The answer finally hit me: We couldn't stop Texas, because we don't have enough defensive coordinators! The offense has three coordinators, Tedford, Michalczik, and Kiesau, but the defense only has one - Clancy Pendergast. <br /><br />And we find out after the game, that it is actually Ron Gould who is calling the offensive personnel for each play, and when Gould was ill and could not be at the game, the staff had trouble calling the personnel for the plays. So we reallly have four offensive coordinators!<br /><br />So what we need to do is take all this attention off recruiting, because no matter how many 5-star players we recruit, we won't be any good, unless we can get more good coordinators to guide them to victory. <br /><br />We have reached the limits of ridiculousness. Our system at Cal is a good argument for locking all the coaches in a glass booth on game day, and letting the players play the game.<br /><br />How much longer will Sandy, the wealthy alumni who pull the strings, and the rest of the fans, have to put up with this?<br /><br />:headbang

Shut Up!

Go have a cocktail<br />.

What caused this post today?

Tool

Impeccable timing of post.<br />:sarc:

Take your prattle elsewhere.

<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />" />

On the other hand, recruiting seems to be going nicely.

recruiting!

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;670277 said:</div><hr>What caused this post today?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />What caused it? I guess watching everyone on the Insider go overboard with praise for this recruiting class, when all we have to go on is the rankings by the recruiting websites. Tedford himself has said he pays no attention to the player ratings on these websites, so we should be pleased with the class, but guarded optimism might be more realistic.<br /><br />We've had good classes and good players before, and this staff has not produced that Rose Bowl team after 10 years of trying. I did some research. In the last 10 years we have landed a total of 6 five-star players and 49 four-star players. Of the 6 five star players, three have panned out. One was a total bust (Chris Martin), one did not live up to expectations (Joe Ayoob), and one has not done much yet (Tiny Moala). Players can get hurt, quit the program, get kicked off the team, or just aren't as good as advertised.<br /><br />24 of the 49 four-star players turned out to be good players for us. 25 either were busts, or are still on the team, waiting for a chance to do something. Among the players who did not live up the rating were David Gray (in my opinion), Noah Smith, Virdell Larkins, Kyle Reed, James Montgomery, Brock Mansion, Alex Lagemann.<br /><br />One interesting fact I found was that Cal landed 31 two-star rated recruits, and 14 were some of the best players we had over the last 10 years: Alex Mack, JJ Arrington, Justin Forsett, Mike Mohammed, Robert Jordan, Thomas DeCoud, David Lonie, Mike Tepper, Tad Smith, Sean Young, Jonathan Makonnen, Tim Mixon, and Steve Levy. This list should cause us to read the website recruiting rankings with a grain of salt.<br /><br />If that doesn't convince you, we have 3 four-star quarterbacks on the roster, none of whom was able to beat out the two-star Zach Maynard.<br /><br />So if history repeats, this class coming in will have maybe 5 or 6 players who will help us, and 5 or 6 who will not pan out. No matter how good a class we bring in, it does not change the fact that the coaching staff has structural problems, and the system appears to be one that only good or great players can learn and execute. The plays are very predictable. I go to the games with a guy who played high school football, and he calls nearly every play we are going to run before the snap. If Tedford sends in a new player or two, my friend will immediately call the play, and be right nearly every time. And if he can do it, the opposing defenses can do it too. <br /><br />Tedford is a good coach, perhaps on a par with Bruce Snyder, but he's not Pappy. Tedford got us out of a deep hole, turned the program around, but now it is stagnant, and has been for several years. <br /><br />However, we can take comfort in the fact that the 1958 team and the 1937 Thunder Team (best in the nation) both overcame inferior coaching to win. They did it with good athletes. For the sake of all those who hated my original post, I sure hope this recruiting class can live up to its rating.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SFCityBear;670893 said:</div><hr>What caused it? I guess watching everyone on the Insider go overboard with praise for this recruiting class, when all we have to go on is the rankings by the recruiting websites. Tedford himself has said he pays no attention to the player ratings on these websites, so we should be pleased with the class, but guarded optimism might be more realistic.<br /><br />We've had good classes and good players before, and this staff has not produced that Rose Bowl team after 10 years of trying. I did some research. In the last 10 years we have landed a total of 6 five-star players and 49 four-star players. Of the 6 five star players, three have panned out. One was a total bust (Chris Martin), one did not live up to expectations (Joe Ayoob), and one has not done much yet (Tiny Moala). Players can get hurt, quit the program, get kicked off the team, or just aren't as good as advertised.<br /><br />24 of the 49 four-star players turned out to be good players for us. 25 either were busts, or are still on the team, waiting for a chance to do something. Among the players who did not live up the rating were David Gray (in my opinion), Noah Smith, Virdell Larkins, Kyle Reed, James Montgomery, Brock Mansion, Alex Lagemann.<br /><br />One interesting fact I found was that Cal landed 31 two-star rated recruits, and 14 were some of the best players we had over the last 10 years: Alex Mack, JJ Arrington, Justin Forsett, Mike Mohammed, Robert Jordan, Thomas DeCoud, David Lonie, Mike Tepper, Tad Smith, Sean Young, Jonathan Makonnen, Tim Mixon, and Steve Levy. This list should cause us to read the website recruiting rankings with a grain of salt.<br /><br />If that doesn't convince you, we have 3 four-star quarterbacks on the roster, none of whom was able to beat out the two-star Zach Maynard.<br /><br />So if history repeats, this class coming in will have maybe 5 or 6 players who will help us, and 5 or 6 who will not pan out. No matter how good a class we bring in, it does not change the fact that the coaching staff has structural problems, and the system appears to be one that only good or great players can learn and execute. The plays are very predictable. I go to the games with a guy who played high school football, and he calls nearly every play we are going to run before the snap. If Tedford sends in a new player or two, my friend will immediately call the play, and be right nearly every time. And if he can do it, the opposing defenses can do it too. <br /><br />Tedford is a good coach, perhaps on a par with Bruce Snyder, but he's not Pappy. Tedford got us out of a deep hole, turned the program around, but now it is stagnant, and has been for several years. <br /><br />However, we can take comfort in the fact that the 1958 team and the 1937 Thunder Team (best in the nation) both overcame inferior coaching to win. They did it with good athletes. For the sake of all those who hated my original post, I sure hope this recruiting class can live up to its rating.<hr></blockquote><br /><br /><br />You said Levy was "best players we had over the last 10 years."<br /><br /><br /><br />lulz

