First ~ 15: Cal

 

So I still can't get caught up, but at least I can avoid falling further behind. Usual disclaimers apply. Also, went up to 21 plays this week, just because I wanted to finish the last series. That seems like a good policy—hence the name change.

 

UW received the opening kickoff and started at its own 24 yard line.

 

Play #1

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -24

Formation: I-Strong 2TE

Play: Power Off-Tackle to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +2 yards

Thoughts: Seferian-Jenkins in motion as an H-back and gets a good kick-out block, but Porter get shoved backward into the path of the puller (Tanigawa). This forces a cutback and Polk falls forward for 2.

 

Play #2

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 8 at the -26

Formation: Shotgun 2TE Twins R

Play: Throwback Screen to #2 Kasen Williams

Gain: -3 yards

Thoughts: UW motions Hartvigson but he doesn't get out to block his DB quickly enough and Cal blows it up. UW's scissors, Cal's rock.

 

Play #3

Down & Distance: 3^rd & 11 at the -23

Formation: Shotgun Twins L

Play: Pass to #9 Devin Aguilar

Gain: +28

Thoughts: Cal blitzes and the Huskies pick it up; Price has all day. Strong throw hits Aguilar in-stride on a dig route, which enables some YAC. Price a little late but throw was on the money.

 

Play #4

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -+49

Formation: Pistol Spread

Play: Zone Read Dive

Gain: +2 yards

Thoughts: Cal DBs way off the UW receivers at the snap; Price should check to a bubble screen but doesn't; Atoe is destroyed by Cal DT; Cal LB #40 in backfield, Price hands off and LB #40 tackles. UW's paper, Cal's scissors.

 

Play #5

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 8 at the +47

Formation: Pistol?

Play: ? Run to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +1 yard

Thoughts: Late cut to the action; Washington runs some kind of trap with Tanigawa pulling again (or maybe just a power that got blown-up by the Cal front). Cal LB #30 is a free hitter and tackles at the LOS.

 

Play #6

Down & Distance: 3^rd & 8 at the +46

Formation: Shotgun 2-back Twins L

Play: Screen to #23 Johri Fogerson

Gain: 0 (Inc.)

Thoughts: UW tries a play-fake to Kearse on the field side, which fools no one. Price then flips to the boundary and throws a screen to Fogerson. But the O-line cannot block Cal's linebackers and they annihilate Fogerson. UW's rock, Cal's Paper.

 

UW's next possession begins after Cal completes a 90-yard pass play for a TD. Score: 0-7 Cal, 10:00 1^st Q

 

Play #7

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -34

Formation: Shotgun 2TE Twins R

Play: Sprint Draw to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: -2 yards

Thoughts: Once again Cal has invited the bubble screen, leaving the slot receiver wide open, and once again Price declines to check. Instead they run a sprint draw, which the WLB quickly diagnoses and stuffs for a TFL. Schaefer crushed on the play by the Cal NT.

 

Play #8

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 12 at the -32

Formation: Ace Trips L, motion to I-form

Play: Broken Play

Gain: +57 yards

Thoughts: UW runs play-action but Polk goes to the wrong side of Price. Price scrambles, then chucks a bomb on the run to Aguilar, who brings it in at the Cal 11. Backyard football.

 

Play #9

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the +11

Formation: Shotgun Empty, Bunch R

Play: Pass to #88 Austin Seferian-Jenkins

Gain: +11 yards TD

Thoughts: Pressure forces Price to scramble. Seferian-Jenkins
had run a curl, but then just gets open. Price finds him late for the score.

 

UW's next possession begins at their 35 yard-line after a Cal punt. Score: 7-7,

 

Play #10

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -35

Formation: Ace 2TE

Play: Fumbled Snap (penalty)

Gain: -5 (Penalty)

Thoughts: UW motions Aguilar behind Price at the snap for the possible end around but all hell breaks loose. Procedure penalty probably helps the Huskies by saving the down.

 

Play #11

Down & Distance: 1^st & 15 at the -30

Formation: Shotgun Empty

Play: Quick Hitch to #2 Kasen Williams

Gain: +3

Thoughts: Cal gives UW the easy pitch & catch and UW takes it, but Cal allows no YAC. Okay.

 

Play #12

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 11 at the -34

Formation: I-Strong

Play: Power to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: 0

Thoughts: Once again, way too much penetration by the Cal D-line forces Polk to dance. Tanigawa fails to block the EMLOS, so he holds him instead—but doesn't draw a flag. Amosa misses the MIKE. UW just lucky not to lose yardage here.

