How many TV games have we seen where the commentators openly comment that we don't know how to manage the clock\manage the game.<br /><br />AGAIN we burn a critical time out in the 2nd half and we had no clue how to manage the clock at the end of the first half as we we had no clue at the end of the Stanford game...

Evry play has to come in from the sidelines and they are required to huddle up. Hard to understand. Glad I didn't go.

I'd love to see an analysis of this stat:<br /><br />How many times, after calling a timeout, does the offense come in and screw the pooch?

Clock management, doesn't that refer to some form of numbers? Hell, the only numbers mr tedford is concerned about is his direct deposit. We certainly don't want to complicate matters for the guy.

It may not be too much to expect, but I've given up on even caring about it. JT will always be a bit, well, challenged in that department IMO.<br /><br />At this point, there are so many other things to improve that it's way down on the list anyway.

We've been taken to task on this over and over again nationally and rightfully so. I don't think I've seen a team in a game act with less urgency. I really feel like we condeded the game with ~5 minutes left and down by 2 scores. That was disappointing.<br /><br />The TO that kills me was when UT was backed into its own 1 yard line and called a TO. We somehow called a TO after that. It was like we were playing basketball trying to sniff out their inbounds play. I'm sure this has happened before but I can't recall it.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SmellinRoses;660251 said:</div><hr>How many TV games have we seen where the commentators openly comment that we don't know how to manage the clock\manage the game.<br /><br />AGAIN we burn a critical time out in the 2nd half and we had no clue how to manage the clock at the end of the first half as we we had no clue at the end of the Stanford game...<hr></blockquote><br /><br />...This was posted <i>before</i> we got the ball back on our own 15, down two scores with about 5:00 minutes left in the game - and we ran ISI twice up the middle and huddled...WTF??<br /><br />It's just bizarre that Tedford has no clue about the clock, time outs etc...

<blockquote><div class="name-said">oskidunker;660282 said:</div><hr>Evry play has to come in from the sidelines and they are required to huddle up. Hard to understand. Glad I didn't go.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />This. JT needs to do one or the other, huddle or sideline signaling, but can't do both. It just takes too much time.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Ace4eVer;661483 said:</div><hr>We've been taken to task on this over and over again nationally and rightfully so. I don't think I've seen a team in a game act with less urgency. I really feel like we condeded the game with ~5 minutes left and down by 2 scores. That was disappointing.<br /><br />Wtf was that? I want to support Jt, but Wtf when you just concede like that. Go down swinging. The last time I saw some **** like that was during the gilbertson years or even holmoe also.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">ColoradoBear1;661472 said:</div><hr>It may not be too much to expect, but I've given up on even caring about it. JT will always be a bit, well, challenged in that department IMO.<br /><br />At this point, there are so many other things to improve that it's way down on the list anyway.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Some teams designate one assistant to be the clock manager.<br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">Ace4eVer;661483 said:</div><hr>...The TO that kills me was when UT was backed into its own 1 yard line and called a TO. We somehow called a TO after that. It was like we were playing basketball trying to sniff out their inbounds play. I'm sure this has happened before but I can't recall it.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I didn't understand that move. I've seen it happen only where the defense thinks the other team is going for a FG but sees the offense taking the field. <br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">oskidunker;660282 said:</div><hr>Evry play has to come in from the sidelines and they are required to huddle up. Hard to understand. Glad I didn't go.