking for the ball, then get torn apart for huge gains), the special teams gaffes on both sides (we fail to return kicks properly, we fail to cover kicks properly), the offensive line doesn't block anyone, the quarterback can't throw a proper out route, the recievers can't gain separation, the linebackers don't know how to rush the passer...add those all together and you have a blowout, four times over (at least four or five of these things have happened in every loss, it's been uncanny).

Remember that Simpsons episode where Smithers loses his house and his mind slowly goes to "hi-diddily-ding-dong-crap", followed by him checking into a mental ward? That's what Cal fans have been like in every one of those losses. Sorrow turns to frustration turns to madness turns to acceptance of madness. We're all a bunch of loons right now about what team will show up on Wednesday. Don't provoke us too much if Mr. Hyde shows up Wednesday--you don't know the insanity you might unleash.

2. With Jahvid Best not playing in the bowl game, tell people about his replacement Shane Vereen?

Vereen is a very capable guy, similar to Best in form and size, but his style is a little bit more slippery to grasp. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention our running back coach Ron Gould, who's recruited and/or developed four NFL-capable running backs over the past six years, and seems like he might have another star brewing in Shane.

Here's what our best football analyst Hydrotech wrote after Vereen's incredible 42 carry, 193 yard performance in the Big Game upset over the Cardinal:

"Sure he's a bit slower than Best, but what he lacks in pure speed, he makes up for in his uncanny ability to gain a few extra yards when surrounded by four defenders and having no business getting any additional yards. He just has that subtle elusiveness to intricately weave through the defenders and trash to get those yards nobody really thinks he'd get. I suppose this is a bit surprising because Cal really hasn't had a RB like him before. Previous RBs just brutally powered their way through the trash and defenders (Lynch, Arrington, Echemandu). Best sort of puts his head down and runs through them but without tons of power. But Vereen just kind of slips through them - like magic."

If Utah wants to win the game, they need to stop Vereen in his tracks and force Riley to keep on throwing. Teams that have succeeded at that this year have won, teams that haven't have lost. Cal is 7-0 in games they've rushed for a hundred yards or more, 1-4 in which they haven't.

3. By having the former Utah offensive coordinator Andy Ludwig now at Cal give them an advantage Cal might not have had?

Beats me. I thought Ludwig being the former OC at Oregon might've helped us out against the Ducks; Nick Aliotti's defense ended up blasting more Bears out of the backfield than Sarah Palin from a Super Cub. It was not pretty. It goes both ways really--Utah's defense knows him as well as Ludwig knows them. We'll see if Ludwig can go 1 for 2 in rematches with old friends and put up a better showing than in Autzen.

The Ludwig experiment has had mixed results--liked him early, soured on him in the middle, and now many of us are kind of on the fence. On the one hand the offense has been far from running smoothly; on the other hand we've already had five offensive coordinators in the the past five years. On the one hand, Oregon and Utah fans were ecstatic to see him go; on the other, he was following two of the brightest offensive minds in Tedford and Meyer. There also could be a talent deficiency plaguing Cal's offense from getting into shape, but the way they've vacillated between 'pretty good' and 'extremely eye-gouging' is disconcerting.

4. What will Cal do on offense to be succesfull in this bowl game?

Block, block, block, block, block. Cal has had 2 really impressive victories against a ranked Arizona team and a ranked Stanford team on the road. In both of those wins, the OL seemed to play much better than in our other games. We had long sustained drives that kept the Cal D rested and off the field. The Cal D is good, but in our 4 blowout losses, the O, led by poor blocking, didn't help the D at all. They went 3 and out often, putting the D right back onto the field. Although they tried their hardest, no D can play that much time and still stay stout.

So, if the Cal OL can block well, opening up passing lanes for Riley and holes for Vereen, then the D will stay rested. If the Cal OL can block well, Cal can march methodically down the field, minimizing Utah's opportunities to score and maximizing their own. However, if the OL plays as it did in those 4 losses, then it well not only minimize Cal scoring, but put an undue amount of pressure on the Cal D.

Of course, the player missing in all 4 of those losses was Offensive Lineman Matt Summers-Gavin. All indications point to him *not* playing against Utah. :(!

5. Utah has a true freshman Jordan Wynn starting at quarterback, what can be expected Cal to do against him?

Watch in frustration as he throws for over 300 yards? Seriously, our pass D is not good. We've allowed large passing days to such illustrious names such as Tuel, Prince, and Sullivan. Try to guess which teams those QBs belong to!

It all starts with QB pressure, of course. Cal plays a 3-4 and Tyson Alualu is our #1 rush threat. However, the other players haven't been helping him as much as Cal would like and he often get doubled. Our LBs have taken a step back after Zack Follett, Worrell WIlliams, and Anthony Felder gone. Mike "The Prophet" Mohamed is still killing it, but they have trouble getting pressure.

Our DBs are in a bad way. Many seem to have regressed from last year. Injuries have hurt our #1 DB SydQuan Thompson. It's not a pretty picture back there.

We've already made some bad QBs look good, I'm sure that Jordan Wynn will look great.

Cal vs. Oregon State Post-Game Thoughts

HydroTech — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:00:25 -0000

by Ben Margot - AP

about 1 month ago: Oregon State's Jacquizz Rodgers, right, outruns California defense to score during the fourth quarter of an NCAA college football game Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009, in Berkeley, Calif. Oregon State won 31-14. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

View full size photo »

(1) To send more pass rushers or to not send more pass rushers? For most of the game Gregory was sending 4 pass rushers. Sometimes he'd send 5 if he was feeling a little frisky. But for the most part, only 4 pass rushers were devoted to pressuring Canfield. I agree with this strategy. I do not think more pass rushers should have been sent to pressure Canfield.

I'm sure that last sentence is quite shocking to a lot of Cal fans - especially the ones advocating for a more aggressive defense that sends more than just three or four pass rushers. Even I, initially, in the CGB podcast last week, suggested that perhaps this is the game where Gregory just needs to get crazy ultra aggressive and send lots of pass rushers because Canfield is so good that he can pick apart 7 and 8 man zones anyways.

I made that statement prior to seeing film on Canfield. Subsequently (but still prior to the game), I was directed to some video of Canfield's completions against USC's defense over at Trojanfootballanalysis.com. After seeing that film, I decided that blitzing Canfield was not really the correct strategy. Why? Canfield gets the ball out so quickly and efficiently. He hits his TEs and RBs on short check-downs to neutralize the blitz. When an offense's QB can get the ball out quickly against a blitzing defense, it just neutralizes the blitz and allows the offense to gain big yardage (see the final Cal drive of the 2009 Cal vs. Arizona State game for a pretty good Cal example of this). Blitzing against an offense that can get the ball out that quickly and efficiently is extremely risky, and has much less reward than normal blitzing strategies. Canfield was getting the ball out extremely quick - and against USC's very fast pass rush too! USC's pass rush is much faster than Cal's pass rush, yet Canfield neutralized them. It doesn't matter if Cal was sending five or six pass rushers per down to get a quicker pass rush, Canfield still probably would have been able to get the ball out. He did it against USC's faster defense and I have little doubt he would have done it to Cal's defense.

So what do you do? How do you defend such an efficient QB? Play really good coverage. Tighten up those zones. Make Canfield hold onto the ball longer and pray that your pass rush gets to him. Perhaps man up, play man coverage, and a little bump and run to knock the QB/WR timing off.

But I'm sure most of us are thinking that Cal is no good at playing coverage. That is true. But Cal is pretty bad at pass rushing the QB too. Essentially Gregory is presented with two evils: (1) Blitz Canfield with a poor pass rushers in hopes that pressure does get to him and open yourself up to big gains; (2) cover the field with some poor coverage defenders, and hope that Canfield makes a mistake or your pass rush gets to him. Gregory had to choose the lesser of two evils.

Both strategies have their pros and cons. But I think that option #2 is the safer option that gives Cal a better chance to win. Option #2 would force Canfield and the OSU offense to drive the field for longer increasing the chances they'd make a mistake. Option #1 could lead Canfield to drive the field in only a few plays leaving little chance for them to make mistakes.

But Option #1 comes with greater possibility of sacks, say you! True. But did you watch that film of Canfield? Did you see how quickly he got that ball out against a USC defense that is faster than Cal's defense? I'm sure Gregory had little doubt that Canfield could repeat that performance against us. Thus, Gregory opted for option #2: cover the field with some poor coverage defenders, and hope that Canfield makes a mistake or your pass rush gets to him.

FYI, Canfield's was only sacked by USC 3 times on 47 pass attempts against USC (43 pass attempts + 1 positive rush gain + 3 sacks) for a percentage of 6.4%. That's a pretty low success percentage. A very low success percentage. It's just about not even worth it to blitz when the success rate is that low.

In summary, our pass rush sucks. Our coverage sucks. OSU's passing offense is great at neutralizing blitzes. Gregory was presented with two options: (1) blitz and get defeated quickly; or (2) not-blitz and get defeated slowly. He opted for option #2 in hopes that the slow death might result in OSU mistakes which would kill drives (penalties, turnovers). I can't blame Gregory for his decision. I think it was the right one. It was the lesser of the two evils.

Tedford understands this concept of not being overly aggressive against great offenses that can get the ball out quickly. In yesterday's press luncheon he said:

On how to pressure Arizona's quarterback against a line that has only yielded four sacks so far this season and whether that is a concern
"There's no question. I don't know that you're [going to get to Wildcats QB Nick Foles]. You can try to get to him, but they get the ball out so fast, that I don't know. [Even] if they just let a guy run free off the edge, they probably get the ball off. So there's a lot of times where they get the ball out very quickly. But that doesn't mean you just abandon the rush. There's going to have to be times that we mix it up and we pressure and we cover. So that's how we're going to have to go into it."

Clearly, Tedford is conflicted. Of course he wants to pressure the Arizona QB, but he's afraid that it would be futile in some instances. Nevertheless, he does surrender to the idea that you're just going to have to roll the dice some times and bring the pressure - although he seems to imply that the use of added pressure via additional pass rushers is something very strategic and something that will happen judiciously.