 

Play #13

Down & Distance: 3^rd & 11 at the -34

Formation: I-Form Twins L

Play: PA Scramble by #17 Keith Price

Gain: +13

Thoughts: Kohler annihilated off the ball and Price pulls it down. Fantastic individual effort by Price to pick up the first.

 

Play #14

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -47

Formation: Shotgun Twins R

Play: Sprint Draw to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +9

Thoughts: Cal all over this again but Polk! UW bailed-out by its athletes on two consecutive plays.

 

Play #15

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the +44

Formation: Shotgun Twins R

Play: Power to #24 Jesse Callier

Gain: +5 yards

Thoughts: UW tries running power in the opposite direction this time, and voila! Great kick-out block eliminates the WILL and Callier goes for 5.

 

Play #16

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -+39

Formation: Shotgun Twins L

Play: Offsides

Gain: +5 (penalty)

Thoughts: We'll take it.

Play #17

Down & Distance: 1^st & 5 at the +34

Formation: Ace Spread Tight, motion to I-Form

Play: Out to #88 Austin Seferian-Jenkins

Gain: 0 (incomplete)

Thoughts: Kohler gets away with another hold

 

Play #18

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 5 at the +34

Formation: Shotgun Twins R, motion to Trips

Play: Offsides

Gain: +5 (penalty)

Thoughts: Cal blitzes and Callier picks it up, but Price has to scramble and eventually dumps it off to Kasen Williams for minimal yardage. But, Cal flagged for offsides again.

Play #19

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -+29

Formation: I-Form Twins R

Play: Toss Sweep to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +13

Thoughts: UW finally plays the rock on Cal's scissors here. Early motion gets Polk a wall to the boundary side and UW ignores the backside pursuit. This gives Cal LB #43 a chance to shut the play down early but Polk just turns on the jets and outruns him, then finishes the run like a boss.

 

Play #20

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the +15

Formation: Ace 2TE

Play: Post to #15 Jermaine Kearse

Gain: +13 (Penalty)

Thoughts: Kearse gets inside his defender and Price finds him for the TD. Cal DB has no choice but to interfere. UW really using its athletes on this drive.

 

Play #21

Down & Distance: 1^st & G at the +2

Formation: Goal Line

Play: ? Toss L

Gain: +2 TD

Thoughts: Late cut to the play shows Polk walking into the end zone on the toss. Nice drive.

 

 

 

First 15: Nebraska, Part I

 
Obviously the blog is off to a slow start. I had really hoped to do some kind of season preview, but to my dismay/astonishment, I was not able to find video of UW's 2010 games on the web—just some highlight reels here and there. That didn't provide enough footage for meaningful analysis, so the preview didn't happen. Then, I would have started posting analysis pieces as soon as the season opened against EWU, but, well, I had a lot going on. But now I'm back, and will debut "First 15," a series that will take a close look at UW's first 15 offensive plays each (ha!) week, starting with the week-before-last-week's loss to Nebraska.

 
Some things to keep in mind: (1) I am not a football genius and I have no inside information on the UW program, so don't be afraid to disagree (or plain call me out if I get some things wrong); (2) I am not especially tech-savvy, so you'll have to use your imagination until I learn how to embed video; and (3) I am working off TV replays of these games—certain things, like downfield passing routes and coverages, personnel substitutions, etc., are often not visible on the broadcast. But, without further ado…


   
After giving up a long kickoff return and a 50-yard play-action pass to start the game, UW started its first possession down 0-7 at the Nebraska 20

 
Play #1

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -20

Formation: Ace Spread, motion to Trips R

Play: Long handoff to #15 Jermaine Kearse

Gain: +5 yards

Thoughts: UW brings Kearse in motion, revealing zone coverage. No Nebraska defenders split-out on Kearse, giving UW has a numbers advantage on the field side. Price gets it to Kearse quickly and in-stride. Good block by WR James Johnson to give Kearse the corner, but poor effort by WR Devin Aguilar enables the Husker DBs to hold this to 5 yards.

 
Play #2

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 5 at the -25

Formation: Shotgun 2TE

Play: Counter to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +7 yards

Thoughts: LT Senio Kelemete demolishes the WDE; C Drew Schaefer & LG Erik Kohler double-team Nebraska NT which opens B gap as the Mike scrapes outside. The bad read lets Polk loose for the first down.

 
Play #3

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -32

Formation: Ace Trips R

Play: Inside Zone to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +2 yards

Thoughts: At first
I thought this was a designed counter. But on closer inspection, I think it's an inside zone that Polk had to cut-back immediately due to the Nebraska penetration. Polk falls forward for 2.

