Not to beat dead horse, but anyone else disturbed by Tedford's comments?

"I keep wondering why [people] keep asking about it," Tedford said. "The way I look at it - at 3rd and one - with four minutes left in the game - (a field goal would put us) up by 3. Our kicker had been kicking in the end zone on kickoffs all day. Our defense had been playing pretty solid."

Rather than weighing all the different factors and calling the play that puts us in the best position to win, he defaulted to this black and white play calling mentality. We may as well have a computer back there calling the plays.

That would be great had the goal posts been as wide as the endzone.

He doesn't recognize those key moments in any game known as "winning time."
He's a terrible gameday coach.

SRBear;841952501 said:

---

That would be great had the goal posts been as wide as the endzone.

---

:rollinglaugh:

Going for three wasn't what lost the game. The blown coverage that left a wide open receiver is the problem. Even if the kick was good, and no one was complaining about it, the blown coverage cost the game.

That play didn't lose the game. The wiffed tackle on Braxton, the bs holding call, the blown coverage, etc etc. Lost the game.

..he still hasn't quite grasped the importance of emotion, how to utilize it and the college game.

SRBear;841952501 said:

---

That would be great had the goal posts been as wide as the endzone.

---

:beer:

JT lost his mojo...he's a good OC but can't cut it as a HC to make the hard game day decisions. As a OC, I think he would have gone for the 4 & 1; as a HC he was playing the stats.

My goodness. "Terrible gameday coach". Ridiculous. We nearly beat OSU at OSU. J ****ing H C!!!!!

bearchamp;841952535 said:

---

Going for three wasn't what lost the game. The blown coverage that left a wide open receiver is the problem. Even if the kick was good, and no one was complaining about it, the blown coverage cost the game.

---

I absolutely think we should have gone for it, but whichever safety blew that cover (haven't seen the replay yet) needs to get more blame.

SFBear2012;841952498 said:

---

Not to beat dead horse, but anyone else disturbed by Tedford's comments?

"I keep wondering why [people] keep asking about it," Tedford said. "The way I look at it - at 3rd and one - with four minutes left in the game - (a field goal would put us) up by 3. Our kicker had been kicking in the end zone on kickoffs all day. Our defense had been playing pretty solid."

Rather than weighing all the different factors and calling the play that puts us in the best position to win, he defaulted to this black and white play calling mentality. We may as well have a computer back there calling the plays.

---

He's clueless. Given the horrible game management in the past, it shouldn't surprise anyone though...

SRBear;841952501 said:

---

That would be great had the goal posts been as wide as the endzone.

---

Well played.

Tree Cutter;841952540 said:

---

..he still hasn't quite grasped the importance of emotion, how to utilize it and the college game.

---

Bingo!!!!!

SFBear2012;841952498 said:

---

Not to beat dead horse, but anyone else disturbed by Tedford's comments?

"I keep wondering why [people] keep asking about it," Tedford said. "The way I look at it - at 3rd and one - with four minutes left in the game - (a field goal would put us) up by 3. Our kicker had been kicking in the end zone on kickoffs all day. Our defense had been playing pretty solid."

Rather than weighing all the different factors and calling the play that puts us in the best position to win, he defaulted to this black and white play calling mentality. We may as well have a computer back there calling the plays.

---

How about his kicker pulling it left by 20 feet at that exact distance all day long?

the play before the attempted fg was a wasted down. sending stevens up the middle on third and two is not winning football. our sorry red zone offense has been going on now for five years.

calpride;841952594 said:

---

How about his kicker pulling it left by 20 feet at that exact distance all day long?

---

What's going to get JT fired at the end of the day is his apparent inability to "get it". This trickles down to everything he does as head coach (including his handling of Bridgford starting the Nevada game) and results in so many of these missed opportunities. Clearly, Cal needs a head coach who is not clueless if it ever wants to win any sort of big game more than once or twice a decade.

BobbyGBear;841952575 said:

---

My goodness. "Terrible gameday coach". Ridiculous. We nearly beat OSU at OSU. J ****ing H C!!!!!

---

Yes, Cal nearly beat Ohio State in Columbus, but when we really had an oppty to make Ohio State squirm, our head coach elected to send a kicker out for a third time to miss the same exact kick that he'd missed pretty badly the first two times.

This is same head coach who elected to kicked a FG while leading Stanford 31-28 in the 2009 Big Game, a decision I also disagreed with at the time in the context of how that game was playing out. The decision was not lambasted as much as it would have been were it not for Mikey Mo's late game interception of Luck.

This is the same head coach who took a team that started 5-0 in 2007 and guided them to a 1-6 finish and then a bowl win in the Armed Forces bowl.

The same head coach who has gone 32-30, with 4 of those wins being against non-FBS schools since the Oregon State / Kevin Riley "clipboard throwing" game. So, 28-30 vs. FBS in the last 6 seasons. Average.

He's not a good gameday coach. And somewhere along the way, he lost the willingness to be aggressive.