This guy takes negabearing to epic troll levels

Go Bears

Your stats are off base because i include those who have yet to contribute but put them in the "loss" column. Take the active ones out and let me know how the numbers look then.

<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />" />

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SFCityBear;670893 said:</div><hr>What caused it? I guess watching everyone on the Insider go overboard with praise for this recruiting class, when all we have to go on is the rankings by the recruiting websites. Tedford himself has said he pays no attention to the player ratings on these websites, so we should be pleased with the class, but guarded optimism might be more realistic.<br /><br />We've had good classes and good players before, and this staff has not produced that Rose Bowl team after 10 years of trying. I did some research. In the last 10 years we have landed a total of 6 five-star players and 49 four-star players. Of the 6 five star players, three have panned out. One was a total bust (Chris Martin), one did not live up to expectations (Joe Ayoob), and one has not done much yet (Tiny Moala). Players can get hurt, quit the program, get kicked off the team, or just aren't as good as advertised.<br /><br />24 of the 49 four-star players turned out to be good players for us. 25 either were busts, or are still on the team, waiting for a chance to do something. Among the players who did not live up the rating were David Gray (in my opinion), Noah Smith, Virdell Larkins, Kyle Reed, James Montgomery, Brock Mansion, Alex Lagemann.<br /><br />One interesting fact I found was that Cal landed 31 two-star rated recruits, and 14 were some of the best players we had over the last 10 years: Alex Mack, JJ Arrington, Justin Forsett, Mike Mohammed, Robert Jordan, Thomas DeCoud, David Lonie, Mike Tepper, Tad Smith, Sean Young, Jonathan Makonnen, Tim Mixon, and Steve Levy. This list should cause us to read the website recruiting rankings with a grain of salt.<br /><br />If that doesn't convince you, we have 3 four-star quarterbacks on the roster, none of whom was able to beat out the two-star Zach Maynard.<br /><br />So if history repeats, this class coming in will have maybe 5 or 6 players who will help us, and 5 or 6 who will not pan out. No matter how good a class we bring in, it does not change the fact that the coaching staff has structural problems, and the system appears to be one that only good or great players can learn and execute. The plays are very predictable. I go to the games with a guy who played high school football, and he calls nearly every play we are going to run before the snap. If Tedford sends in a new player or two, my friend will immediately call the play, and be right nearly every time. And if he can do it, the opposing defenses can do it too. <br /><br />Tedford is a good coach, perhaps on a par with Bruce Snyder, but he's not Pappy. Tedford got us out of a deep hole, turned the program around, but now it is stagnant, and has been for several years. <br /><br />However, we can take comfort in the fact that the 1958 team and the 1937 Thunder Team (best in the nation) both overcame inferior coaching to win. They did it with good athletes. For the sake of all those who hated my original post, I sure hope this recruiting class can live up to its rating.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I've been doing some similar research. You make a good point about the 2-stars panning out half the time. I am posting a series of threads evaluating our talent. Check it out, I think it will make you feel a little better about our future.

The players we just recruited are some of the best Cal fans there are. Follow their example and join the party.

while i am absolutely thrilled (as i am with most years) with this recruiting class, the coaching staff has not proven that they can coach them well enough to go forward...this is not negative thing..this is REALITY !!!!!!