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Is the problem that JT is a control freak or that he doesn't trust ZM to make the read? In any event, our offense is run in a slow, plodding manner, using up too much time (thus putting us in danger of delay of game); basically, we're the opposite of Oregon. And when a DL jumps across the line, why don't we do a quick snap to get the flag (and a free play) instead of continuing the long count which allows the DL to get back on-side?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Ace4eVer;661483 said:</div><hr>We've been taken to task on this over and over again nationally and rightfully so. I don't think I've seen a team in a game act with less urgency. I really feel like we condeded the game with ~5 minutes left and down by 2 scores. That was disappointing.<br /><br />The TO that kills me was when UT was backed into its own 1 yard line and called a TO. We somehow called a TO after that. It was like we were playing basketball trying to sniff out their inbounds play. I'm sure this has happened before but I can't recall it.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I agree on the lack of urgency which is baffling (its like Tedford went to the Andy Reid school of late game clock management) but disagree on the timeout. It sucks that we took it there but the coaches must've seen something with the way we were lined up. Kendricks and Holt were arguing over who was supposed to be where and who knows if other players were out of alignment. <br /><br />It was an important play as we needed to get the stop to turn field position and help out our struggling offense so getting the defense set up right isn't the worst use of a timeout. That they were confused coming out of a timeout is pathetic but once you get to that point a timeout can be the right move to make.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">BerlinerBaer;661488 said:</div><hr>This. JT needs to do one or the other, huddle or sideline signaling, but can't do both. It just takes too much time.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly! Why huddle and then change every play at the line from the sideline? Why not go no huddle in a base formation and then signal in the play? <br /><br />Could the fact that we end up changing the play and are trying to get the sanp off with little time left be part of the trouble we are having with the snaps and with DL able to get a good jump on our OL stuffing the run game or catching our RBs behind the LOS or getting a good rush on our QB, leading him to force throws....<br /><br />I said before the season began that Tedford figuring out an offensive organization and process that is effective is the key to his future as a head coach--not facilities or recruiting classes. <br /><br />Too many people think we just need the right QB recruit (every year). Look at Alex Smith. In Urban Meyers' offense he was good enough to be selected #1 overall. Then he floundered for years under multiple Niner HCs/OCs (looking like many Cal QBs over the years) and now looks effective under Harbaugh. Same guy, different systems. <br /><br />Aaron Rodgers' passing rating for Cal in 2004 was 154. That would have been good enough for <b>5th</b> in the Pac-12 this year behind Luck (167), Price (162), Barkley (161), and Thomas (155). Passing offenses have passed us by. <br /><br />Our offensive system utilizes two receivers out of five players eligible to catch passes. Our TEs, undersized walk-on FBs or third receivers have not been utilized as receivers nor are they great blockers. This has been going on for years. Our play calling does not utilize enough misdirection or creativity. We take too long to get plays in. We have no hurry up offense to go to when we fall behind (this was true back in 2006 as well). We can complain about player limitations all we want, but we absolutely need to have a system that puts the players we have in a position to succeed, or we will continue to be an also ran program even when we bring in an Aaron Rodgers (and have a 2,000 yard rusher backed by a 1,000 yard rusher) and have a top 5 defense. <br /><br />These are the issues for Tedford and the offensive coaching committee to address for 2012.

