I call for more divisiveness and strife -
10-05-2008, 02:20 AM
there's a lot of anger and fighting on the boards right now, but I favor complete anarchy. Perhaps this post will nudge us a touch closer to that objective.
Whatever else came out of this week, one thing that's changed for me is that I'm no longer a "fan" of Jeff Tedford. I'm now indifferent. That's not to say I want him fired or gone; that isnt' the case. I really do appreciate the miracle he's worked with this program. But I don't have any particular affection for him either. I've come to believe that whether or not he can get us to the "next level" is no better than a 50/50 proposition, and I don't have much faith in his ability to exceed the level of an 8-4 type program.
How will my lack of fandom manifest itself? I dunno. I won't bother going to the next recruiting function (unless we miraculously pull off a top 10 class) because I'm just not particularly interested in what he has to say. I don't see any reason to believe that it will be particularly astute (he didn't make a huge amount of sense at last year's event). I'll have to try to reach my own conclusions.
Oh well, I'll continue to root for the team just as strongly. But JT is kind of just another coach now.
Last edited by lurkerbear; 10-05-2008 at 02:23 AM.
There is a lot of what you say that I understand. But I'm willing to cut Tedford some slack. This is the first year that he's really trying to be involved in all aspects of the team and I think we are seeing the results of that: better defense and special teams, worse offense. If we can win in the old Ohio St. manner (good defense, good punter and no turnovers) then that's fine with me. Can we beat USC with this type of team? Maybe. I certainly wish Tedford would loosen up a bit because I think it's safe to say that our QB problems are due to his obsessiveness about that position's play and his seemingly never ending search for the 'right' offensive coordinator. But there have been many teams that have won many games with conservative offensive game plans, good defensive and good special teams. We may not be there yet but it's only Tedford's first year with an entire team focus.
LurkerBear you described my exact feelings about JT.
2 years ago I felt he was among the best coaches in America. The job he did in his 1st 4 years was incredible. I particularly felt that his coaching in 2005 after the injury to NL was possibly his best. Taking that team to an 8-4 record with Ayoob and Levy at QB was really masterful.
But then things started to unravel almost unnoticeably. Let me cite the things that have me troubled.
1. The hiring of Dunbar. Why hire this coach when the only option at QB was NL who had no chance to succeed in a Spread offense? This move made no sense. It was the first time i sort of shook my head.
2. The loss of control over the team in 2007. This just does not happen to top coaches. I agree that he did the right thing to right the ship by giving up position of OC but it still happened.
3. Going with NL when it was clear or should have been clear that he could not do the job. Why did he not see it when from what I have heard the team and coaches clearly did. He benched Ayoob for a FB (Levy ) and it clearly paid off - why not NL?
4. The hiring of Cignetti. This may be a bit premature but so far no one can be thrilled with the results. What is a little troubling here is that there are ties to Cignetti and that seems to be somewhat of a problem. When Belotti needed help he went after the best guy not someone he had ties to. No one can dispute the positive effect the Oregon OC has had on the program. JT seems to be a little too comfortable with friends around him. This is great if they are good coaches but when they are not it is much harder to cut the ties. I think there are 3 coaches in the Cal program who really have to be scrutinized (not necessarily fired) Cignetti, Daft and Alomar. I think all 3 have friendship ties to JT (not positive about Daft).
5. Installing NL as the QB with a team that at least on Offense is rebuilding. This is still open to question but what I have noticed in citing 5 problems is that NL is in 4 of them and the question of friendship is in all of them. Loyalty is extemely important but it has to be clearly understood that it applies to everyone equally. If you have an assistant coach who is a great friend but a poor coach where does loyalty lie. Does it lie with that coach or with the players he is coaching poorly and even broader with the entire team that may be suffering.
I hope we have a Coach who can step back and really take a look at things and make the necessary corrections. Is this a hiccup or a trend that will eventually lead to mediocrity?
3. Going with NL when it was clear or should have been clear that he could not do the job. Why did he not see it when from what I have heard the team and coaches clearly did. He benched Ayoob for a FB (Levy ) and it clearly paid off - why not NL?
What really disturbed me about last season is that no matter how badly Longshore played, Tedford wouldn't even let Riley sniff the field. Not a single chance. It was like he was being punished for that boneheaded play.
It was not until Tedford was facing his first losing season down 21-0 that Riley finally came in and bailed him out (yes, Riley's insertion was planned in advance).
I think this board is starting to really suck. Why would you post something so stupid after a win over a PAC 10 team that was supposed to finishing higher than us this year. You are truly a moron. I know we are not supposed to attack posters on a personal leverl, but your post invites such attacks.
Lurker, you raise an interesting point of view. A few years ago when the JT came on board, I thought it would be great to have a team that was winning consistently (or at least bowl eligible), perhaps every so often they could compete for a Rose Bowl berth. Then we saw some huge success, perhaps too quickly. Things looked easy. I started to expect more and the miserable thing of it all, as I started to see our failings in certain areas, I saw it came down to play calling and game planning ==>the jobs of the coaches.
Some cases to point to:
In 2005 we lost to UCLA at the RB despite that game being in our hands. We were kicking their tales 40-28 in the 4th Quarter with about 8 mins left and this is DESPITE punting to Mo Drew (why we did that is beyond me!). Then we don't stop their fake punt that the entire stadium knew was coming - I was there watching in horror - was another mistake by the coaches. The Beaver game the following week had more to do with that emotional let down in my eyes than anything else.