You think he would have learned something from a couple years ago when Washington was at our goal line with seconds left and could have kicked a field goal to TIE the game, but instead, the coach (as much as I despise Sark), recognized the momentum was on their side, Polk was running well, etc. and went for it and handed us our first losing season and ended our bowl streak. I'm remembering this correctly right?

This is exactly the point. Tedford went for it on 3rd and 2 - and we were stuffed. That was the play that killed the Bears. The Ohio State defense beat us on that third down, which made the 4th down play.

We already had blown 2 4th down plays in the game. We were stuffed on 3rd and 2. Our defense had held them for most of the second half.

JT may be defensive about everyone calling / asking about the play, but I can guarantee that getting that 4th down was not a gimme. And then what - Ohio State goes 30 yards for a field goal to win, and we all jump on JT for screwing that up?

The easy thing to do was take the field goal. But you all are all assuming that the 4th down was a gimme, and it clearly was not. I would say 50/50. And obviously Damato has already hit a 47 harder in the prior game, so we know that the ability is there.

That decision is not the reason that we lost the game. The 5 big plays we gave up to Ohio State were the reason - twice in deep coverage we were burned for 15 points. THe first TD to the guy Williams was covering was just a great play, and Miller is a great runner - but we gave up two deep balls where no one was within 20 yards of the player. That was inexcusable.

Phantomfan;841952537 said:

---

That play didn't lose the game. The wiffed tackle on Braxton, the bs holding call, the blown coverage, etc etc. Lost the game.

---

You are delusional with your defense of Tedford.

Yeah- the 3rd and 2 was the wrong call because that play always works once.

Oski87;841952634 said:

---

The easy thing to do was take the field goal.

---

I love it when people say this. Wait, they don't just put three points on the scoreboard for you?

tim94501;841952636 said:

---

You are delusional with your defense of Tedford.

---

Not really a fair statement given Phantom's posting history. I wouldn't exactly call him a Tedford defender. I am certainly not an advocate of retaining Tedford any longer than necessary (meaning no more extensions for sure, and buying him out once the cost is manageable or a donor steps up). However, I didn't think the field goal was such a horrible call at the time and here's why:

A) D'Amato hadn't looked that bad in earlier games and he hit a 50+ yarder against SUU (albeit after bouncing off the crossbar).

B) The 1st field goal was a BAAAD miss. However, the 2nd attempt was much closer to being on target. Before you flame away and say every attempt was a country mile off, go back and look at the video. The 2nd attempt was really much closer than the 1st. The 3rd was comical. I'll give you that.

At the time... given that it seemed that D'Amato had been zeroing in, I thought that taking the 3 points was a good decision (assuming he makes it of course). The announcers also talked about how Genyk (sic) had been coaching up D'Amato earlier and talking to him about "visualizing wider goalposts" or something to that effect (made a good punchline later sadly).

From a tactical perspective, a lot of coaches would opt for the 3 points there. Send me all the sabermetrics and statistical analysis you want, but if you put the other team 3 points down, and force them to go 80 yards to go ahead, or at least to go 45-50 to even have a chance at tying, you give your D a chance to seal the game. If you go for it and don't convert, the other team has a short field, and they only have to drive 20-30 yards while eating up some clock to win the game outright with just a field goal.

Now this is all predicated on believing in your kicker and having confidence in him. Upon further review of D'Amato's hyperventilation, and clear state of distress leading up to the kick, Tedford, Genyk and the staff need to do a much better job of reading their player and noticing if he appears visibly psyched-out/shaken. The timeout call to effectively ice his own kicker was bone-headed by JT as well.

So, with the benefit of hindsight, I'll agree that taking the kick was the wrong call in that situation. But i don't understand the argument that you always unequivocally go for it in that situation, regardless of your kicker's ability or the situation.

Now flame away and tell me what an idiot I am dear friends..

SkyBear;841952735 said:

---

Hopefully we can disagree with you without you taking it as "flaming" you. It didn't take hindsight to say "Our kicker missed it twice from that range already today. He's clearly rattled. Tell the offense to stay on the field."

---

+1. I don't know when disagreeing became flaming.

I think that going for it -- and running a better play on 3rd -- worked on both a percentage basis and sending a message to your team.

Generously, I'd give him a 10% chance of making that kick. Because of the circumstances, it was going to be much tougher to make than the previous ones. Even if you strike that gold, you're far from victory.

In college especially, I think that you go a long way by showing your team that you play to win the game. Oh, and you show recruits on national TV, too.

BeggarEd;841952727 said:

---

So, with the benefit of hindsight, I'll agree that taking the kick was the wrong call in that situation. But i don't understand the argument that you always unequivocally go for it in that situation, regardless of your kicker's ability or the situation.