 
Play #4

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 5 at the -34

Formation: Shotgun Spread

Play: PA curl to #88 Austin Seferian-Jenkins

Gain: +16 yards

Thoughts: Good play-fake, good protection lets Seferian-Jenkins work to the hole underneath cloud coverage. Nice throw by Price.

 
Play #5

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the 50

Formation: Shotgun Trips L

Play: Long Handoff to #2 Kasen Williams

Gain: +13 yards

Thoughts: Similar to Play #1, but this time the throw goes to the slot receiver rather than the motion man. Nebraska has even numbers this time but Kearse and Aguilar both get good blocks to give Williams a lane. Safety cleans up at the sticks.

 
Play #6

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the +38

Formation: Ace Spread Tight, motion to I-Form

Play: ??

Gain: N/A – play blown dead

Thoughts: Play blown dead after snap due to Nebraska time-out. Looked like it was going to be another zone run.

 
Play #7

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the +38

Formation: Shotgun Twins R

Play: PA Bootleg, Pass to #15 Jermaine Kearse on Fly Route

Gain: +38 yards TD

Thoughts: Gorgeous. Coming out of the timeout, Huskies fake the zone stretch to the opposite side. It's off the screen but I have to assume the run action held the safety because Kearse is one-on-one against the Nebraska corner on a fly route. Perfect throw by Price for the TD.

 
Washington's next possession begins at the UW 30 after a Nebraska punt. Score is tied 7-7

 
Play #8

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -30

Formation: Pistol Twins R

Play: Fumbled snap

Gain: -4 yards

Thoughts: Was probably going to be a zone read.

 
Play #9

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 14 at the -26

Formation: Ace Trips L

Play: Checkdown to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +8 yards

Thoughts: Price had Seferian-Jenkins open early on the drag but Price way too late—may have been looking for Kearse on the deeper route. Pressure up the middle forces a scramble and dump-off to Polk late for a decent gain.

 
Play #10

Down & Distance: 3^rd & 6 at the -33

Formation: Shotgun Spread

Play: WR slant to #2 Kasen Williams

Gain: 0 (incomplete)

Thoughts: Kearse, lined up in slot, is the first read. Kearse is covered so Price checks down to Kasen Williams on the outside. He is one-on-one but the Nebraska DB has good inside leverage. Price throws anyway and the defender shuts it down for a PBU. UW checkmated on the playcall here.

 
UW's next possession begins at 7:39 of the First Quarter after Nebraska has kicked a FG to go ahead; UW starts at its own 35 with the score 7-10.

 
Play #11

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -35

Formation: Ace 2TE Tight

Play: Inside Zone to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +6

Thoughts: Huskies motion Aguilar from the backside at the snap. Kelemete
gets out on the MLB and gets a big enough piece to give Polk some room, but Aguilar continues playside on a ridiculously wide angle and blocks no one. I am not sure, but I think Aguilar is supposed to get a hat on the Nebraska WLB (#4 Lavonte David) here. Instead, David is unblocked and tackles.

 
Play #12

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 4 at the -40

Formation: Ace Spread, motion to I-Form

Play: Inside Zone to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +8

Thoughts: Kohler at RT is pwned by the Nebraska DE (#98 Josh Williams), but it doesn't matter because Polk jukes Williams and two other defenders. Then his own fullback (John Amosa) crashes into him, but Polk stays up—and then Polk collides with Schaefer. Terrific individual effort by Polk to gain 8 on a play that should have lost 3.

 
Play #13

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the -48

Formation: Ace 2 TE Tight, motion to I-Form

Play: PA Scramble by #17 Keith Price

Gain: +6

Thoughts: Huskies
fake the inside zone again, but fool no one. The Nebraska LBs stay home and Price can't find a receiver. Good decision to pull it down and scramble for 6 up the middle.

 
Play #14

Down & Distance: 2^nd & 4 at the +45

Formation: Shotgun Spread, motion to Shotgun 2B

Play: A-Gap Iso (Dive) to #1 Chris Polk

Gain: +14

Thoughts: Well-designed play. Polk begins lined-up as a receiver and motions into the backfield, to the right of Price. Johri Fogerson is to Price's left. At the snap, this looks like some type of zone read with the backside DE unblocked as the Huskies double-team both DTs, when Fogerson comes up to block that backside DE. Polk easily into the second-level. I think Kohler is supposed to get off the DT here and pop out to block Lavonte David, but he doesn't get out fast enough and David tackles.