Recruiting correlates with success. If the coaching staff wants a two-star guy and ends up getting him, that's enough for me. Most two-star guys don't pan out to much, but if it's a guy on Cal's wishlist, that gives me confidence in it. This recruiting class is excellent not only from a stars standpoint, but because the staff is landing lots of high caliber guys they really want, and winning recruiting battles against elite teams all over the place. They're excited about it, we should be too.<br /><br />As for the whole Rose Bowl thing, that Cal has been one play away multiple times under Tedford should at least be enough evidence for you that it's still a definite possibility. Don't write things off yet.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;671003 said:</div><hr>6 years ago with what 18 future nfl players on that team? And he still lost 3 games. Can he get us back to 9-3 with elite talent. Maybe. But there is zero evidence he can do better.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Sure, so we'll have to wait and see how he does with all this talent coming in. Maybe he will provide evidence he can do better. Maybe he won't. Things are at least heading in the right direction, though. Nice to have so much talent coming in.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">itsamoroso;670961 said:</div><hr>while i am absolutely thrilled (as i am with most years) with this recruiting class, the coaching staff has not proven that they can coach them well enough to go forward...this is not negative thing..this is REALITY !!!!!!<hr></blockquote><br /><br />At the risk of legitimatizing the trollololol<br /><br />1. The fact that there are so many 2* recruits that become great undermines the idea that the coaches dont coach... <br />2. At every level players that are highly rated dont pan out. Some that are not so highly rated pan out.<br /><br />So what should you do (what do other teams that win a lot of games do)?<br />You get the best talent you can (as many highly rated players as you can) because a few wont pan out, but a lot will... <br /><br /><br /><br />For example, we picked up two 5* players THIS YEAR. We have had 6 in the last ten years. If 50% pan out (the claim made), we have one 5* playing for us for 3-4 years. We will very likely end up with two 5* talent level players starting in 2013 even after one washes out...<br /><br />THAT IS GOOD. <br /><br />We picked up a bunch of 4* players... Again, if HALF pan out, we are looking AWESOME...<br /><br /><br /><br />This is true with every team. NO team gets by one recruiting and making every recruit shine. The good teams get by on recruiting a lot of raw talent and putting the best of that group on the field. Cal is starting to do that.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Then you get down to the 3&2* talent. If they pan out at the same rate as they have in the past, we have a LOADED team.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Especially as a numbers game (what the OP is trying to use), this recruiting class is great.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;670906 said:</div><hr>You said Levy was "best players we had over the last 10 years."<br /><br /><br /><br />lulz<hr></blockquote><br />\<br /><br />Damn right he was. Have you forgotten his great perfomances in the final two games of the 2005 season? Cal was well on its way to a miserable 6-6 season, with Longshore hurt, out for the season, and Joe Ayoob a complete basket case, having thrown 7 interceptions in the last two games. Levy started at quarterback and led the Bears to a 27-3 victory in the Big Game, and then led the Bears to a victory over BYU in the Las Vegas Bowl, giving us an 8-4 record. He played the quarterback role to near perfection in those two games. Two of the best Cal victories I ever saw.<br /><br />Levy came to Cal as a two star QB recruit, but agreed to play a backup fullback role for the Bears, in the best interest of the team. Then he was asked to play quarterback again, which he did. In the Spring, I believe, he got into a bar fight, and hit a guy with a beer mug, as I remember, and Tedford suspended him. We never saw Levy at QB again, except in a mop-up role in 3 games. Longshore rightfully took over the helm in 2006, but I'm not sure if Levy was even allowed to compete for the job. <br /><br />In Levy's two big wins, Tedford took a lot out of the playbook, simplifying the offense for Levy, who had little time to prepare. That is something they should have done for Ayoob, and now for Maynard. Also, the fact that Tedford stuck with Ayoob for so long, overlooking Levy, leads me to question a little of Tedford's ability to judge quarterback talent. And if you get in a permanent doghouse because of a bar fight, then Joe Kapp would never have been allowed to lead us to the Rose Bowl in 1959. <br /><br />:gobears:

<blockquote><div class="name-said">tommie317;670931 said:</div><hr>Your stats are off base because i include those who have yet to contribute but put them in the "loss" column. Take the active ones out and let me know how the numbers look then.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Taking the active ones out: Of the five-stars, two, DeSean Jackson, and Desmond Bishop did well. Joe Ayoob and Chris Martin did not.<br /><br />Of the four stars who are no longer on the team, I get 18 out of 36 who lived up to expectations. My judgments are all subjective, but I tried to be fair. I put Kevin Riley on the list of those who did well, but I really expected more out of him. I left Michael Calvin off the list, even though he played OK this year. I expected a lot more from him as well.<br /><br />I think we can figure that 50% of the best recruits we land will not contribute much if anything. How do you see it?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;671030 said:</div><hr>At the risk of legitimatizing the trollololol<br /><br />1. The fact that there are so many 2* recruits that become great undermines the idea that the coaches dont coach... <br />2. At every level players that are highly rated dont pan out. Some that are not so highly rated pan out.<br /><br />So what should you do (what do other teams that win a lot of games do)?<br />You get the best talent you can (as many highly rated players as you can) because a few wont pan out, but a lot will... <br /><br /><br /><br />For example, we picked up two 5* players THIS YEAR. We have had 6 in the last ten years. If 50% pan out (the claim made), we have one 5* playing for us for 3-4 years. We will very likely end up with two 5* talent level players starting in 2013 even after one washes out...<br /><br />THAT IS GOOD. <br /><br />We picked up a bunch of 4* players... Again, if HALF pan out, we are looking AWESOME...<br /><br /><br /><br />This is true with every team. NO team gets by one recruiting and making every recruit shine. The good teams get by on recruiting a lot of raw talent and putting the best of that group on the field. Cal is starting to do that.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Then you get down to the 3&2* talent. If they pan out at the same rate as they have in the past, we have a LOADED team.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Especially as a numbers game (what the OP is trying to use), this recruiting class is great.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You missed my point, which was the website rating systems aren't worth very much. Tedford says he doesn't bother looking at them. Montgomery has said he doesn't look at them. So why are you and so many fans putting your trust in the ratings and the hype of the recruiting websites?