(2) It's even harder to sack Canfield because he takes really deep drops even from shotgun. Most teams don't have their QBs drop back much more when the QB is in shotgun, but not Oregon State. Canfield, while in shotgun will still perform a pretty deep three or five step drop, dropping back up to an additional 6 yards from the shotgun location (so he's 11 yards from the LOS) to pass. That makes it especially hard for your pass rush to get to him as since they have to cover more yardage.

(3) My Sunday Morning Couch QB advice for the defense. (Please take this advice with more than a couple of grains of salt, or perhaps more appropriately just ignore it as since I'm not a coach) Clearly, Cal lacks the pass rushers to merely rely on three or four pass rushers to get pressure. Clearly, Cal lacks superior zone coverage players both at the linebacker, cornerback, and safety positions. Despite Arizona's ability to get the ball out quickly on offense to neutralize the blitz, one of the few remaining options I see for the defense is to play tight bump and run man coverage with the cornerbacks, and send five to six pass rushers at the QB fairly often. While blitzing does open yourself up to bigger completions down the field, this should hopefully be minimized with this strategy by the tighter man coverage and applying a quicker pass rush. The quicker pass rush will force the QB to hopefully throw the ball earlier than he wants causing more inaccurate throws, or for him to throw the lower percentage throws. Alternatively the tighter coverage on the receivers may cause him to see nobody as open and hold onto the ball longer thus allowing the pass rush to get to the QB.

Using various pre-snap looks and disguising the coverage and pass rushers can help cause confusion for the offense. The defense already does this, but it should continue to show more pass rushers than it actually pass rushes, and vice versa. Throw in some defensive line stunts for some added spice. Overload blitzes, maybe. Some of these strategies can achieve pressure without actually sending more pass rushers.

I think such a strategy might come as a welcome relief to Cal fans. Of course, it is not guaranteed to work at all. But just the mere fact that Gregory is trying something else will be a relief to fans. It seems as if many fans are desperate for change. Any sort of change. Anything. But even something that perhaps is even worse than Cal's current strategy? Many fans who advocate for a more aggressive offense seem to assume that the results will be better than the current results. Such an assumption may not be true. I understand that when X isn't working, it seems like there is no harm in trying Y. But it is possible that X > Y, and that Y will be more harm than X.

(4) Our offensive line kinda sucks. Against Oregon State, it was pretty bad in the interior positions, namely at LG, C, and RG. I think in general, that is where we are the weakest from week to week.

In the podcast, CBKWit makes the argument that this is one of our highest star rated offensive lines perhaps ever during the Tedford era. CBKWit made this comment in response to my remark suggesting that the OL's poor performance could be a talent issue. It seems that CBKWit might have been disagreeing with me. If that is so, CBKWit is clearly making the assumption that the higher the star rating of the player, the more talented they are. Such a notion is generally true, but not always. CBKWit seems to make it a forgone conclusion that is always true and thus this year's highly rated OL suckage cannot be due to lack of talent; hence obviously a coaching problem. I disagree. I think it's possible that there is a talent issue here, perhaps as well as a coaching issue. I have not discounted the talent issue, whereas CBKWit seems to have done so. CBKWit points to last year's OL which started Guarnero (prior to injury), Cheadle, and Boskovich (after Guarnero's injury) as evidence that this OL shouldn't be this bad due to the fact that so many of this year's starters saw playing time last year and were fairly productive. Last year, I personally thought Guarnero was doing fine at guard. However, I was not that impressed with Cheadle or Boskovich. Furthermore, last year's line was anchored by Alex Mack and Norris Malele who were both three year starters or so. Thus, I am not convinced that just because he have players from last year's OL, which performed decently well although not great, means that this year's OL cannot be suffering from lack of talent.

To summarize my position, I do think we are lacking in talent at the offensive line. However, I am not adverse to the idea that the problems could also be a coaching problem too. Last year, Tedford stated that Cignetti didn't focus on technique with the QBs because as an NFL coach, he was more interested in schemes rather than technique (NFL teams usually assume you have the requisite technique to perform in the NFL already). Marshall is an NFL guy too, and perhaps he's having this same problem.

Prior to this season, I didn't think the entire OL as a whole would be this bad. Although I knew nothing about Marshall, I had hopes that he was proficient enough to sustain an offensive line that can give Best and Vereen 5+ yards per carry even against some of the tougher defenses of the Pac-10 just like the OL seemingly did under Coach Michalczik. But things are pretty bad. The run blocking isn't there. The OL has little explosion off of the line. Power schemes aren't working. Inside zones aren't working. We don't use outside zones any more. Pass blocking is probably the better of the two but still nothing to brag about.

So is it time to fire Marshall? I don't know. I think it's a bit early for that kind of talk. I don't know what he's teaching the kids so I am going to refrain from saying he should be fired. Many Cal fans who want him fired are pointing at the on-field results as evidence of his incompetence. Perhaps that is indicative. Or perhaps we're just lacking talent.

In the past, Cal has had been pretty lucky to have diamond in the rough NFL guys on our OLs. Cal seemingly has always had one or two NFL guys on the offensive lines for most years. But this year, do we have NFL players on the line? Nope. Doubtful. As of now, I don't really see NFL futures for any of these guys. It's possible that one or two could break through and make it big on Sundays, but they sure as hell aren't playing well right now for the 2009 team.

So what do you do when the offensive line sucks? You work around it. You use more deception. Hence the fly sweep fakes - although those have disappeared quite a bit in the past few weeks. You use the wildbear (more flysweep fakes). You use playaction deception to buy the QB time. You don't do a lot of 7 step drops because it requires your OL to pass block longer. You get the ball out quickly. You call short passing plays.

Basically, with the OL not doing that well, you have to limit what you do. Not a lot of deep drops and long developing plays. No straight dropbacks without some sort of deception to buy the QB some time. In other words, our passing game has been limited in its diversity due to the lack of superior offensive line blocking.

(5) Missed tackles still a problem. Missed tackles have been a pretty big problem all year. I guess that's one thing I personally took for granted with having Follett, and especially Felder and Williams around, was that those guys squared up on the ball carriers, and dropped them cleanly. But the current set of guys, they're not quite squaring up perfectly. They're nicking the ball carriers who then squirm away for a few more yards of gain. They're reaching and arm tackling. Have we really seen any of those big square-up hits that Williams and Felder used to always deliver? Nope.

Why is this a problem? Probably due to inexperience, but also because they're not reacting on the ball quick enough. If they were getting there on time then squaring up shouldn't be a problem. But these guys are getting there a bit late, reaching, and arm tackling.

(6) The key to winning this game was through the passing game. Here's the gameplan for the opponents that Cal plays: shut down Cal's running game and force Cal to pass. It's that simple. Cal's passing game has to be clicking for it to win. But Riley and the passing offense were only successful 55.9% of the time today (completion percentage).

Cal's running game was averaging 2.53 yards a rush between Best, Vereen, and Holley. Cal's passing game was averaging 5.9 yards per pass attempt. Game theory says that Cal should have passed more. On the day, Cal ran the ball 24 times, but some of those were sacks so we'll say 22 times. Cal passed the ball 34 times. That's a passing 60.7% of the time, and rushing 39.3% of the time. That's markedly different from usual Cal gameplans that involve rushing the ball anywhere from 55%-65% of the time. Nevertheless, I don't think Cal was passing enough.

I know Tedford and Ludwig like to establish the run first to open up the pass. But it because quite clear early on that OSU was looking to stop the run, and they were being successful in their attempts. You have to just give up on the runs when they're not working at all that early on. You have to use the pass to open up the run, instead of vice versa. So, I am being a bit critical of Ludwig for not pass enough; however, I do understand that when the offense as a whole kind of sucks, no matter what you call you might be screwed six ways to Sunday anyways.

(7) A little slide protection. Cal's first play of the game featured what looked to be a little slide protection. This is something that we have rarely seen in the past 4 years or so. This scheme put Best on the end blocking a defensive end. Best quickly lost this battle which resulted in Riley getting rushed, Riley shoveling off the ball to Best, and Best running for a loss of 4 yards or so.

(8) Magic Numbers revisited. Well, a long time ago I made a prediction on Cal's season based on how well the QB's completion percentage would be. Basically, my reasoning was that Cal's success would be very closely correlated with Cal's passing game success which can more or less be measured via the QB completion percentage.

Here's what I predicted:

If Cal's starting QB can complete greater than 65% of his passes, Cal will most likely have an 11+ win regular season.

If Cal's starting QB completes between 62%-65% of his passes, Cal will most likely have a 10 win regular season.

If Cal's starting QB completes between 60%-62% of his passes, Cal will most likely have a 9 win regular season.

If Cal's starting QB completes between 58%-60% of his passes, Cal will most likely have a 8 win regular season.

If Cal's starting QB completes between 55%-58% of his passes, Cal will most likely have a 7 win regular season.

If Cal's starting QB completes less than 55% of his passes, the 2nd string QB should probably be starting.

I haven't looked at this prediction in a while. And when I just looked at it now for the first time in over a month, I cringed. Right now, Riley is completing 55.6% of his passes. That means, I think Cal could be aimed at a 7 win season this year. Ouch. It hurts even more when you think about how highly ranked we were pre-season and how much we were hyped as the team that could finally beat USC. But in all honesty, all that preseason hype was a bit much. People gave us too much benefit of the doubt. So if you ignore all the pre-season hype, it doesn't hurt as much and it actually makes sense.

Cal had questions at QB, WR, and OL. Simple measures of all their success (or lack thereof) can usually be seen in the the RB's production and the QB's production.

In 2008, Jahvid Best averaged 8.1 yards a carry. This year he's averaging 6.1 yards per carry.

In 2009, Riley completed 50.7% of his passes. This year he's completing 55.6% of his passes.

While the QB completion percentage has gone up, it's still bad. To put things into perspective, Kyle Boller only completed 53.6% of his passes in 2002. Cal clearly is having offense problems. So what are the causes of the problems? For the most part, I think it's talent talent talent.... err, lack thereof.