 
Play #15

Down & Distance: 1^st & 10 at the +31

Formation: I-Form Tight

Play: PA Pass to #88 Austin Seferian-Jenkins
on deep out (?)

Gain: N/A - Interception

Thoughts: Great protection but Lavonte David ran Seferian-Jenkins' route for him and easily intercepts. Poor decision by Price to force the ball into coverage.




 

 

 

Lies, Damn Lies, and Advanced Statistics

Judging by the traditional statistics used to measure gridiron performance, it's a wonder UW managed to break the .500 mark in 2010. The Huskies finished #76 in the nation in total offense, and #96 in scoring offense at only 21.85 points per game. On defense, UW was #97 against the run and #70 in total defense, surrendering 29.31 points per game—roughly a touchdown more per game than the offense was generating. Washington gave up, on average, 22.31 yards more than it gained in 2010, and even special teams were subpar—a respectable 55^th in net punting, but 83^rd in kick returns and 102^nd in punt returns.

Can Washington make the purple line go above the yellow line in 2011?

With the Huskies in the lower half of the rankings in virtually every significant statistical category, and on the wrong end of both a points and yardage differential against its schedule, one may very well wonder how UW managed to notch more wins than losses in 2010. But it happened, probably because almost all of Washington's wins were close games, while four of their six losses were blowouts (Nebraska, Arizona, Stanford, Oregon). 

Click chart to enlarge

Using advanced statistics, however, the Huskies' 2010 season makes a bit more sense. Washington ranked #41 in overall S&P+ rating, which evaluates team's performance based on the success of plays run from scrimmage, adjusting for such factors as the quality of opponent, field position, and game situation. This ranking drops the Huskies neatly into a cluster of .500-ish teams, and behind only three with losing records (and each of those teams was just one win from a .500 or better finish (Oregon State (5-7), Georgia (6-7), Clemson (6-7)).



Similarly, the 2010 Huskies finished much higher--#51 nationally—in the Fremau Efficiency Index (FEI) than their total yardage and scoring statistics would suggest. Unlike the S&P+, which evaluates teams based on individual offensive and defensive plays, the FEI rating assesses a team's performance on the basis of entire possessions. Like the S&P+, the FEI ratings are adjusted to control for such factors as strength of opposition and game situation. But while the S&P+ formula produces an abstract number that is really only valuable as a ranking or in comparison with other teams, the FEI produces an efficiency rating that expresses the rate at which the team exceeds or falls short of its expected performance in a given situation. Washington's 2010 FEI was -0.004, meaning UW was almost exactly as efficient as would be expected, given the quality of their opponents (an FEI rating of zero indicates that a team has performed exactly as expected; a positive FEI means the team exceeded expectations, and a negative FEI means the team fell short of expectations).

Click chart to enlarge

The Huskies finished with a substantially similar FEI of +0.008 in 2009. With two consecutive seasons ending in FEI ratings of practically zero, UW has essentially achieved mediocrity quantified. The Huskies have a long way to go to catch national champion* Auburn and their +0.348 FEI, but being only two years removed from an 0-12 season (and woeful -0.256 FEI), this isn't necessarily a bad thing.


Unfortunately, two years of statistics is really not enough data to reveal meaningful trends, which is what we would need to make predictions for the upcoming 2011 schedule. At this point, it might be enough to just say UW should work on getting the purple line above the yellow line.

Observations on UW Recruiting

In the ersatz Marxism of the NFL Draft, the team with the worst record gets the first pick, the second-worst record the second pick, and so on.  That is not so in the cutthroat marketplace of college football, however, where enduring dynasties are built on the sustained recruitment of high school athletes and the rich most certainly get richer.  USC, fairly or unfairly, owned the Pac-10 for most of the ‘00s—both a cause and an effect of dominating west coast recruiting throughout the decade.  USC finished with the conference’s top-rated (per Rivals.com) recruiting class each year since 2003, and had the nation’s top-rated class four times between 2004 and 2010.

The Trojans’ unmatched success on the recruiting trail produced a marked talent advantage that, together with strong player development and modern schemes, Pete Carroll & Co., cashed-in for a disproportionate share of wins and championships.  For years, the other SoCal has amassed the talent to challenge Trojan empire by reeling in a series of classes ranked #2 in the Pac (2008-2010), even if Neuheisel’s recruiting mojo hasn’t translated to results on Saturdays.   Now, with plenty of cracks running in the USC façade and Neuheisel’s snake oil running thin, the door is open for other conference powers to break the L.A. death-grip on Pac-12 recruiting.  Oregon, with its post-modern offense  and the Phil Knight hook-up, has nipped at the Trojans’ heels for several seasons now—and after a BCS Title Game run in 2010 signed Rivals.com’s #9-ranked class nationally in 2011.  Other teams ready to share in the wealth include a headless Stanford Cardinal, the spinster in Berkeley, and your Washington Huskies.

