USC game analysis
(Written by kencraw)
As those who have read my below post (with the update) things didn’t go well for me watching the game intently and to make matters worse, I don’t have it on my TiVo so I can’t do my usual re-watch to break it down. (BTW, anyone have a torrent link I could use? None of the normal guys seem to be posting the Torrents now that the Bears are losing.)
Nevertheless I have a few last minute things to say before moving on to USC. But first the caveat to my podcast:
I was wrong about Longshore not ever having brought the team back. Actually, after I said it on my podcast, I knew that’s what my Rivals article would be about and I was surprised what I found during my researching Longshore’s comeback opportunities because of how short term our collective fan memory is. Did we all forget that Longshore brought back the Bears against Oregon? Or, and this one is at least last year, what about last year’s Washington game? The Bears scored on two drives where Longshore passed for 60+ yards on each. Heck, or even last year’s Arizona game… he got the team down to the Arizona 30 when the ball was freakishly tipped at the line allowing for the interception. That wasn’t his fault and he seemed to be in control for the comeback win up until then.
After researching it, I think Longshore has what it takes when he is 100% but as we all know, he hasn’t been 100% since the Oregon game. His throwing motion is still all messed up and although I think the ankle doesn’t hurt as much as it used to, he’s still throwing like he’s injured. It’s frustrating because this season hinged not on the Oregon game, but on a late hit late in that game. Otherwise, I think there is real reason to believe the Bears could still be undefeated. I mean, is there a single game yet that the Bears wouldn’t have won if the Bears played the way they did at Oregon? Not from my vantage point.
So really, when I put it all together, the only thing that is really frustrating me about these Bears at this point is redzone play-calling. Tedford is being SOOOOOOOO stubborn. I think he’s slowly pulling out of that stubborn-ness but it’s taking 3 games too many.
Perhaps the Washington game is when that stubborn-ness ends.
November 16th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
While I think a valid argument can be made on JT’s goalline playcalling being “stubborn,” let me propose this question: what’s worse, the offense not scoring on three to four consecutive runs from the 1 yardline or not calling a passing play on 1 of the four downs? If people take a moment to void themselves of the recent memories of our goalline failures, and anti-JT-goalline-playcalling bias, I think the honest answer is the former (not scoring on four consecutive runs from the 1 yardline). In all honesty, I think the fact that our blockers at the point of attack cannot open up a hole is more deserving of criticism than Tedford. I think not getting 1 yard on 3-4 attempts is 10x more ridiculous than not calling 1 passing play out of the 3-4 attempts.
I think the biggest reason for not calling passing plays at the goalline is that (1) if a guy isn’t open then it requires Longshore to scramble for more time, (2) Longshore must scramble to throw the ball away, or (3) take a sack because he can’t scramble. Now we all know Longshore can’t really (1) and (2). So that means unless the defense bites on a playaction and a receiver is open (and receivers being “open” in the endzone is much smaller than everywhere else since there is less ground to defend), there is a HIGH probability of a sack and loss of yardage.
I think Tedford’s goalline playcalling recently while “conservative”, is actually intelligent maximization of scoring opportunities and minimization of risk. Now, I put the word conservative in quotes because there isn’t really “conservative” playcalling on the goalline. In goalline situations, because there is less space for the D to defend, runs are the “norm” and passing becomes more of a “high risk” instead of “aggressive.” Passing is even more high risk when your QB can’t really scramble.
I think Tedford has done a better job mixing up the goalline playcalling recently. He did call a goalline option play. While that is still a “run” it’s not your typical handoff run up the middle kind of run and is different enough to warrant separate consideration (and careful examination of that play will show that there was a blocking breakdown which lead to NL pitching the ball and the resulting loss of yardage). He also called that shotgun wildcat look against $C. Maybe it wasn’t quite “goalline” as in 5 yards or less but still, I believe it shows him trying to break out of his “stubborness.”