Passing and rushing begins in the trenches. It starts with the OL opening up holes and sustaining pass blocks. They haven't been getting that production. There haven't been holes. There haven't been great pass blocks. Whether the problem is due to incompetent coaching or lack of talent is debatable but I think the problem is mostly just lack of talent. In a couple years we'll probably have our answer when we know if any of this year's starters are playing on Sundays, but I'm already pretty sure the answer is going to be no.

(9) Coach critique. I'm not too fond of dishing out tons of coach criticism because I'm not at practices. I'm not seeing what the coaches are teaching the kids and how they are handling things. All I can do now is look at the on-field results and try and make some sort of judgment from that. But even then, on the field results aren't always indicative of the coaches. As good as a coach may be, some players just aren't talented enough or just make untimely mistakes. Sometimes there's nothing more that you can do about it. Some players have it, and some don't. Some players perform better than others regardless of the coaching they receive. That is one of the truest facts in any type of performative sport or performance. The greatest coaching in the world can't make up for the lack of innate talent and innate consistency.

But as Ragnarok said in the podcast, if we merely step aside and don't critique the coaches because we lack the requisite knowledge or because we're not at practice, we're simply putting the state of the program in Tedford's hands and admitting our own ignorance. Ragnarok calls this a "cop out" and seems to think it's an unsatisfactory alternative. It seems as if he thinks fans should have a voice despite our lack of knowledge and connectedness to the program. I know a lot of fans feel the same way. I am not going to argue that we can't critique the coaches. Certainly, fans have the freedom to do so. But that doesn't mean the critique is accurate or even warranted. You'd never think that from reading some of the critiques though. By the sound of it, a lot of us are genius football coaches. Go ahead and critique the coaches, but I just wish there was a little more self-awareness of our lack of substantive football knowledge and knowledge of the situation.

With that out of the way, allow me to critique the coaches. Please disregard everything from here on out because, well, let's face it, I'm a cook not a football coach.

Alamar. He has to get it together. Special teams have sucked for a while. I've been pretty tolerant of it. But now I'm finally growing tired of it. Kickoff coverage is below average. Kick return blocking sucks. Our field goal kickers haven't been great despite supposedly getting some of the top kicking talent in the nation. Our place kickers have been unsatisfactory for the past few years too. Perhaps Alamar should just do TEs, and we should bring in a dedicated special teams coach?

Ludwig. I'm a bit perplexed why the offense seems to have become less diverse over the past few weeks than what we saw earlier on in the season. Perhaps Ludwig was merely trying out new things early in the season. Maybe that's all he was doing, but I think it was working too. It gave defenses a lot to think about and it kept the off guard. But the offense as of late has seemed to become less diverse and I find it a little disappointing. I also would like to see a bit more down-field passing. I think Riley is best throwing the deep balls, such as gos/flys. He's pretty good at posts too. He's perhaps shown the most accuracy with the seam routes. We've been very successful with the seam throws against opponent zones and even man coverage (Minnesota game, ASU game, OSU too). We have the TE to make those tough catches too, in Anthony Miller.

In regards to Ludwig is calling bubble screens and easy swing passes, I understand those are generally easy passes and a safe way to keep the defense honest and from stacking the box completely, but I'm not sure Riley's even that good at those throws. I have no idea who Zennie Abraham is, but he has noted that Riley's best throws are the routes which do not require "leading" the WR. In other words, routes without a lot of lateral movement. I hadn't quite thought about it like that, but I certainly had noticed that Riley's best routes were the deeper down-the-field routes (which require little lateral "leading" of the receivers). As Mr. Abraham notes, Riley consistently misses those bubble and swing passes. Sometimes the passes are behind the receiver (backward passes), and thus laterals which can be fumbled and recovered by the defense. The passes need to be forward passes. Riley is also just a bit slow to throw the bubble screen passes. He doesn't get the ball out to the WR quick enough.

Does Ludwig need to be fired? I don't think so. Not yet. Going through so many offensive coordinators has hurt the offense. As I reported in my Emerald Bowl Pep Rally and Luncheon report, one of Cal's notable starting offensive linemen of the 2008 squad felt that the team was still not 100% confident and proficient in the new pass blocking schemes that Cignetti brought to the offense in 2008. Ludwig has shown promise. And I think with more talent, we can do just fine with him. For now, I think we should keep him to maintain some continuity for the Cal offense that it has needed for a long time.

Gregory. I do think he's a better coach than most people think. Nobody was complaining about Gregory in 2008 when the defense was dominating. But people are complaining this year. What's the big difference between 2008 and 2009? The loss of three great linebackers who all had multiple years of starting experience, a decline in Hagan's abilities (he missed some of fall camp, and I think he self-admittedly stated that he wasn't quite pushing himself as much as he could), and a decline in Ezeff's abilities (missing practices to take a class). Oh, and a pretty crappy offense which isn't giving the defense any help. I don't think this year's defensive struggles are really due to lack of defensive coaching. I see it mostly as a talent issue. The guys just aren't as talented as last year's players, and they aren't as talented as we all hoped they would be at the start of the season. The DL is fine. But the LBs only have about half of their game together. They're pretty good at stopping the run but they're pretty bad in pass coverage. The DBs have been pretty bad except for Syd. Overall, I think the defensive woes are more a talent issue, than coaching.

Tedford. Many of us might not like how he runs the program, or how he keeps certain positional coaches or coordinators around. Nevertheless, I do think he's still the right coach for Cal. Few could have done what he did with our shoddy program. Even fewer would have stuck around like he did through the thick and thin. He is completely dedicated to this program. That shows. That helps sell this program. It sells it to recruits. He also has honor and a reputable reputation. He raises the kids first and foremost to be good upstanding people in the world. It's life and academics first; football second. Football just isn't about winning games. Tedford recognizes this. He hasn't sacrificed morals, or jeopardized the University's reputation to win a few more games unlike other notable coaches around the country. Tedford has shown a willingness to challenge himself, reflect, and learn from his mistakes. Not all coaches have the courage to set aside their own stubbornness and pride to say they were wrong and that changes need to be made. Perhaps Tedford still has to make more changes within his positional and coordinating coaches ranks. Perhaps he will. But of all the coaches on the Cal Football team right now, I do think that Tedford is the most important of them all. There should be little talk of firing Tedford. Things have not gotten that bad yet at all. He has set the program in the right direction. With more time, talent, shiny new facilities, and a supportive fan base, I do think he can officially get us to a BCS bowl or the Rose Bowl.

Is Cal's Defense Underachieving?

Avinash — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:30:26 -0000

More photos » by Ben Margot - AP

Cal's pass defense struggled again. Are we going to see this all year long?

Browse more photos »

DEFENSE, BEARS...DEFENSE???

Most of the postgame reaction has been focused on Cal's lamentable defensive effort, especially against the pass. It's been discussed everywhere, and I figured I'd throw myself into the fire. Literally, since I figure 80-85% of Cal fans will disagree with my next statement:

Outside of Autzen, Bob Gregory hasn't done that much wrong.

Now before all of you start hollering about Prince and Tuel lighting us up, I understand where you guys are coming from. Like many people, I assumed that the depletion of our linebacking corps would be offset by improvements in the defensive line and the secondary, with everyone having starting experience coming back.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. Units don't just revamp at certain areas and expect to get by because the front and the back are supporting them. The linebackers are the core of the defense, especially in a 3-4; take them away and the middle is open to exploitation.

Think of an army with great tanks and experienced soldiers but no aircraft, anti-aircraft or flak. You might have the power and the wherewithal to take out your opponents, but a good enough air attack can blast all that heavy weaponry and veteran savvy out of the park. So it is with the passing defense this season, where the weakness of the linebackers has been felt by the rest of the lineup.

Cal is returning seven but we're missing those four BIG TIME. Let's rank the top players on our defense last year.

1) Zack Follett
2) Syd'Quan Thompson
3) Tyson Alualu
4) Anthony Felder
5) Worrell Williams
6) Mike Mohamed
7) Darian Hagan
8) Rulon Davis (when healthy)

So those four who are gone are in the top 8, and the three linebackers in the top five. Big big losses.

Rulon Davis might never have been as healthy as we'd have liked him to be, but when he was, he was ON. Cameron Jordan is a jolly guy from what I've seen, but at the moment he really hasn't stepped up to replace Davis's raw ability. Don't be deceived by those 6.5 sacks--3.5 came against really bad teams. He's on pace for 2008 numbers, and he's playing probably 50% more than last season after splitting time with Rulon in 2008.

Derrick Hill has performed well, but centers can still battle him one on one, leaving one side to double, triple team Alualu at will. So that means that extra one or two guys blitzing or moving in on the line of scrimmage has to step up, rush in, and hit the quarterback.

Unfortunately...

Cal does not have a pass rushing linebacker. When Cal put that linebacker at the LoS on passing downs last season (usually Follett), it collapsed the pocket, overwhelmed the edge and forced the quarterback into the errant throws, incompletions or sacks. Not this season. Young, Mohamed, Kendricks, Bishop, Holt, none of these guys have been able to fill that mantle. Jarred Price might be the guy to show it, but what he has in pass rush (2 sacks) he lacks in consistency (4 season tackles)

Follett had 10.5 sacks and 4 hurries on his own last season; through seven games, the ENTIRE Bears linebackers corps has combined for 7.5 sacks and 4 hurries.

Note: Interestingly enough (as you probably saw with some of the highlights), Gregory tinkered with a four down linemen set on passing downs to gain extra pass rush, although I'm not sure how much of it had an effect on slowing down Tuel. I'd been pondering a similar idea considering the weakness of our linebackers to add an extra defensive lineman (our strength) for more pass rush, and it seemed Gregory was thinking along the same lines. We'll see how it bears out when Cal plays formidable/weaker offensive lines down the road.

Cal's linebacking corps is still learning the pass defense ropes: Probably the biggest mistake I made in my predictions was asking this question: "is Mike Mohamed capable of becoming Cal's greatest linebacker of the Tedford era?" Whoops. Desmond Bishop, you keep the title.