In 2006 we were annhilated by UT but that was something that turned on a few plays. We didn't bring our hard hats but that was fine with me. We learned something. Then we go down to Arizona and Nate throws a pick 6 into triple coverage (things don't change with experience now, do they) and our inability to punch it in from the 1 hurts us. Playcalling was poor for an offensive guru and with Marshawn Lynch at tailback. We don't go to the Rose Bowl because of that game but with our success that season in the Holiday Bowl much was washed away of some of the disappointment.
In 2007, well, we know what happened. An injured QB played all season. Nate played hard and I'm sure it wasn't easy for him but the coach needs to make a change. Never happened. Then we have the D. The D was allowed to give the Beaver QB much too much time and that allowed them to get comfortable in Riley's first start. This was the same gameplan carried over to the UCLA game. We should have either stopped the run or take away the pass, but in both games we allowed 100 yard rushers and QBs to get comfortable. However, even with Nate at QB, at UCLA (a house of horrors for JT) the passing game was working on first down - not being conservative was the right move. However, things changed and we got the itch to run on 1st and 2nd down in the 2nd half. Bad move, we lost. Again, bad coaching decisions and afterward he lost the team.
Now, collectively we're only talking about a handful of games - UCLA in 2005, Arizona in 2006, UCLA and OSU in 2007 - but they were season-defining moments. I still spend my Saturdays cheering for Cal but in watching the offense in 2008 and the QB situation and play calling, I again see things that worry me. Maybe I'm just one of those Cal fans that hopes for the best but expects the worst. I don't see the coaches changing much this year (ie, opening up a new and expansive passing attack) and that means a couple of losses to teams we should put away. Again, an 8-4 season is good but we're so close to much more than that and it's these little things that stop a solid season from becoming great.
82DLS, you also have a good point about this being JT's first year in charge overall. However, I am curious to see what he does with another bye week. We need to improve in some areas (notably the passing game) in a big way. This game vs UofA could decide the RoseBowl for us. Can we make that jump?
The post is that we have started to see that JT makes some calls we don't always understand. There's nothing wrong with saying it. JT is a good coach, but he has not yet turned the corner to be a great one.
Related to this, yes, we are 4-1 and atop the pac10 but ASU is not that good. In fact, they might be bowl eligible but will have a lot of tight games this year and if their O doesn't show up, they will lose some games via the upset. We should have put up 31 at least on them.
I think this board is starting to really suck. Why would you post something so stupid after a win over a PAC 10 team that was supposed to finishing higher than us this year. You are truly a moron. I know we are not supposed to attack posters on a personal leverl, but your post invites such attacks.
LurkerBear you described my exact feelings about JT.
2 years ago I felt he was among the best coaches in America. The job he did in his 1st 4 years was incredible. I particularly felt that his coaching in 2005 after the injury to NL was possibly his best. Taking that team to an 8-4 record with Ayoob and Levy at QB was really masterful.
But then things started to unravel almost unnoticeably. Let me cite the things that have me troubled.
1. The hiring of Dunbar. Why hire this coach when the only option at QB was NL who had no chance to succeed in a Spread offense? This move made no sense. It was the first time i sort of shook my head.
2. The loss of control over the team in 2007. This just does not happen to top coaches. I agree that he did the right thing to right the ship by giving up position of OC but it still happened.
3. Going with NL when it was clear or should have been clear that he could not do the job. Why did he not see it when from what I have heard the team and coaches clearly did. He benched Ayoob for a FB (Levy ) and it clearly paid off - why not NL?
4. The hiring of Cignetti. This may be a bit premature but so far no one can be thrilled with the results. What is a little troubling here is that there are ties to Cignetti and that seems to be somewhat of a problem. When Belotti needed help he went after the best guy not someone he had ties to. No one can dispute the positive effect the Oregon OC has had on the program. JT seems to be a little too comfortable with friends around him. This is great if they are good coaches but when they are not it is much harder to cut the ties. I think there are 3 coaches in the Cal program who really have to be scrutinized (not necessarily fired) Cignetti, Daft and Alomar. I think all 3 have friendship ties to JT (not positive about Daft).
5. Installing NL as the QB with a team that at least on Offense is rebuilding. This is still open to question but what I have noticed in citing 5 problems is that NL is in 4 of them and the question of friendship is in all of them. Loyalty is extemely important but it has to be clearly understood that it applies to everyone equally. If you have an assistant coach who is a great friend but a poor coach where does loyalty lie. Does it lie with that coach or with the players he is coaching poorly and even broader with the entire team that may be suffering.
I hope we have a Coach who can step back and really take a look at things and make the necessary corrections. Is this a hiccup or a trend that will eventually lead to mediocrity?
Agree 100% except for no.3. He inserted Levy after the season was off life support and the only way to keep beheadings from being done at the 50 was to win the Big Game. The Vegas Bowl....
Last edited by peninsulabear69; 10-05-2008 at 02:40 PM.
This post expresses all of my frustrations exactly. JT is still a great coach but he's definitely in a rut. And he seems to be blind of it, which really worries me about his capacity to take us to the next level.
There was a post several weeks ago after the MSU game which showed just how much all his coaches and underlings fear his wrath.
I would rather have a smart coach willing to entertain new ideas and have others challenge his assumptions, than have a head coach where we're being driven off the cliff because every one is afraid to speak up.
In JT we trust - but not unconditionally any more.
Linear Mode