---

I don't think anyone is saying that. In fact, that's the mentality that Tedford appears to have where it's black and white and you always do X depending on Y. I think what most people are saying is that given the factors that were clearly present (a kicker looking like he's about to puke whose already missed twice, our run and short pass game being very effective, momentum being on our side, etc.) the probability of getting that one yard was much higher than the probability of making the field goal.

Did anyone here actually think there was a prayer of him making that kick? Seriously.

tim94501;841952758 said:

---

Did anyone here actually think there was a prayer of him making that kick? Seriously.

---

Only if JT lurks on Bearinsider.

Phantomfan;841952537 said:

---

That play didn't lose the game. The wiffed tackle on Braxton, the bs holding call, the blown coverage, etc etc. Lost the game.

---

This!

SFBear2012;841952498 said:

---

Not to beat dead horse, but anyone else disturbed by Tedford's comments?

"I keep wondering why [people] keep asking about it," Tedford said. "The way I look at it - at 3rd and one - with four minutes left in the game - (a field goal would put us) up by 3. Our kicker had been kicking in the end zone on kickoffs all day. Our defense had been playing pretty solid."

Rather than weighing all the different factors and calling the play that puts us in the best position to win, he defaulted to this black and white play calling mentality. We may as well have a computer back there calling the plays.

---

I wish. I guarantee a computer would have gone for it on 4th and 1. The win % and expected value on that is obvious for anyone with a basic understanding of statistics. I'm not even including the fact that Cal is playing away, a heavy underdog, AND most importantly, your FG kicker is literally shaking and nervous.

That doesn't even include CALLING A TIMEOUT to decide to throw your kicker under the bus. How do you think D'Amato does the next time (if ever) he has to make a high pressure kick from distance? Know your players, know their strengths and weaknesses and set them up for success.

For the record, D'Amato missed three FGs and Bigelow ran the ball four times for two TDs. Yeah, that sounds about the right distribution of opportunities.

SkyBear;841952735 said:

---

Hopefully we can disagree with you without you taking it as "flaming" you. It didn't take hindsight to say "Our kicker missed it twice from that range already today. He's clearly rattled. Tell the offense to stay on the field."

---

Reasonable responses thus far. I just am hoping to avoid the inevitable, "Why do you worship JT!?!" response when that it really not the debate at hand.

As far as the relative severity of the misses, here's the 2nd one: . Not exactly right on line, but not such a horrible misfire that it seems impossible for him to make a small adjustment one would think.

For the "kick it" group I don't think it matters much that in other games D'Amato showed a great leg. In my opinion, the relevant information is that he was 0-2 IN THIS GAME. That 0-2 included a kick that was so bad it was hard to imagine that it happened in a college game. Yes, the 2nd kick was a bit closer. He still missed it!!!!!!!!!! As a coach I would consider this latest information over anything else that happened in other games. I would think that my kicker was mentally finished. The 100K people on the road must have spooked him. I give up with him at this point. I may not want to go for it on 4th and 1. At home under different circumstances I could kick. However, that is not relevant here. Do I send a defeated guy out there AGAIN? I can't!!! I take my hot back, Bigelow, and go with what has worked IN THIS GAME!!!

The fact that JT says he can't consider this is one more of a million examples out there showing that he sucks as a game day coach!!!!!!!

Oski87;841952634 said:

---

....We already had blown 2 4th down plays in the game....The easy thing to do was take the field goal. But you all are all assuming that the 4th down was a gimme, and it clearly was not. I would say 50/50....

---

Yeah, but at that point in the game, we had already blown 2 FGs in the game too, so why not go for it on 4th Down?


Same 50/50 chance, right?

Personally I'm amazed there is any debate. The announcers were surprised. The fans were surprised. Most of us was surprised that he didn't go for it.

Going for 3 _might_ be the correct call in some games, but not on the road against a ranked team where you are a 17 point underdog AND the kicker has missed every try.

There is so much more going on here than taking the lead.

First of all, the clock. A fresh set of downs burns a minute, maybe more. Now tOSU has less time to tie/take the lead.

2nd - Big Mo. You have tied the game and just made a huge pick, the first turnover of the game. Now is the time to finish it.

3rd - what are you saying to the team? Many people have talked about this, but imo you are putting the game in the feet of a kicker that was 0% that game, versus an offense that was firing on all cylinders. You basically are telling the offense you don't trust them. I'd rather disappoint Vince than the whole offense.


I think a creative play call might have been 80% or better chance of succeeding. With Bigelow and Anderson/Sofele and Maynard in the backfield, and our WR's? It _doesn't_ have to be a run up the middle.....


4th - WHAT'S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN? Oh, I know. Coming away with 0 points.

Again, this was a road game against a ranked opponent. Not many people gave Cal a chance, so you have very little to lose. Getting the win would be a huge step toward putting the season back on track. As it is now it's just another moral victory....

If you go for it and lose you might be 2nd guessed, but at least you tried.

I'm very angry about this call...more angry than I think I've ever been during the Tedford era. I think this decision will affect the team MUCH more than we know.

Hope I'm wrong.