Don't get me wrong, Mohamed's been good, still the best all-around linebacker for the Bears (he has picks, a forced fumble, a sack, and 61 tackles). Nevertheless, he seems to be suffering from the Rajon Rondo syndrome--he looked like the best linebacker last season because guys were always throwing in his direction to avoid Felder and Williams. Unlike Follett or Desmond, he lacks that game-changing ability. Maybe that'll change, but right now he's merely good when Cal needs great.

Devin Bishop and Eddie Young are okay, but as BWNQ noted, they probably lack proper football instincts, as they've been duped on several important occasions by doing bad things on the field. No matter how good the coaching is, it's REALLY hard to undo instinct.

As for Kendricks and Holt, they have promise, but as sophomores they're still not fully polished. We can probably expect better things from them...in 2010. Right now we can only hope they're given the time to grow and mature so they can come back and smash next season.

Finally, the secondary. This is probably the most mystifying of the three units, even to a guy like me. Last season these guys were ballhawks, and now they're getting pumpfaked, beat at the point of attack. What's going on??

Syd'Quan Thompson has done his job, but the other side, plainly, has not. Darian Hagan got pump-faked out of the starting lineup in Minnesota. Josh Hill got the Oregon start and got picked on, over and over and over. And then both have been taking their turn even though they've been playing more man coverage. Although both are improving, it does leave you a little frustrated, especially with Hagan, who looked so promising last season. The safeties have been competent--Ezeff and Johnson are good at delivering hits, and Cattouse has also shown great promise, but for whatever reason they've been beat a lot.

So why has the secondary regressed? A few possibilities:

1) With the linebackers having trouble defending their zones and tackling afterwards, the secondary has to edge toward the middle of the field to be prepared to support...which in turn opens up the flats and sideline throws. And it doesn't necessarily secure the middle either.

2) The secondary might be more experienced, but given the depth of gamefilm, there is plenty for opposing teams to scout on them. Cal's secondary is not like USC's, whose weaknesses are harder to pinpoint and exploit. Even Syd'Quan might be lockdown one-on-one, but he's still undersized--tall physical receivers can do damage against him if given the proper time. You can only imagine how many more double moves and pump fakes against Hagan and throws to the flats against Hill we'll see this year.

3) PAY ATTENTION. This is the big one...

There are a lot of good quarterbacks in the Pac-10 this season.

Four freshmen have shown great promise--Foles, Luck, Barkley, and, yes, even Tuel (don't forget he also went about 67% against USC too). Add in three guys who've been here before (Masoli, Locker, Canfield) and that's SEVEN Pac-10 quarterbacks who are at the very least competent. That's the most depth the conference has shown at the quarterback stable this decade.

Compare it to the Pac-10 QBs we saw last season: Sanchez was pretty good but still developing, Willie Tuitama had his ups and downs, Masoli was in his first year escaping the shadow of Dixon, Lyle Moevao had his moments although he was carried by the Rodgers brothers, Rudy Carpenter was digesting turf thanks to his awesome offensive line, the Kevin Craft Interception Show missed no stops, Tavita Pritchard was a placeholder, the Washington/Wazzu quarterbacks we faced were bad, bad, bad.

Masoli has quietly worked his way back to a solid 60% completion percentage. Canfield and Foles are horrifyingly good at finding their receivers, hovering at 70% and putting them in the top seven in the conference. Luck isn't as accurate, but he throws touchdowns and not many picks (kind of like Riley-lite). Locker is the most dangerous player in the Pac-10 if he faces a defense that gives him cushion. And Barkley is only going to get better.

They're so good that they're not just beating Cal's zones, they're beating Cal on man. Tuel's two touchdown throws came against man coverage, where he fit that ball in just the right place for the receiver to get it and the defender had no chance to play the ball. Kevin Prince had excellent throws that burned a few guys with excellent man coverage too. Surprisingly, they played pretty well against Barkley after spotting the Trojans ten points. Of course the big fail was Masoli where the Bears played mostly zone, but even when they played man they got beat.

Now the solution would be to be aggressive in the pass rush and send more guys. But who? Cal's linebackers haven't shown they're able to speed their way. Not many of these guys have the ability to stunt or delay the way our group did last year--maybe Alualu, but again he's facing constant double teams. Plus with the quarterbacks being better this season, sending more guys leaves the Bears vulnerable to a precise pass going for six.

So pick your poison. So pick your poison. Do you key in on stopping the run and not allowing big plays and risk giving up easier underneath throws, or gamble with a pass rush or man coverage and take the risk of quarterbacks connecting on long strikes? This is the quandary Gregory is in, and we’ll find out what he comes up with these next few weeks. (HT Hydro for the rephrase)

Is Cal's defense underachieving, overachieving, or performing as expected?

Reactions to defense.

More reactions: AERose has some interesting numbers on 1st/2nd half stats, Rocky63125 wants Gregory to go, royrules had thoughts about Cal's D against UCLA.

Gary Peterson, San Jose Mercury News:

Then came the part no one expected. When Tedford had finished dousing his defenders in lighter fluid, linebacker Steve Fanua set them on fire.

"He's a young buck, a redshirt freshman," Jordan said, smiling. "He has fire in his veins. He gave us a nice little talk."

And this was received how?

"That only amps you up more," Jordan said. "Here's a guy, barely 18 years old, letting us know what this means for him. He's a young kid. He's hungry."

So was Cal's defense when it returned to the field. Jordan recorded two of his two-and-a-half sacks, and three of his six tackles in the second half. One sack defused Washington State's first drive after the intermission. Another, coming on fourth-and-10, ended a Cougars drive at the Cal 18.

Jimmy Tran, Daily Cal:

One of the points emphasized was tackling.

Arguably the most noticeable player guilty of missed tackles was cornerback Darian Hagan. Despite coming off one of his best performances ever last week against UCLA, Hagan struggled to make several key tackles in the open field and gave up a couple big passing plays against WSU.

"He needs to be more consistent, no question about it," Gregory said. "Very poor game today, and we just got to keep working with these kids to grow and mature."

Golden Nuggets: "You Know...They Just Might Not Be Any Good..."

Berkelium97 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:30:14 -0000

Ted Miller has an interesting story asking a tough question: Why isn't Cal any good? He decided to write this after talking to a Cal reporter (JO?) who said Cal just might not be that good this year. Here are some of the highlights that explain why Cal hasn't lived up to expectations. He also talks about Riley, the secondary, and leadership, but I don't have space for all of it.

The rotating door at offensive coordinator hasn't helped: Andy Ludwig is the Bears fifth offensive coordinator in five seasons. Hmm. That can't help continuity. At this point, it would be fair to say fans at Oregon and Utah, where Ludwig suffered heavy criticism during previous stops, are giggling and pointing a mocking finger at Berkeley.

Replacing three starting linebackers in the 3-4 scheme was more difficult than originally thought: The big personnel loss from the 2008 team was almost entirely at linebacker, where Zach Follett, Worrell Williams and Anthony Felder needed to be replaced. Still, that was not a huge concern entering fall camp. Those guys were good college players but not exactly future NFL starters. The youngsters who were next in line were generally more athletic, while Mike Mohamed was expected to grow into an All-Conference player. This article does a good job of breaking down how things haven't gone well. Mostly, there's been a lack of continuity as coordinator Bob Gregory has tried to find who belongs where.

The offensive line misses Alex Mack and line coach Jim Michalczik: Mack is starting at center for the Cleveland Browns (so he's not much better off than his former teammates). Michalczik, widely regarded as one of the nation's best offensive line coaches, is now with the Oakland Raiders (so he's miserable, too). Entering the season, the general feeling was the line was talented and deep, considering injuries last fall forced many young players into starting roles. The line hasn't been terrible. It hasn't been as good as expected, either. And it certainly hasn't been good enough to beat defenses that are stacking the box to stop Jahvid Best.

The secondary has underachieved: The Bears secondary was the one area no one doubted. All four starters were back from a unit that ranked sixth in the nation in pass efficiency defense and grabbed 24 interceptions, which ranked third in the nation. The Bears presently rank 87th in the nation and have just four interceptions. Not to call one player out or anything, but did you see All-American cornerback Syd'Quan Thompson whiff on Joe McKnight's 38-yard TD run to open the scoring Saturday? That sort of play -- and pursuit angle -- won't help him get drafted

After the jump, we look back at Cal-USC and check in on the other Cal sporting events of the weekend (they didn't fare so well either). Can we get a mulligan for this past weekend in Cal sports? Looking ahead, I have the Cal-UCLA kickoff time (12:30pm on ABC) and Sandy's response to how administrators will respond to the dangerous crowd conditions at Memorial.

Cal falls to 8th in Ted Miller's Pac-10 power rankings.
Daily Cal on how this may just be the same team from 2008. Two stories on how the offense has begun to stagnate.
BusterSports gives Cal an F for their performance against USC.
Cal-UCLA kicks off at 12:30pm on ABC on October 17th.
Sandy Barbour responds to letters detailing the dangerous conditions at Memorial this past weekend.
In the second-biggest Cal sporting event of the weekend, No. 4 water polo loses 8-6 to No. 3 USC. Daily Cal on the men's water polo loss.
No. 9 women's volleyball loses to No. 16 UCLA in four sets.
Field hockey loses 3-2 to Iowa on Sunday and also lost 1-0 to Indiana on Saturday.
Women's tennis was successful in the Cal Nike Invitational Tournament.
No. 6/7 men's soccer defeated No.17/20 Stanford 1-0.
No. 10 women's soccer tied No. 11 Santa Clara 1-1 in a double-overtime decision.

Duck Soup: How Cal's Defense Can Break Down Oregon's Zone Read

Avinash — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:13:08 -0000

For a look at Cal's offense versus Oregon's defense, go here.

After watching last year's tape on Oregon's offense, I came to three conclusions.

