OSU Film Study - Offense

Who's ready to jump to some conclusions?

Some losses are attributable to being less talented at any number of positions. Some are attributable to being outcoached, both in game plan and game management (two very different things by the way). And some are attributable to players failing to execute and play at or near their peak level (which barring injuries, is almost always mental at its core - I'll get back to this).

And then there are those train wrecks where all three things happen. If a well played game is a Matisse, these games are Pollock with a bucket of paint after an all night bender. But beyond being ugly, they are unsettling, for the simple reason that they cannot easily be dismissed as aberrant, or as just a bad day, because so many things get exposed across the board. Saturday was one of those days.

You can bet there won't be much family time this week for the coaching staff. The air mattresses and rewind buttons in the film room are going to get a lot of mileage. And I'd venture to say there are going to be some uncomfortable coaches' meetings. Butts are going to get chewed this week, plain and simple.

And that is how it should be. This team looked poor in all phases, and they looked that way for most of the game. Oregon State either looked a step ahead of Cal, or they played fast enough to recover and control them on plays where they weren't a step ahead. At home. And Oregon State hasn't exactly been lighting teams on fire this season. When a mid/upper-mid level conference team, on whom there is plenty of film, does that to you on your own field, that is about as bad as it gets.

So what happened? And don't say, "We can't run the ball. Our pass defense is 117th nationally. We can't get any pressure." The results are obvious. It's the causes - scheme, execution by particular players, talent disparities at particular positions - and what those things say about the team and the coaches, that present the more interesting, and frankly productive, questions.

I'll start with the offense.

1. Lack of intensity on the offensive line. There is a lot to say about the offensive line. I'll start with the most disturbing thing first: this unit lacks fire. To begin with, they are getting off the line way too slow. There is a difference between unathletic slowness and lack of urgency. This group is showing the latter far too often, and that is unacceptable for the unit is supposed to be the guts of the team. You cannot set the tone for the offense, which is the offensive line's job, if you are not intending to drive your man into the turf until he quits, play after play after play.

Good offensive lines almost leap out of their cleats when they fire off the ball, man for man, like a walking wall, and stun the defenders. And if they head up field looking for a linebacker, or pull around the edge on a sweep or screen, they are headhunting. And never, under any circumstances, do they go the whole play without hitting someone.

The thing is, I see this stuff lacking from this group play after play, game after game. It is hard to pin down a single cause. A lot of this is innate intensity. Some guys are just never going to have that mentality no matter how much you try to instill it - like the old saying goes, "If they don't bite as a pup..." I don't know these guys personally, so I have no idea if they lack the right chromosomes. But they certainly don't look like they're playing with that mentality.

Some of this is youth too, and I definitely think that is a problem with the interior three. Younger players are more worried about making mistakes, especially if they are not 100% comfortable with the offense. This causes them to ratchet down the intensity at times. You could see this vs. OSU. They were constantly trying to anticipate OSU's slants and stunts, and it took the edge off their surge.

And some of it is coaching. While a coach cannot necessarily make a kid into a filthy mauler, he can build some of the hallmarks of relentless play into the techniques. I am not ready to assume Marshall is not trying to do this, since I am not at practice. But I am ready to conclude that he is not succeeding in this effort. There is a listless lumbering to the way this group plays that good coaching can shore up.

Too often, I see guys release to the second level to put a hat on a LB or DB, and they kind of trot up to him, lunge at him ham-handedly, whiff, and then kind of turn around and watch the RB get tackled. It's not the whiff that's the problem. It's the approach, and the finish. They should be going after guys with resolve, like they want to take their head off. And they should be finishing every play by trying to find someone to knock on their tail, even if they miss their initial block. A coach can instill this by making it part of the assignment. The frequency with which this is not happening suggests the coach is not pressing it hard enough.

2. Lack of power on the interior offensive line. Before the season started, I wrote that one of my chief concerns about this team was its ability (lack thereof) to run for short yardage and establish a powerful between the tackles run game, due to the loss of Mack and to a lesser degree Malele. While my concerns were valid, it is worse than I thought. The interior three (including Boskovich and Fisher) are just getting physically dominated.