I think you can roughly hang your hat on - about half of recruits won't make a big impact on the field - and leave it at that. Regardless of star ratings. The same appears to be true at most programs, whether it is $C or WSU. <br /><br />Getting excited about one good recruiting class or a few good players doesn't make much sense, but when you begin to stack talent like we have in the last few classes, the overall talent level of the program will elevate and that will bear results on the field.<br /><br />The thing that tempers things for me is that even though recruiting has picked up overall, the one area where it hasn't raised enough is on the OL. If we can put together a few good recruiting classes on the OL, that will go a long way to improving the line play. <br /><br />We had one of our best recruiting classes on the OL in 2007 with Schwartz, Cheadle, MSG, Sam DeMartinis and Todd Huber. Huber and Demo never worked out. We didn't have enough talent/depth in subsequent classes to support that one good OL class in spite of relatively good health along the OL. In the two classes before and the two classes after that class, we only recruited 2 good offensive linemen.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SFCityBear;670253 said:</div><hr>The answer finally hit me:<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Do you have bait in the water on other boards or is BI solely blessed by your trolling?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SFCityBear;670253 said:</div><hr>The answer finally hit me: We couldn't stop Texas, because we don't have enough defensive coordinators! The offense has three coordinators, Tedford, Michalczik, and Kiesau, but the defense only has one - Clancy Pendergast. <br /><br />And we find out after the game, that it is actually Ron Gould who is calling the offensive personnel for each play, and when Gould was ill and could not be at the game, the staff had trouble calling the personnel for the plays. So we reallly have four offensive coordinators!<br /><br />So what we need to do is take all this attention off recruiting, because no matter how many 5-star players we recruit, we won't be any good, unless we can get more good coordinators to guide them to victory. <br /><br />We have reached the limits of ridiculousness. Our system at Cal is a good argument for locking all the coaches in a glass booth on game day, and letting the players play the game.<br /><br />How much longer will Sandy, the wealthy alumni who pull the strings, and the rest of the fans, have to put up with this?<br /><br />:headbang<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I heard a rumor that Ron Gould (the RB coach) was out sick the morning of the Bowl Game.<br />If true, then this would have a serious impact on the run game, since he is involved in calling the run plays and directing some of the blocking schemes.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">CaliforniaGoldenBear;671292 said:</div><hr>Do you have bait in the water on other boards or is BI solely blessed by your trolling?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />If you mean to ask whether I am engaging in trying to get an emotional response, I plead guilty. I'm trying to find out if there are fans who actually care about what is happening with Cal football, and not just blindly follow the Bears.<br /><br />I've been watching the Bears for over 60 years. I've been to a Rose Bowl. We lost. In fact, we lost the last 4 that we played in. I want to see us win one. Don't you want to see the Bears go to Pasadena?<br /><br />Life is tough for a Bear fan. It is usually disappointing. We've had maybe 8 good teams in my 60 years. Every year of Tedford's reign, we are told we have a great recruiting class. When he took over for the inept Tom Holmoe, he turned the program around, and we all expected greater things to come. In the last few years, the team has begun to look a little like the Holmoe teams again. The coach's massive clipboard, the 130 plays for each game, the procedure penalties, 10 or 12 players on the field at times, the missed PAT's, the nervousness and confusion on offense, the horrid at times special teams play.<br /><br />When Tedford announced that there would be three coaches calling the offensive plays, we had to know this was going to lead to confusion during the game. Maynard looks so nervous back there, hopping around, changing position, changing calls, and often with bad results. And when I found out they needed yet another coach, Gould, to call the personnel, I flipped out. This is just one symptom of our inept offense, but it is not a good sign for next year and beyond.<br /><br />So forgive me if I don't get overly excited about the incoming recruits. I wish them all the best, as I do Tedford. But I have been let down too many times. After landing a class like this, the chances that Sandy will replace him in the next few years are nil. I am running out of time personally to see that next Rose Bowl team. As DrunkOski kindly says, maybe Tedford can get us back to 9-3, but there is no evidence he can do any better than that.