I am so relieved we don't have to deal with Max Unger, maybe even more so than with Nick Reed (and that's saying something).
I was surprised Oregon didn't run the outside zone read much in the 4th quarter.
Jeremiah Masoli has a future in ballet. He's light on his feet, and it shows with some awkward-looking throws.

After watching last week's tape of Oregon versus Utah (thanks to danzig for sending that to me), I came to three additional conclusions.

Cal is getting their first big running test of the year in LaMichael James.
The Oregon offensive line is still piecing things together.
If Cal can stop the run, they will win this game, because Jeremiah Masoli seems to be auditioning for So You Think You Can Dance in the backfield.

Note: I probably got ~~all of these~~ ~~most~~ a few of these zone plays wrong (I'm sure I could've placed a few draws and counters in each vid too). If there's anything you see, let me know and I'll add your corrections in the post. Thanks again to ieeebear, who cut the videos for Cal's offense against Oregon's defense too.

Inside zone rush attack

(Music: Disconnected by Aceyalone, produced by RJD2, who was born in Eugene! Here's the instrumental.)

You're probably disconnected watching this. What do these runs mean? More elaboration, plus other facets of Oregon's offense after the jump (Scroll all the way down for play-by-play breakdown of each play in each video!).

How do you think Cal will disrupt Oregon's zone-read offense? Can we stop their ability to run the football?

There are so many details and subtleties in Oregon's offense that I can't really go into huge detail about this

Here are some of Chip Kelly's notes. (Hat-tip to Trojan Football Analysis for these valuable notes).

We give the running back the opportunity to run the same path every time he receives the ball. We call it a J-path. The step looks like the letter J. The running back takes a slight open step with is playside foot. His second step replaces the spot where the QB’s foot was. On this third step he starts to square his shoulders to the line of scrimmage. The running back takes his step and aims at the butt of the frontside guard.

...

The second fundamental on the play is the fake when you do not have the ball. It is not a great play if the QB hands off to the running back and watches him run every time. The QB fake is critical and he has to accelerate off the disconnect in the mesh area. The action has to look the same whether the QB keeps the ball or not.

...

The same applies to the running back. He cannot get the ball pulled and stop running. We grade the running back on his fakes. If he does not penetrate the line of scrimmage on his fake he gets a loaf. He needs to stay on the front side when he does not get the ball. Obviously when he has the ball he runs to daylight.
That is the concept of the play. It has to look like it is hitting one way and it has to go the other.

Alright, if that stuff confused you, here are the bullet points.

Usually on zone read plays one player is left unblocked, almost always a defensive end (In Cal's case, it's usually a linebacker because we run the 3-4). You'll see in the video above, in order, Mohamed, Alualu, Williams, Kendricks going unblocked on the first four plays, and similar shenanigans occur on subsequent showings.
Misdirection. The idea is to fool the defensive end rushing to the wrong side. Against the Bears, this happened on the second play from scrimmage (and the first play in the video above), with both Williams and Mohamed digging against the run and giving Masoli the perfect angle to break to space for the score.
Selling the handoff. Crucial. A bungled fake/real handoff could blowup the play, or worse, lead to costly turnovers. Sadly, the replay angles aren't usually good enough for me to tell if it's a good fake or a bad fake, and even I wouldn't really know the difference. Anyone who knows better on selling fake draw handoffs, tell us what we should look for in the comments!
If he has the rock, the running back tries to hit the hole quickly to evade the linebacker. He doesn't hit it immediately, but the inside zone is a power play for the running back.
If he's handling, the quarterback looks to stretch the field. You'll see Masoli almost always go north-south toward the sidelines, or angle away from the offensive-line package.
In either case, the fake allows for greater gaps to open for the defense, and this allows teams like Oregon (with fast, quick athletes).

I'd say this is probably the most important video to watch to get a sense of the 2009 Duck offense. Against Utah, Oregon was doing almost exclusively inside zone reads, at least on their successful plays. We'll see plenty of these looks on Saturday, I'd say at least 55-60% of the plays will have some variation of the inside zone read.

Interestingly, during the Utah game, Masoli sometimes went inside into the teeth of the defense on the inside zone, which makes you wonder how much he trusts his linemen to seal the gaps. That doesn't mean he won't go outside--he caught the Utes biting not once but TWICE on the backside, racing untouched to the end zone with nary a defender within range.

As for LaMichael James, as a freshman, he's definitely got moves. Against Utah there was one particulary impressive play where the right guard completely whiffed on his block, the D-linemen came racing in to blow up the play, and James adjusted, spun around, and raced through the crease for 25 yards. Wow. You can't teach that stuff:

Also, there are times where he can hit the hole, stop and then go again. Running backs who usually charge ahead full steam hit a defensive wall and pretty much go again, but when you stop and go it allows you to adjust, maybe fall down and pick up extra yardage. He picked up a first down that way. He's a little elusive and definitely has a smaller frame (5'9" 180 pounds), which could pose difficulty if the offensive line executes its blocks.

There are of course deficiencies in his game. Most notably, and understandably, he doesn't quite have the vision yet to find the gaps, and took several wrong moves that ended with him getting cradled by a Ute. But for a freshman to get 152 yards on 27 carries against a 10 senior Utah defense...most impressive. I'd probably expect similar numbers this week against Cal.

Outside zone rush attack

Music: The Game by Jurassic 5, instrumental track here.

Here's the other variation on the zone read. See the differences between outside and inside?

Chip Kelly talks about what's going on here (big ups again TFA).

The outside zone play is a complement to the inside zone play. The inside zone is a hole to cutback play. The outside zone is more of a hole to bounce play. The reason we run the outside play is to circle the defense. When you get good at running the inside zone the defenders begin to tighten their techniques and concentrate on squeezing the inside gaps.

If we feel that is happening or we start to get many twists and blitzes inside we run the outside zone play. It gives you speed in space and the offensive line can play with confidence when you have something to change the focus of the defense. We ran the outside zone play 122 times last season for 6.8 yards per carry. It is a good compliment to the inside zone play.

The blocking rules for the offensive line are the same as the inside zone. The difference is the aiming point of the offensive linemen. The "who we block" is the same, but the "how we block" is the difference in the outside zone. The linemen take a kick step to the outside and a crossover step to get up the field. The backside opens on the playside foot and loses ground. The farther you are from the point of attack, the more ground you can lose.

Again, bullet points for those who glossed over all that.

The big difference to notice between the inside and the outside zone run is the way the running back is moving his feet. Usually you'll see the inside zone run, the back is cutting to the hole and then cutting back if he can't find space. In the outside zone run, the Oregon back is usually running north to south until he finds a hole suitable for him to blast through. It's really difficult to discern the difference between the two, because sometimes a running back can get blown up on the coverage.
Look for that 90 degree turn. The moment a running back sniffs a hole, he turns right into it. Johnson was really good at this last year; Blount not so much against us, but better against other teams; James is a total unknown at this time.
You'll also see the blocking change a little. The O-linemen usually are moving forward on an inside zone read, here you'll see a lot more pulling or at the very least the backside opening up and moving to open holes in the area where the running back would turn 90 degrees inside.

Cal got killed on this play last year, as you can see during the last plays of the vid above. Signed, sealed, delivered by Max Unger. In the third quarter, Unger snapped, then immediately pulled and blocked out the unblocked defender. Every. Freaking. Time. You'll get some great clips near the end of the video of Worrell Williams getting engulfed like he was hugging Robert Paulson and Marcus Ezeff flying like a Dutchman.

If you wanted to say Unger was the most valuable offensive player, you get no arguments for me--he unleashed the runs responsible for the three sustained drives Oregon had the entire game, all in the 3rd quarter. Mysteriously though, I think Oregon ran the outside zone only once in the fourth quarter after falling behind by 10, and it didn't involve Unger. Thanks Coach Kelly!

Interestingly enough, against Utah, I don't think the Ducks went to the outside zone more than a handful of times. In the clips danzig sent me, I only noticed one involving James, and he was quickly chased down. I can kind of see why--at the moment the offensive line and downfield receivers aren't really doing their job grappling with their defenders, and the pull blocking really generates no momentum, not the way it did with Unger leading the charge. Utah's D-line had plenty of freedom to operate, and they had no trouble chasing down LaMichael going north and south.

This is probably where the Ducks miss Blount the most. He was unspectacular against the Bears and the Broncos, but he did have the vision to find a hole to cut to. Against the athletic Cal defenders, he was swallowed whole, but at least he gave the Ducks a second option in the zone attack.

Would Oregon try this anyway? I'd think they'd have to give it a shot, but the weapons that made this so effective (Unger, and his left guard pulling companion Jeff Kendall) aren't there, and Johnson and Blount are gone. That leaves Masoli as the only true weapon to the outside, and he hasn't nearly been effective as he was last season. I'd expect a lot of the plays to go inside, because the O-linemen at least seem competent at times doing this.

How should Cal beat the zone read?

Despite the succeses Oregon shows above, Cal has plenty of examples of them stuffing the run game. So it's not like the Ducks have gashed us. Several things are big on this front.

They need superior athletic play from the front seven. Cameron Jordan, Derrick Hill and Tyson Alualu got great penetration in the clips above, and Zack Follett, Mike Mohamed and Anthony Felder did some great work closing up the holes during the middle and later stages of the game. The athleticism needs to be on full display to make sure zone reads get blown up early and often, otherwise the Ducks might be able to break free for big, game-changing plays.

The front seven should have the experience and talent edge over the Oregon offensive line, but this is all contingent on the linebackers being solid in support. If the defensive line struggles at all in puncturing the gaps, Young, Kendricks, Holt, and Mohamed better be prepared to deal with Masoli's decision-making and make sure they don't freeze up on one or overpursue the other. They'll have plenty of unblocked opportunities, if the Ducks do stick with the inside zone rush.

Clamp down on the outside zone. It was only when they were turned to the outside and trying to chase Masoli and Johnson that the Bears nearly lost their grasp on last year's game. While Unger and Johnson are both gone, the Bears shouldn't take any chances with this. Any sniff of the outside zone read, bottle it up so that they don't think twice of doing it again. Keep the Ducks running in the middle of the field with the inside zone and take your chances with that.