What else shall Tedford call in a goalline situation instead of a run? A playaction pass? Just like most fans want to see that, the defense knows it’s coming. When Tedford sends in the 23 personnel (goalline set) the D knows it’s either some sort of run (iso or option) or either a playaction play. A pass is not really that shocking of a playcall. I hear a lot of fans always say to playaction pass on goalline because the D is expecting the run. I don’t believe that’s true. The D knows it’s “probably” going to be a run, but they definitely know if it’s not then it’s a playaction pass. What the defense is prone to in the goalline defense is overplaying the run because it’s such short yardage and every inch matters (this is not the same as playing the run because they think it’s a running play). The defense has to pretty much surge and linebackers key in on the RB because everything happens so fast and it’s hard to distinguish who has the ball. While fans who say “pass the ball on goalline because the D is expecting the run” do arrive at the right conclusion, it’s through the wrong reasoning. Playaction passes are effective at the goalline not because the D is expecting the run but because they are deceptive, and prey upon the D’s obligation and instinct to protect the short yardage.
With all that said, yes, I would like to see some goalline playaction plays. But let’s not forgot how immobile our QB is. If we do pass, he has to scramble, or scramble and throw the ball away, or put the ball in a place where only the receiver can get it. All three possibilities increase the risk of yardage loss and turnover. Some call minimization of risk as conservative (and all of us being Cal grads, the word “conservative” has a slightly stronger negative tone than for most everywhere else). I think a better term might be “reasonable.” Running 3-4 times at the goalline is much more reasonable than I think most people are willing to accept. Afterall, all the offense needs usually is 3-4 yards on 3-4 attempts (1 yard average!). Our blocking at the point of attack can’t open up enough of a hole to get 1 yard? That’s more ridiculous than not passing once out of the 3-4 plays.
Anyways. Sorry for writing you an essay, Ken. Just trying to get some intelligent football talk going in defense of Tedford (since I’m the resident Tedford apologist).
November 16th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
What’s frustrating me is the comebacks. All four of our losses were comebacks in the making. Sure, we shouldn’t have been down for most of them. It was painful to sit in the Rose Bowl and watch UCLA win. What really gets me is that we keep it close and then make a final minutes drive only to see an interception or two end it all. We had all four losses in the W column if we could have closed.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I’ll tell you what Hydro, you can be the Tedford apologist and I’ll be the team optimist? 🙂
I think your biggest weakness in your analysis Hydro is that you like to go by the numbers all of the time without enough consideration for the strength and weaknesses of the team. (and to be clear, we all have our weaknesses, so I’m not trying to be negative)
So yes, you’re absolutely right that an offense should be able to punch it in from inside the 2 yard line on 2 attempts 4 out of 5 times and it does speak poorly of our offensive line and how hard-hitting Forsett is that the team has been unable to do that. All of that is mostly irrelevant after the Bears have failed a couple times to do it.
All of that said, a good coach knows his team’s strengths and weaknesses and finds a way to win with those attributes. By this point it is ridiculously clear that our offensive line can’t get it done in those situations. There’s no reason to repeat the experiment over and over. Tedford needs to be thinking pass first at this point not because it’s not what the numbers suggest but because of the weaknesses of the team.
November 16th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
“a good coach knows his team’s strengths and weaknesses and finds a way to win with those attributes. By this point it is ridiculously clear that our offensive line can’t get it done in those situations. There’s no reason to repeat the experiment over and over.”
Yup. I knew no matter what I wrote that you’d go there. That is the big weakness to my whole argument. Touche, good man. Touche.
I still think that there is some very definitive reason why Tedford hasn’t called more playaction plays at the goalline. I don’t think it’s merely that Tedford doesn’t like to pass at goalline, afterall, we’ve seen him pass a lot in the old Rodgers goalline days. I really think it has to be because of NL’s lack of mobility.
November 16th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Dude, Hydro, why the Ayoob didnt you write that on OUR blog????? For the love of Christ, thats sick up there. Re-write it again on the Golden Blogs. I DEMAND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 17th, 2007 at 12:09 am
[…] originally wrote this over at Excuse Me for My Voice, in response to a post by Mr. Crawford suggesting that Tedford’s redzone playcalling is "stubborn." […]