IF you can keep your head when all about you
<br />Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;<br />
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,<br />
But make allowance for their doubting too<br />
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
<br />And treat those two impostors just the same;<br />
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
<br />Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools
<br />If you can make one heap of all your winnings
<br />And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
<br />And lose, and start again at your beginnings<br />And never breathe a word about your loss...<br />If you can fill the unforgiving minute
<br />With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
<br />Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it<br /><br /> --Rudyard Kipling
<br /><br />:gobears:

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SFCityBear;671258 said:</div><hr>You missed my point, which was the website rating systems aren't worth very much. Tedford says he doesn't bother looking at them. Montgomery has said he doesn't look at them. So why are you and so many fans putting your trust in the ratings and the hype of the recruiting websites?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Take out the star ratings; This class is still great looking. <br /><br />What dont you like about it? Make them all 2* or unrated. What do you not like about it?<br /><br /><br /><br />I have seen most of these guys play. (thanks to the ridiculous number of channels, internet, etc). What have you seen you dont like about this group of players?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SFCityBear;671336 said:</div><hr> I want to see us win one. <hr></blockquote><br /><br />Ok, so name the steps to get there...<br /><br /><br />For me it goes like this (in order for MHO):<br />1. Facilities (for recruiting, training, etc).<br />2. Deep recruiting (to overcome the natural drop off of prospects)<br />3. Better coaching.<br /><br /><br />We have two of the three steps this year ALONE.<br /><br />That is HUGE. <br /><br /><br /><br />You are a trollolol. Only an idiot would think "Stadium is opening, HPC is moved into, and GREAT recruiting class... things suck." You seem to be that idiot.

Look, star rankings DO correlate with success. Higher star players, on average, end up being better than lower star players. If you want, I can send you links to a number of articles discussing this topic.<br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>As DrunkOski kindly says, maybe Tedford can get us back to 9-3, but there is no evidence he can do any better than that. <hr></blockquote><br /><br />Of course, the most successful Tedford coached Cal team was actually 10-2, and 7-1 in conference, and under the current BCS rules/system, would have played in the Rose Bowl. The truth is, the "evidence" is never nearly as predictive as you'd like it to be. As fast as college football turns over, you just really don't get any sort of good sample size, especially when you're looking at a coach like Tedford who has been very successful, and not very successful, at different points (so we have contradicting evidence).

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;671377 said:</div><hr>Of course star ratings matter. But forgive me for thinking if Tedford couldn't do it with a superbowl mvp or the most talented team in cal history that he wont do it now either. Before the bcs the 04 season you needed to win the conference to go to the rose and since the bcs not a single Pac 10 team has gone to the rose without winning the conference. Ill be happy if he can get it back to 9 or 10 wins, but im not convinced he can do it. He wasted way too much talent from 07-09 for me to have faith<br />in. Hope im wrong.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I hope you are, too. We shall see. We're both in agreement that we're looking for recruiting success to start translating into success on the field.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;671349 said:</div><hr>Take out the star ratings; This class is still great looking. <br /><br />What dont you like about it? Make them all 2* or unrated. What do you not like about it?<br /><br /><br /><br />I have seen most of these guys play. (thanks to the ridiculous number of channels, internet, etc). What have you seen you dont like about this group of players?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You continue to have trouble reading and comprehending what I wrote. <br /><br /><br />Where exactly did you find that I said I didn't like this recruiting class? I like it. I'm just not going to Harrah's and lay my life's savings on the Bears to do any better than they have in the past. I'll wait and see, which is what you might consider doing.<br /><br /><br />So you've seen videos? I saw a video of Isi sofele when they were recruiting him. Looked like one of the fastest, best broken field runners I'd ever seen. At the college level, he isn't. I saw videos of Zach Maynard. Great in the pocket, fine runner, fine passer. Don't you know the videos are professionally produced, and edited to make the players look good? Ever see a video where the runner is stopped cold, where linemen miss blocks, or a quarterback over throws a receiver by 10 yards? Of course you didn't.