Pass coverage

Music: Wylin Out (RJD2 Remix), check out the instrumental used in the video here.

There isn't really much to say on this front. If Oregon has to rely on their passing game to win, they're fucked. SoCal Oski elaborates.

I love [Masoli]. He is nothing but guts and determination. But he can’t throw a freaking ball. JTLight is right to place the blame on his shoulders — but it’s not really as if anyone should be surprised. Masoli is just not a passing QB. He’s a running QB who can make some passes some time if the planets are aligned and Ganesh is feeling extra happy. Otherwise, if Oregon needs his arm to win, they are in a bad place.

The key in this area for Cal will be to have solid zone pass coverage. Big emphasis on zone. Yeah, I know, some people will be bitching about this because Adam Weber to Eric Decker killed us last week. Whatever. Oregon has no Eric Decker on their team, and even though Adam Weber isn't about to light the Big Ten on fire, he's still way ahead of Masoli in terms of pocket presence and precision throwing. (Staring his receivers down though? I'd say they're on the same playing field.

Against our zone coverage last season, he completed one-third of his passes in Memorial last year, and threw two terrible interceptions (both times he stared down his receiver, both times Cal defenders made plays on the ball).

The only time Masoli had a good throw against the Utes was in stride, downfield, against what looked to be man coverage (and I have no idea what happened to the defender on the play, either he got beat or tripped up). On another one, the Utah defender overpursued, and that led to a sizable gain. After that? Two more completions.

How much this has to do with having inexperienced receivers and O-line can be debated, but it's not going to be easier going against a Cal secondary that didn't have its greatest week and is looking to perform much better.

Look for the Ducks to try and exploit with the screen and the middle of the field, especially in obvious passing situations. Because, you know, everyone has. And if the run game stagnates, for the Ducks to win, Masoli is probably going to have to up it to at least 55-60%. Any figure below that against zone coverage without a decent run game is a recipe for doom.

Bonus: Extra runs

Music: Duck Tales for the win.

Mostly fly sweeps and draws/options I noticed here. Against Utah, I did notice some fly sweeps to take advantage of the receivers, including one fake. Masoli also did attempt a quarterback keeper here and there (Question: When he's drawing, is that a midline option? TFA identified it in the Holiday Bowl, and I've seen similar plays with these characteristics). I might be missing some of the counter plays, or I mistook some of them for zone rushes.

I expect Kelly to unload more running plays like this to surprise the Bears, because he knows that it's always a tough slog against the Bears's defense. And it'd probably be very difficult to win with the strategy he played last week. Expect either more outside zone runs or sweeps, something out of the ordinary.

California has had pretty good run defense against the best teams in the Pac-10 the past two seasons, even against Ducks. Although Oregon put up 206 ground yards in 2008 and 191 in 2007, it's fairly below their average of 280 and 252 yards per game those respective years, tied for second and sixth best rushing YPG in the country. Also, the Ducks averaged 4.9 and 4.1 rushing yards per carry in 2007 (9th in the country in YPC) & 2008 respectively (when they were numero uno), which are both fairly below those averages.

Stop the run (like we did in 2006 when we held), you stop the Ducks. Keep it going, and Oregon will be in this one to the end. Go for the kill Bears. The race to Pasadena is on.

What Concerns You About Cal Football? (2009 Edition)

Avinash — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 10:00:20 -0000

via farm4.static.flickr.com

Concern. That's the state of mind a Cal football fan can find his or herself in during the interminable offseason. There's some giddy anticipation at the potential of great stars breaking out and showing new moves--Darian Hagan this past season, Jahvid Best the year before that, Desean the year before that. Some of us even dream of the great upsets, of going undefeated, of cheering the Cal band on down Colorado Blvd. Boredom and a lot of free time can do that to you.

However, while those positive thoughts run through our minds from time to time, worry and apprehension can supplant them fairly easily. As in, "how will the Bears break our hearts this time?" There is always something that keeps us from feeling completely confident going into the next season, like a wide receiver tripping inches from the end zone, or a bizarro penalty or huge ref call that swings the game the other way, or (of course), the horrifying pick-six. There are several troublespots going into next season, and I'm sure we can identify others if we try hard enough. Behold the power of pessimism!

Quarterback. Obviously the biggest issue going into next season, and a possible trouble spot for the FIFTH consecutive season.

(Discuss your biggest concerns going into the 2009 season in the comments.)

via imgs.sfgate.com (Link to Big Game photos)

In 2005, we were touting the talents of Nate Longshore, but we were probably uncertain as to how good he would be (and even less enthused about Joe Ayoob when Nate went down). 2006 & 2007 we went in with Longshore, but we weren't quite sure what to expect; Nate was a serviceable QB both seasons with occasional flashes of brilliance, but ultimately did not develop further. In 2008 we suffered through a toss and turn season of "Who's the starter?", a season that led to relative unease everytime the Bears went under center.

We are also probably suffering from Aaron Rodgers hangover syndrome--not only do our quarterbacks look lamentable much of the time, but against Rodgers they look even worse. A look at three basic stats shows us the steep drop-off since that glorious season.

National rank in yards per attempt from 2004 to 2008: 10th, 47th, 21st, 39th, 86th
National rank in passing efficiency from 2004 to 2008: 5th, 65th, 32nd, 52nd, 72nd

National rank in completion percentage from 2004 to 2008: 7th, 101st, 52nd, 40th, 104th

Stats from CFB Stats

That last stat is particularly worrisome and something we'll have to keep our eye on in 2009. Tedford's quarterbacks have always been seen as great, but outside of Rodgers he has not developed a quarterback that he has recruited. They have yet to both learn and execute the complicated systems in Tedford's playbook, much less the simple things like completing a pass. If Kevin Riley gets out of the box and struggles again...the Tedford QB guru image will begin to take sharper dents.

Special teams. ALAMAR!!!

via assets.sbnation.com

Would you like some disturbing special teams trends?

20.52 (2004), 20.19 (2005), 22.38 (2006) 21.97 (2007), 20.48 (2008). These have been the average amount of yards Cal's special teams coverage has given up on a kickoff. We have never been ranked higher than 52nd nationwide in any of those five seasons. I'm not sure if this directional kickoff thing is working so great.

Our kickoff return average is even worse, going year by year from 2004 onward....

21.73 (34th), 19.93(75th), 20.52 (52nd), 21.1 (60th), 20.4 (82nd); again, frustrating numbers the past four seasons, especially the slippage the past three. And this is WITH Best involved in the kickoff game.

Add in the struggles with finding a solid kicker since Schneider, and you have a constant subject of worry for Cal fans going into this season.

via 1.bp.blogspot.com

(HT to Bears with Fangs)

Linebackers. Zack Follett, Anthony Felder, Worrell Williams are gone. Now, while linebackers may be the most interchangeable component of a defense and more easily replaced than say a key secondary man or a defensive linemen, we're still losing about one-fourth of our team's tackles and one-third of our team's sacks. We have to be ready to adjust.

Our 3-4 defense was really good because we were very good at stopping the run and maintaining pressure on the quarterback as well as guarding against the deep ball. Against the short and medium range throws though, our linebackers had more trouble adjusting because their strength was not typical pass coverage.

This might not be as huge a concern this year. Mike Mohamed was the best linebacker we had in pass coverage. We are going to miss Follett's pass rush though, and we're not totally sure whether Kendricks is ready to step into the spotlight (Worrell Williams might be sold on him, but are you?). We wouldn't be too surprised if Cal's run D and sack totals slip this season, so we'll definitely need more consistency on offense...and hence the quarterback.

Long, deep breaths everyone!

Everything. Hydro sounds like the Bluest of Bears here:

As for next season, I’m not drinking the preseason top-15 koolaid. I think we’re about a 7-5 to 9-3 team again. More towards the 7-5 range if our passing doesn’t improve, and more towards the 9-3 range if our passing improves. If everything really comes together next year, perhaps 10-2, but the likelihood of everything coming together rather than one or two things is less likely so I’m not betting the bank on a 10+ win season.

It's like Hydro is trying to reverse jinx the 2009 Cal season into unprecedented success! Right Hydro? RIGHT?

So guys, what's your biggest concern going into 2009 and why?

Poll

What concerns you the most about our 2009 Cal football team?

Quarterback

226 votes

Running backs

1 votes

Receivers

32 votes

Offensive Line

17 votes

Defensive Line

0 votes

Linebackers

10 votes

Secondary

0 votes

Special Teams

11 votes

Coaching

7 votes

NOTHING. GO BEARS!

29 votes

333 votes | Poll has closed

Cal Football 2008 Top 10 Moments - Moment #2

TwistNHook — Tue, 26 May 2009 11:30:11 -0000

#10 - UCLA Goal line stand

#9 - Bryan Anger 72 yard punt

#8 - Shane Vereen TD Run against MSU

#7 - Best Bush Run against Washington.

#6 - Stanford Hook And Ladder

#5 - Oregon Fumbled Punt

#4 - Rudy Carpenter takes a ride on the Pain Train.

#3 - Stanford Goal Line Stand

If you missed last week's posts, you missed discussion of Coach Tedford's play-calling, the Cal Coach's Tour (Part I and Part II), and Cal spirit in exotic locales.

We continue our countdown of the Top 10 Football Moments of 2008 with #2:

2. Fans rush the field after the Big Game

Avinash: Best rushing the field moments in the Tedford era...

1) USC 2003

2) Furd 2002

3) Furd 2004

Last) Tennessee 2007?

TwistNHook: I'll sprinkle my photos/videos from the event throughout this post. You can find their original home here.

TwistNHook: Firstly, where is Furd 2008 on that list? That's what this post is ostensibly about. How did you get into Cal if you can't even read a simple prompt?!?!

Secondly, it reads more like this:

Furd 2002

USC 2003

OTHER GAMES OF LESSER INTEREST

Also, last on that list should be Furd 2006.

Avinash: I wasn't around for Furd 2002. I just assume beating a top 5 team in triple overtime trumps all.