Time after time Saturday, all three interior guys got stood up and pushed straight backwards, on both run and pass plays. This kills the play before it even starts. It stops the RB long enough to allow the safeties and LBs to arrive. And on pass plays, it flushes the QB out immediately, before he can even read his first receiver.

Watching it over and over, you can tell the chief cause of this is often simple lack of heft and strength. These guys look like they are getting out-muscled. This can happen with younger players, especially OL who are still burning off some of their baby fat from high school. Strength and conditioning programs can help this tremendously, especially for kids with bigger frames.

But some guys also just aren't powerful players at the point of attack, no matter now many years they've been in the program or how much weight they can throw around in the weight room. The ability to channel strength and apply it quickly and nimbly at your opponent's weak spot, while maintaining balance and leverage, is a feat of athleticism, not brute strength. That is what made Mack such a rare talent. He could create a ton of leverage by channeling his power to the defender's weakest point and then put his foot on the pedal and mow him down. And that is why you can throw out the recruiting star ratings when it comes to offensive linemen, because most recruiting services can't gauge this kind of ability from a 17-year old kid, hence Mack's lower rating out of HS.

I make this point for two reasons. First, I don't think this line is as ultra-talented as they were touted, or expected to be. Because it is such a matchup oriented position, with dozens of man-to-man repetitions each game, you really can't know this about offensive linemen until you watch them play for a season. Second, this group's youth and lack of experience means there is some upside in terms of building the strength and technique needed to generate power and leverage at the point of attack. But as of now, this deficiency is definitely a hindrance to the offense.

3. Not sticking with blocks. Another disturbing trend is the failure to block to the whistle. Guys are repeatedly holding their blocks for the initial punch and then letting their man go. And sometimes that defender ends up assisting on the tackle. I saw it with OL, TEs, and WRs. This killed a number of runs and screens during the game Saturday.

Again, this is a mentality. Finishing blocks is about want-to and desire. And whatever the coaches are doing to instill this mindset, it isn't strong enough, because this team is not finishing well at all.

4. Riley's inconsistency. I rewatched the game, and the more I watched, the more Riley's misses and decision making stood out. I have rarely seen a guy make such great throws downfield like the strikes he threw to Tucker, Jones, and Sparks, and then just botch a simple swing pass or screen time and again, or throw the same downfield ball totally away, in the same game. For his few great throws, his numerous misses were really damaging to the offense's momentum. And his INT was Longshore-esque, just heaving it into coverage without a prayer of it being caught. It's not all on him, but he killed some drives largely by himself, on plays that a decent QB should make.

I am not saying it is time to bench Riley, for a variety of reasons. But in terms of what we can expect until he graduates, it is hard to imagine him ever putting together a full season like the ones Luck, Canfield, Foles, or Barkley are having. Now in the winter of his 4th year in the system, having been the unchallenged starter for 9 games, and part time starter last season, it can no longer be said that he's young and getting comfortable. He is what he is - an inconsistent QB capable of great plays and startling inaccuracy on any given play. If Cal wants to win the conference, that ain't going to get it done.

I doubt Tedford will give Sweeney any reps this season unless the games are out of hand. But I think he needs to open up a legitimate competition in the offseason.

5. RB pass blocking. This unit has been awful in this regard, and it continued on Saturday. This rarely gets talked about, but it an important part of protection, and right now, it's a weak link.

6. Cal needs a power back. As much as the OL has struggled, there were plenty of times Saturday, and elsewhere this season, where a stronger back would have been the difference between 1st and 10 and 3rd and 2, or 2d and 1 and 2d and 6. Best and Vereen are supremely talented. But both guys pretty routinely only require one tackler once the tackler has his hands on them. Until the offensive line play elevates to the next level, this type of runner is going to be necessary if Cal wants to reestablish the run game.

7. More non-lateral quick passes. The quick slant, quick strike to the slot receiver or TE over the middle, and the quick out have proven to be successful (when Riley doesn't miss). They nullify the OL's inability to block pressure, and they slow down LBs and safeties who are cheating up on the run. This is what Dykes is doing at AZ, and some of what Ludwig did at Utah. When Ludwig called these on Saturday, they worked. But he didn't go to the well often enough.

The lack of plays like this, and the lack of success when Cal did try it, played right in to OSU's defensive game plan.

Thoughts on the defense to come later.