I agree with all your points.

Calumnus, all excellent points.....<br />How in the world Tedford can tell us we are heading in the right direction<br />is just amazing. Our offense is unimaginative and predictable, our QBs regress,<br />our 3rd and short play calling is pathetic, etc.---at times our offense is actually<br />painful to watch.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">boredom;663028 said:</div><hr>I agree on the lack of urgency which is baffling (its like Tedford went to the Andy Reid school of late game clock management) but disagree on the timeout. It sucks that we took it there but the coaches must've seen something with the way we were lined up. Kendricks and Holt were arguing over who was supposed to be where and who knows if other players were out of alignment. <br /><br />It was an important play as we needed to get the stop to turn field position and help out our struggling offense so getting the defense set up right isn't the worst use of a timeout. That they were confused coming out of a timeout is pathetic but once you get to that point a timeout can be the right move to make.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I don't have a problem with a defensive timeout, but the second half of your thoughts here sum it up. Having them backed up and then us being confused after their timeout is crazy. It just makes me wonder what happens during our timeouts. It was an important play and I'd rather get it right, but if not for a poor throw they might've gone 99 to the house on that play.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calumnus;663671 said:</div><hr>Exactly! Why huddle and then change every play at the line from the sideline? Why not go no huddle in a base formation and then signal in the play? <br /><br />Could the fact that we end up changing the play and are trying to get the sanp off with little time left be part of the trouble we are having with the snaps and with DL able to get a good jump on our OL stuffing the run game or catching our RBs behind the LOS or getting a good rush on our QB, leading him to force throws....<br /><br />I said before the season began that Tedford figuring out an offensive organization and process that is effective is the key to his future as a head coach--not facilities or recruiting classes. <br /><br />Too many people think we just need the right QB recruit (every year). Look at Alex Smith. In Urban Meyers' offense he was good enough to be selected #1 overall. Then he floundered for years under multiple Niner HCs/OCs (looking like many Cal QBs over the years) and now looks effective under Harbaugh. Same guy, different systems. <br /><br />Aaron Rodgers' passing rating for Cal in 2004 was 154. That would have been good enough for <b>5th</b> in the Pac-12 this year behind Luck (167), Price (162), Barkley (161), and Thomas (155). Passing offenses have passed us by. <br /><br />Our offensive system utilizes two receivers out of five players eligible to catch passes. Our TEs, undersized walk-on FBs or third receivers have not been utilized as receivers nor are they great blockers. This has been going on for years. Our play calling does not utilize enough misdirection or creativity. We take too long to get plays in. We have no hurry up offense to go to when we fall behind (this was true back in 2006 as well). We can complain about player limitations all we want, but we absolutely need to have a system that puts the players we have in a position to succeed, or we will continue to be an also ran program even when we bring in an Aaron Rodgers (and have a 2,000 yard rusher backed by a 1,000 yard rusher) and have a top 5 defense. <br /><br />These are the issues for Tedford and the offensive coaching committee to address for 2012.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Good post.<br /><br />It's like Tedford is operating on an island surrounded by yes men.<br /><br />Why doesn't any reporter/columnist call Tedford out on this stuff? It is like he has intimidated everyone covering the team or they are afraid of losing access to do their jobs. Anyone reporter even mentioned leading the country in penalty yards or being the lowest in 4th quarter output??<br /><br />Seems like way back when there were high-profile columnists who would spell out this type of stuff and Tedford would be forced to respond. Instead we get pablum from the Chron regurgitating Tedford's bs about all this mo' we have going into next year.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calumnus;663671 said:</div><hr>Our offensive system utilizes two receivers out of five players eligible to catch passes. Our TEs, undersized walk-on FBs or third receivers have not been utilized as receivers nor are they great blockers. This has been going on for years. Our play calling does not utilize enough misdirection or creativity. We take too long to get plays in. We have no hurry up offense to go to when we fall behind (this was true back in 2006 as well). We can complain about player limitations all we want, but we absolutely need to have a system that puts the players we have in a position to succeed, or we will continue to be an also ran program even when we bring in an Aaron Rodgers (and have a 2,000 yard rusher backed by a 1,000 yard rusher) and have a top 5 defense. <br /><br />These are the issues for Tedford and the offensive coaching committee to address for 2012.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />+1<br /><br />I was yelling and screaming in disbelief when we were facing a 2nd and 6 deep in our own territory and about 5:15 on the clock, needing to score TWICE. There was no sense of urgency whatsoever . . . and for some bizarre reason, the play call was for Isi to run up the middle (again) between the tackles. Suffice to say, the clock kept running and nearly a full minute came off the clock.<br /><br />JT appeared oblivious to what was at stake.<br />Tick, tick, tick...

Amen! Your points are right on.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SmellinRoses;663791 said:</div><hr>Good post.<br /><br />It's like Tedford is operating on an island surrounded by yes men.<br /><br />Why doesn't any reporter/columnist call Tedford out on this stuff? It is like he has intimidated everyone covering the team or they are afraid of losing access to do their jobs. Anyone reporter even mentioned leading the country in penalty yards or being the lowest in 4th quarter output??<br /><br />Seems like way back when there were high-profile columnists who would spell out this type of stuff and Tedford would be forced to respond. Instead we get pablum from the Chron regurgitating Tedford's bs about all this mo' we have going into next year.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />It's stuff like this that makes me think there's something to the argument that Sandy Barbour should be fired.<br /><br />Picture her being replaced by a more football-focused AD who will say to JT (in a Samuel L. Jackson-type voice): "We can't control the wins and losses, but if your team ever makes a basic clock-management mistake again [ominous pause] you're gonna be sorry."

Yes, it is too much to expect Tedford to learn basic clock management. And how to develop QBs, win important football games, inspire the team, take us to the Rose Bowl, etc. He's an over the hill coach who has fallen so far it's painful to watch. Only the most naive apologists can't see that now.<br /><br />I used to have such admiration and appreciation for the guy. Now I see him as nothing more than a cancer on our university. The sooner he leaves the better but don't hold your breath waiting for him or Sandy to do the right thing.