TwistNHook: When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. And I don't need any more help.

"You had to be there" is always the currency of people who ply their trade in terrible, non-sensical jokes. But here, it is relevant. Completely and totally relevant.

Avinash: I remember Tennessee 2007 being the silliest thing ever. Took them five minutes to get going after the game wrapped up, and even then it was a very sparse thing, more like "how can I get Desean's autograph?"

Furd 2008 was more organic, but then again we'd just lost to them and witnessed their horrific mosh pit of rushing the field. The Force needed to be balanced.

HydroTech: Well, 02 and 03 was a long time ago, so I don't have the clearest of memory. However, I do think that I, unfortunately, will have to agree with Twist that rushing the field in 02 Big Game game > 03 USC triple OT win.

02 Big Game was absolute madness... even before the game ended people were on the field. It took like 90 minutes after the game until you could actually see the field because everyone was still on it toting around the field goal posts. It was madness like i've never seen before.

TwistNHook: Avinash, were you at Big Game 2006? That was, by far, the worst Rushing the Field Ive seen. Firstly, this was before new Stanford Stadium. So, Cal and Stanford respected the season tickets of the other. So, Cal put all the Stanford season ticket holders in the young alum section and moved us to the tippy top part of like the Gold Zone. Very odd. But it took me like 20 minutes to make my way through the crowd to the field.

Of course, by the time I got there most of the crazyness, if it could be called that, was finished. People didnt really take to rushing the field quickly. It was more like they sauntered the field. Ambled the field. Meandered the field. It was a slow process. Seemingly more like "Ok, well, we just beat Stanford for the 5th straight year, ho hum, I guess we should rush the field."

But that was terrible. Tennessee 2007 was infinity times better.

HydroTech: I think this was one of those things where you don't know what you got until you've lost it. Because Cal had destroyed the Furd from 2002-2006 (5 straight years), the players didn't think Big Game and winning The Axe was a big deal. And then they lost Big Game and The Axe in 2007. That's when it all was very real - the shame, and the humiliation of being defeated by a lesser opponent. So that made 2008 that much bigger. It made winning 2008 seem like 2002 again, when Cal had just beat Stanfurd after losing to them 7 straight years.

Yellow Fever: Maybe this goes back to what we were discussing on the blog a few days ago, but growing up in a different generation of Cal fans and not being in Berkeley, I can't say I was all that excited to watch the team beat Stanford. Yeah, we'd lost the year before, but I kind of shrugged that loss off too because in the grand scheme of things, the team was already mired in a huge freefall. Who cares that we lost to Stanford? That Oregon State loss shattered my hopes for a number one ranking and caused me to sulk for hours. The loss to Stanford just made me crack open another beer. Viewed in that light, beating Stanford last year didn't mean that much to me, because, well, we were supposed to. The game in 2007 was the outlier, not last year's. So no, it wasn't all that exciting to me.

TwistNHook: But I think 2007 sort of reconfigured those type of Cal fans to start hating Stanford again. I mean OK, fair enough, you didnt live through 7 years in the wilderness like us. Nonetheless, I'd like to think 2007 made 2008 that much sweeter. Perhaps not, though.

Avinash: They haven't been to a bowl game in the Tedford era, have they? It's just not the same if your rival blows.

I think if we lost a Big Game at home...that would turn the tide. Although a game at the Furd is technically a home game.

HydroTech: I don't think a game at Furd is technically a home game since they limit how many Cal fans can purchase tickets now.

Aviansh: They could put a hundred seat limit and it'd still outnumber the true Furd fans in the crowd.

Ragnarok: Well, in 2005, with Cal fans outnumbering Stanford fans in their own yard by a wide margin, it was pretty much a home game. With the seat limit in 2007? It was probably about 50/50.

In any case, the 2007 was a disaster of epic proportions. Tom Holmoe may not have been a very good coach, but his teams fought like hell against Stanford, which was a damn sight better than the sorry effort put forth by our Bears the last time they visited The Farm. I can handle losing to USC, but if there was a Cal fan watching that game in '07 that wasn't ashamed to hand over The Axe to Stanford, I don't want to know them.

Avinash: I'm guessing Holmoe era Bears people will have much more Furd hate than Tedford era people. For the young ones like me, it's great to beat them because they're our 'rival', but unless Cal and Furd are both competitive the antagonism isn't really there. It'll probably get bigger for us the older we get.

TwistNHook: Well, we didn't really discuss the actual rushing of the field, per se (although hopefully some of photos/videos help), but more a discussion of it in regards to other field-rushings. What are your thoughts and feelings on this Cal football moment?

2009 Spring Depth Chart

HydroTech — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:31:18 -0000

Well, I meant to do a spring depth chart post, but then culinary school finals ambushed me. In the mean time, fellow Cal Football blogger Ken Crawford over at Excuse Me For My Voice beat me to the punch. Nevertheless, I'll continue on with this post despite my tardiness.

Here are my thoughts regarding the 2009 Cal Football post-Spring ball depth chart (the depth chart is available to view here):

No QB named the clear starter.

via blog.oregonlive.com

What does this tell me? The QB job is still pretty wide open. However, Riley is listed at the top, followed by Mansion then Sweeney. What does this tell me? This is the tentative standings between the three QBs. What else can be inferred from the depth chart? Well, it looks like experience is definitely giving Riley and edge over Mansion, likewise Mansion's (albeit limited) experience is giving him a slight advantage over Sweeney. ESPN writer Ted Miller put it pretty accurately when he said that Riley is the clear front-runner but he could easily lose his job too.

Does Tedford need to name a QB now? No. I've perused other Cal sports boards and I've heard some talk of how Tedford has lost his mind by not naming a starter. Quite frankly, that's straight silly talk. Naming a starter now accomplishes very little. At the most, it may instill some confidence into the named starter. However, naming a starter now, this early, will breed complacency. The starter won't push himself as hard as he would when he knows his job is at risk. The backups won't push themselves as hard when they know they can't win the job. Furthermore, naming a starter now, after spring ball accomplishes nothing. Some people think that naming a starter now will allow the starting QB to work on his timing with his WRs. However, this really isn't true. Right now it's summer. The coaches can't work with the players. The players are conditioning and don't really have rigidly structured practices. During the summer the players will get together and practice among themselves but not all players are here during the summer. Some are in school, some are home. With as much as 1/2 the team gone during summer, and the players having mildly organized practices (as opposed to highly structured fall camp practices) are they really going to get a lot of quality reps together? No. In other words, a "starting" QB really won't do much else differently than a non-starting QB. So why name a guy a starter and just have him get complacent?

Finally, I think some Cal fans have been complaining that USC and Pete Carroll named a starter prior to their spring game and thus Tedford should be able to do it too. Well, Tedford pretty much did. Riley was essentially the starter for our spring game since he worked with the first team. Does Tedford need to make a public announcement so it's official?

The most compelling reason why Tedford hasn't named a starter is because with all of Cal's QB problems last year, Tedford wants the most information possible before he makes his decision. Naming a starter now, without seeing the QBs' performances during fall camp (the more important camp), would be premature.

The Battle for Flanker

In the Emerald Bowl, Jeremy Ross played exclusively as Cal's flanker WR in base personnel. Now the depth chart is showing Nyan Boateng in that spot. Perhaps the senior finally showed enough to earn that top spot? It's still early but it's possible there could be an upset special and Ross wins it back.

The Battle for Split End

Towards the end of last season, Verran Tucker played split end WR almost exclusively. With all that experience on the field you'd think he'd be an easy write-in for the starting spot at split end again. I guess not. Sophomore Marvin Jones, with little game experience, is at that top split end spot. Again, it's still early, but a seasoned WR with lots of starting experience loses his starting spot to another player who was mostly injured all of last year? Either Tucker is slipping or Jones is that good.

Who Will Be the Top 3 WRs?

This is a fairly important question. Cal's top 3 WRs get the majority of the snaps on the field - perhaps upward of 90%. So who is it going to be? Tucker, Ross, and Boateng have the most experience so you might think it'd be them. However, we all saw sophomore Alex Lagemann blow up in spring ball. Right now he's penciled in at the #1 slot position. When Cal goes to its 3 WR sets (11 personnel), if we assume the top players at each WR position see the field then the top three will be Boateng, Jones, and Lagemann. That leaves out experienced WRs Jeremy Ross, and Verran Tucker - and puts the more inexperienced Jones and Lagemann on the field. Do we want more inexperienced WRs on the field again another year? Is the talent that Jones and Lagemann bring to the field worth more than the experience that Ross and Tucker bring? Cal could have a Rose Bowl season next year if its passing game comes together (and assuming the running game stays dominant and the same goes for the defense). I'm not exactly sure that having more inexperienced players on the field is the greatest way to get that passing to improve. The alternative is that Cal adopts some sort of 5 WR rotation with all the aforementioned players rotate in frequently. It will be interesting to see what happens with the WR situation when fall camp ends.

via imgs.sfgate.com

Hagan Locks Up A Starting Spot From the Classroom

Darian Hagan has been out most of the spring working on academics. Most of us figured Chris Conte had a chance to steal a starting spot. It doesn't look like that is going to happen. Frankly, I'm not surprised. While Conte has shown improvements from his shaky freshman year, I still think Hagan has superior coverage skills as well as being better in run support too. The fact that Hagan still sits #1 at his CB spot despite being mostly MIA speaks volumes about what the coaching staff thinks of him.

Ted Miller of ESPN has been saying the secondary might be the best in the Pac-10. Well, he might be right. We all know Syd'Quan Thompson is a stud and an NFL talent. We all know Darian Hagan is great too (he's got two years remaining too!). Actually, I think Hagan is underrated and should have made Miller's Top-30 Players in the Pac-10 list. And with Sean Cattouse coming on strong and pushing Brett Johnson, and Marcus Ezeff being his stud self, our secondary could be wicked good again. Of course, let's not forget that a secondary's success also relies on the linebackers, and defensive line too.