In every recruiting cycle from 2005 to 2009, Washington landed classes in the middle of the conference pack or lower, with the quality trending downward at the time of Sarkisian’s December 2008 arrival.  But from the ashes of the Willingham flame-out, Sarkisian has managed to reverse the trend over the past two seasons.  According to Rivals.com, Washington put together the Pac-12’s fifth-best class in 2011, a one-spot improvement over the (#6-ranked) 2010 monster class and Washington’s best finish in the conference recruiting battle since 2007.  Scout.com took an even brighter view of Sarkisian's 2010 haul, ranking that class as the third-best in the Pac: 

UW Recruiting Classes – Pac-12 Rank

Year	Rivals Rank	Scout Rank
2005	12	12
2004	6	6
2007	5	4
2008	6	3
2009	11	12
2010	6	3
2011	5	5

Sarkisian will need another strong recruiting class in 2012 to complete the process of restoring UW’s roster to a talent level sufficient to compete for the conference titles, but he is off to a solid beginning with a conference-high 15 verbal commitments.  Should UW close the deal with another class in the top-5 of the conference, the Huskies should finally have a talent pool good enough to support 8-10 win expectations on a yearly basis.

2012 Recruiting to date  

	Commits	Rivals Avg.	Scout Avg.
Arizona	7	2.57	2.14
Arizona St.	12	2.17	1.92
California	2	4.0	4.0
Colorado	5	2.6	2.8
Oregon	7	2.86	3.29
Oregon St.	6	3.33	3.17
Stanford	10	2.7	2.4
UCLA	6	2.0	2.67
USC	10	3.5	3.4
Utah	9	2.11	1.78
Washington	15	2.07	2.33
Wash. St.	5	1.2	2.0

*Note that player quality averages are calculated as (total number of stars/number of commits).  Many current 2012 commits have yet to rated by Rivals or Scout, and thus have not been assigned any stars.  Average player-quality rankings should increase for most teams as the recruiting sites complete their evaluations.

Recruiting to Needs

While looking at the quality of a team’s recruiting classes over time provides a general idea of the team’s overall talent level, the value of a specific recruiting class often has more to do with how well the commitments received match the program’s anticipated needs for one or two seasons into the future.  UW’s 2012 class is already shaping-up well in this regard, with three commits already at the WR and CB positions--two of its strongest needs for 2012.  The Huskies have a long way to go in their other two focus areas: offensive line and DT.  Landing either of two highly-touted in-state offensive linemen (Zach Banner or Joshua Garnett) and one of several strong California DT prospects would go a long way toward these goals.  

 Offense & Specialists                             Defense

Position	Need	Commits		Position	Need	Commits
QB	1	2		1tDT	1-2	0
RB	1	1		3tDT	1-2	0
FB	0-1	0		SDE	1-2	1
WR	2	3		WDE	1	1
TE	1	0		SLB	0-1	0
OT	3	1		MLB	0-1	0
OG	1-2	0		WLB	0-1	0
C	1	0		CB	2	3
P	1	1		SS	0-1	1
K	0-1	0		FS	1	0

We live tonight.

Most big-time college football programs have one or more serious blogs frequented by people with serious knowledge of offensive and defensive schemes, techniques, recruiting, strength & conditioning, NCAA compliance, etc.  On these blogs you will find in-depth analysis of your team far superior to anything you could hope to find in a newspaper or on a mainstream website (except maybe for the occasional Dr. Saturday article on Rivals that mentions your team, or if Bob Davie happens to chart your defensive scheme on ESPN.com).  College football enthusiasts who frequent these blogs scorn the ignorant fans who think they can offer intelligent opinions on the game based on the nonsense spewed in pre-game shows and post-game press conferences.  I hate to sound like a dick saying that, but it's true.  If you don't believe me, go spend 30 minutes surfing mgoblog.com or smartfootball.com.  The lightbulb will go on, I promise.

The Washington Huskies, despite having an accomplished football tradition and being a program currently on-the-rise behind a talented young head coach--and despite being located in one of America's great tech centers--surprisingly have no such deep-analysis blog to speak of.  Now, I could wait around and undoubtedly before long somebody would launch such a blog.  But, being from the DIY-punk rock generation, I figure it's better I start that shit myself.  So, here it is.  Washington Football Analysis.  Let's get started.