Tad Smith Locks Up A Starting Spot From the Training Room

So Tad Smith breaks his Scapula, looks to be out perhaps through opening kickoff and set to lose his presumed starting spot to Anthony Miller but then he's still #1. Hmm... okay. I think it's safe to say that unless something crazy happens in the fall camp that he's still going to be #1.

via imgs.sfgate.com

Mychal Kendricks to Will and Devin Bishop to Buck

The biggest change in positions this spring was Mychal Kendricks moving from Buck (weak outside linebacker) to Will (weak inside linebacker), and Devin Bishop moving from Will to Buck.

I think a lot of fans are a bit hesitant about this move because Kendricks doesn't have prototypical size (6'0" 230 lbs) however I don't think that's a big concern. Former Cal middle linebacker Anthony Felder was 6'2", 233 lbs. Former Cal middle linebacker Worrell Williams was 5'11", 240 lbs. Both of those guys were very productive at their positions despite Felder being a bit under the prototypical weight of a middle linebacker, and Worrell Williams being under the prototypical heigh of a middle linebacker. Are we really going to make a big deal out of a Kendricks being perhaps 10-20 pounds lighter than the prototypical MLB? Or the fact that Kendricks is perhaps 2-3 inches too short for the prototypical MLB? I don't think we need to or should.

What matters the most is player production. The coaches feel that Kendrick's production is maximized at Will and that Bishop's production is maximized at Buck. I see nothing wrong with their decisions despite having Kendricks, who is only very slightly undersized, at Will.

Poll

Which position do you think has the fiercest competition for earning a starting spot?

Quarterback

43 votes

Wide Receiver

120 votes

Linebackers

36 votes

199 votes | Poll has closed

Chargers Assign Numbers to Undrafted Free Agents

John (obviousman) — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:00:13 -0000

via cache.daylife.com

View full size photo »

The Chargers have assigned numbers to the eighteen undrafted players they signed following the 2009 NFL Draft. All but three of them are being forced to change their number either due to NFL rules or because their college number is already taken by somebody on the Chargers team.

#64 - Sam Allen (Wore #58 at Grand Valley State)
#46 - Darry Beckwith (Wore #48 at LSU)
#44 - Curtis Brinkley (Wore #22 at Syracuse)
#8 - Greg Carr (Wore #89 at Florida State)
#9 - Jeremy Childs
#58 - Anthony Felder (Wore #15 at Cal)
#71 - Dan Gay
#53 - James Holt (Wore #12 at Kansas)
#77 - Rashaad Jackson (Wore #91 at Clemson)
#13 - Charly Martin (Wore #17 at Texas A&M)
#60 - Ryan McDonald
#72 - Ben Muth (Wore #76 at Stanford)
#38 - Wopamo Osaisai (Wore #6 at Stanford)
#40 - Williams Rentmeester (Wore #34 at Wisconsin)
#3 - Rodgeriqus Smith (Wore #80 at Auburn)
#47 - Kory Sperry (Wore #80 at CSU)
#30 - C.J. Spillman (Wore #4 at Marshall)
#49 - Jerimiah Wurzbacher (Wore #80 at North Dakota State)

Do you have any thoughts about Bolts From The Blue? Any tips you want to send our way? Whenever you have something to say, don't hesitate to e-mail me directly.

Mack to Cleveland, Follett to Detroit, Morrah to Seattle, Ta'ufo'ou to Chicago, Rulon to Denver, Nick to Carolina, Nate to Miami, Felder to SD

Avinash — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 05:57:43 -0000

via blog.cleveland.com

UPDATE (11:35 AM): Anthony Felder to San Diego!

Scout.com has been told that rookie free agent Anthony Felder has agreed to terms with the San Diego Chargers.

UPDATE (10:35 AM): Nate Longshore has been given an invite to try out with Miami. Hat-tip to Ohio Bear!

Updating a previous report, California QB Nate Longshore will be going to a tryout with the Miami Dolphins instead of the Cincinnati Bengals.

UPDATE (10 AM): I have reports from some website that Nick Sundberg has been signed by the Panthers. Update 12:45 PM--Okanes confirms it.

Danzig has passed this news along after following the wires closely.

Brad Biggs, of the Chicago Sun-Times, reports the Chicago Bears have agreed to terms on a free-agent contract with FB Will Taufoou (California).

Danzig has also gone over to the SBN Chicago Bears blog, Windy City Gridiron to post Will's highlights. Feel free to join him in talking up Ta'ufo'ou!

Thoroughbred also has good news about Rulon. UPDATE (8 AM): Confirmed by Okanes.

Rulon Davis signs with the Broncos. Exactly the right fit for him at SSDE. Very great shot to make the team, given the depth issues the Broncos have…

For Cal fans though, it was perhaps a disappointing draft, considering that we had such high expectations going in as to having several Golden Bears drafted. Rollonubears addressed a concern about having so few prospects getting drafted, and it's worth discussing a little bit in the comments.

This has been a really bad day for Cal. I predict we lose at least 1 potential recruit because of today. A big selling point is the ability to get guys into the NFL. Look at our 3 biggest in conference rivals. They all were in the top 4 for number of players picked. They will use that as a selling point against us. USC obviously has a great reputation in the NFL and their borderline guys will always get drafted. Draft picks mean a lot to recruits. And we only had 3, 2 of those coming in the late 7th round. This day is a setback for the program. A relatively minor one, but still a setback.

I disagreed with this, but maybe other Cal fans think otherwise. So feel free to discuss this in the comments.

Vote in the poll: Do you feel Cal gained or lost anything from the lack of drafted prospects?

After the jump, you'll hear some of the thoughts from the three SBN team blogs that drafted Golden Bears.

via blog.cleveland.com

As the most high profile pick, obviously Alex Mack got the lion's share of the attention. Here's Dawgs by Nature's settled thoughts.

Finally, after all of that ruckus, the Browns settled on selecting C Alex Mack. I love the idea of having Mack, as I stated a couple of days ago in my draft primer. I'm not excited about having to pick him a little earlier than I would've liked, but I'm not going to curse out Kokinis and Mangini for the pick. Hank Fraley was a liability on the line, and now I feel a lot more secure about the development of Brady Quinn heading into this season. We also are in line to have a better line for RB Jamal Lewis to be in front of.

Their simplified dossier on Mack's skills.

A little background on Mack:

2004: Cal red-shirts Mack. 2005: Appears in a back-up role, seeing reps mostly in a mop up duty. 2006-07: Mack starts all 26 games. 2008: He once again starts all 13 games. He wins the Morris Trophy as the best offensive lineman in the Pac-10 (as voted by league's defensive linemen) for the second year in a row, just the third player to receive the award twice.

Simplified scouting report:

6'3 7/8", 311lbs.

Strong with a mean streak

Decent but not elite agility

Over-aggressive if anything in his technique

Personally, I am alright with this pick. I have wanted Mack on the Browns for a while. I love that he didn't drop to the Steelers. I do wonder why we passed on LBs like Rey Maualuga and Clay Matthews III, but at the rate many of them are falling, someone good has got to be there for the 36th pick.

A nice interview of Mack at Cleveland.com (and if you check out the link and read the whole thing you'll find out why he ends up on the ground so much, which it turns out isn't so bad!)

"They put me through a lot," he said. "[Offensive line] coach George Warhop had an offensive line test for me after he tried to teach me stuff. They explained plays to me, distracted me with another interview and then had me come back and see how much I remembered. It was pretty fun."

The test involved filling in Xs and Os to prove he knew the blocking schemes, defensive formations and everyone's assignments.

"I think I missed two [out of about 30 questions]," he said. "I forgot the terminology they use for certain blocks. But I pride myself on being a smart guy."

During his first meeting with the Browns, Mack was put in the pressure cooker by Warhop and other coaches, according to yahoo.com.

"I was on the hot seat," Mack said. "I thought I was going in for a nice chat, and I was completely unprepared. [Warhop] put a play on the screen and started shouting questions, with other people chiming in and murmuring in the background: 'What are you doing on this play? What does the tight end do?' I said, 'I think he's out.' He said, 'You think he's out? Or he is out? Which is it?' It was intense."

But Mack, who earned his degree in legal studies, is working towards his Master's in Education and often brought novels into post-practice ice baths, was up for the mental gymnastics.

via image.examiner.com

Pride of Detroit on the Pain Train.

One position they haven't forgotten about is outside linebacker, as the Lions just drafted another one with the 235th pick. His name is Zack Follett and he played for Cal. It appears that he is a great special teams player based on this scouting reportfrom NFL.com:

Compares To: LARRY IZZO, New York Jets -- Like Izzo, Follett plays like a UFC champion - packs a wallop, but boy can he get out of control. He will at least buy himself time in the NFL based on his stellar special teams play and also as a situational player to disrupt the backfield, but there are a lot of holes in his game, especially in pass coverage. He will likely be on the draft board much longer than most experts predict.

If nothing else it was a fine example of neopolitick, keeping one of the top talents in the draft away from a huge rival.

via cache.gettyimages.com

Finally, Field Gulls on Morrah to Seattle.

Athletic tight end out of Cal. Caught eight touchdowns in just 27 receptions. Might be destined to play wide receiver in the pros. 4.66 forty, 24 reps on the bench, 32.5" vert, 6.99 three cone drill.

Finally, Seattle wrapped it up with three project picks. Nick Reed is a pass rush specialist that needs to get up to NFL speed and NFL size. Courtney Greene is a big upside strong safety that will need time on the practice squad to learn how not be made foolish my NFL offensive coordinators and NFL quarterbacks. Cameron Morrah is an athletic tight end that might play something closer to a wide receiver role in Seattle.

If you have any parting thoughts about the draft, this is the place to voice them!

Poll

How do you feel about only three Golden Bears being drafted?

A major setback in recruiting; young guys are going to say we don't produce talent

21 votes

A minor setback in recruiting; it sucks not having high profile guys up there, but that's just me

121 votes

Not much of an issue; high schoolers don't get influenced by this stuff

24 votes

Who cares? This is about pro teams getting better, not Cal.

16 votes

182 votes | Poll has closed