This is where a lot of people respectfully disagree with you. I don't post nearly as much, but been here a long, long time (rec.sports.cal or something like that). It looks like you've been posting for 2 years, so maybe you are student, I don't know (SODA Hall showers, right?). But it just seems like from your posts, you are about where most of the people on here were about 3 years ago. No offense, seriously, and I'm still a huge Cal fan, but it's just big picture that Tedford is the cause of the failure. Call it offensive line, playcalling, Pendergast, Tosh-gate, QB development, fitness, facilities (bad, now good), fault line, I don't care, we don't have to nit-pick on details, but this ain't gonna get any better at this point. I'm not a Tedford "hatter," but it's just time for a change.

Doesn't matter if he recruited him, when we had Levy he called the same plays, they were just executed better and throws were not over thrown. My point was that Maynard has shown us a lack of leadership on the field when we are down. This wasn't a point of whether JT can coach.

freshfunk;841957679 said:

---

With that said, it seems like he still probably gives us the best chance to win.

---

Well that excuse depends on whether we are actually, you know, winning.

Also, what are you basing that off of? After JT's mind boggling decision to keep Bigelow 3rd string, its not to far off to think hes doing the same thing at the QB position. We havent even seen anyone besides AB, so to completely write off the other 300 Qbs on our depth chart is ridiculous.

I do not disagree with that statement. But you did call the thread "It's not Tedford"

But I think it's unfair to say that Tedford doesn't have control of that. Maynard may not have "it" (although it's fair to say Tedford might have believed it when recruiting him), but it's now Tedford's decisions in how/when to use him that ultimately decide if Cal can win games. If you feel (and I think you do) that Maynard shouldn't be in there, then it's Tedford's decision to make. But if you feel that his play is lacking in skills or leadership or execution, but that he's still the best option, then Tedford needs to coach him up. And if he still isn't effective, whether through his play or the offensive line's responsibility, then it's Tedford's "fault." It may not be Tedford out there on the field, but everything comes from him. It's just the way it is, coaches get all the blame when things go bad, but not as much of the credit when it goes well. We don't have to specific about Cal when looking at this, the history of sports shows that teams that underachieve change coaches. That's the unfortunate thing about Tedford, he's a class guy, but the results don't lie and changes need to be made.

matadude;841957592 said:

---

He's calling the plays, but there is someone that needs to make the plays. The calls were there, the plays were there, the guy running the plays can't execute the plays. That team revolves around a QB. If your QB has bad body language and can't execute you are setup for disaster. Let's face it, we might have that QB that has what it takes on the sidelines and his name is Kline. Maynard isn't the answer he knows it, his brother now knows it, the team knows it and I know the fans know it. The walking out of bounds on 3rd in long just wrote his legacy as a quiter. Let's get back home and beat up the Sun Devils. Go Bears!!!!!

---

The players are young men who are AMATEUR football players. Mr. Tedford is PAID professional college football coach. No further philosophy required.

freshfunk;841957945 said:

---

This is where I respectfully disagree.

Nevada: Game lost largely due to Pendergasts inability to defend the pistol.

OSU: offense was rolling and probably best we could expect from them. Game was won by OSU by a mobile QB who can score with his legs and make plays out of the pocket.

SC: out talented at every position.

Could we have played better? Sure. Is player discipline and talent development on the coaches? Of course. I disagree that there were game time decisions that lost us these games. Other teams simply outperformed ours.

---

I agree, those were all big factors (bad reffing too), but those are all pretty much out of Tedford's hands, and despite those factors we had a chance to win but for some critical decisions that were in Tedford's hands:

1. We pretty much spotted Nevada 14 points in the first quarter with the way Tedford handled the Maynard benching. We play much better when not coming from behind, but we still would have won but for the poor start. Given that we could not stop the pistol we should not have been playing for the ount at the end expecting our defense to hold them.

2. Ohio State: Given that our offense was rolling and we could not stop their mobile QB as you say, the bias should be for going for it and not giving them the ball back with time on the clock, even if we made the kick, but especially given the issues our kicker was already having that day.

3. SC may have better players, but that does not mean you should not have your best players on the field. Why exacerbate the situation by not playing your best player? USC has better players than Stanford too, yet they find a way to beat them. Going back to #1. We have better players than Nevada. Coaching matters.

If SC has better players, then you cannot expect to beat them playing vanilla in the first half and giving them the lead. If SC has better players you are going to need to score more than FGs, you are going to need to take chances. You need to look at what others have done to beat them (many with less talent than we have).

In some cases, Tedford may not have been dealt a good hand in the short run (but in the long run, everything is his responsibility), speaking for myself, I just want to see him get the most from the hand he has. He has an Ace in Bigelow. Why discard that?

SC does not have more talent than us at every position - only QB. The OL that dominated us is a patchwork group that was led by a SR C playing on a bum ankle.

In fact, a coach worth $2 million+ would have this group towards the top of the PAC. We have a VERY talented group. They are grossly underserved by their coaches and scheme.

matadude;841957974 said:

---

Doesn't matter if he recruited him, when we had Levy he called the same plays, they were just executed better and throws were not over thrown. My point was that Maynard has shown us a lack of leadership on the field when we are down. This wasn't a point of whether JT can coach.

---

Longshore was not a good "come from behind" quarterback either, but we won in 2006 by limiting the situations where we needed him to come from behind. He played well in the context of our offense, especially managing a lead. Unfortunately tight games against Arizona (that shouldn't have been) and falling behind at USC were the difference.

Knowing that Maynard is not a good come from behind quarterback, it is imperative that we do not fall behind early through vanilla play calling. We needed to take advantage of USC's speed, adrenaline (anger from the Stanford loss) and aggressiveness early by using misdirection from the beginning. We needed to have our best player (Bigelow) on the field making plays or opening up counters.

I agree, the players do need to execute. But at the end of the day this is on the coaches. Whether it be recruiting kids that don't execute on game day, poor teaching, not setting proper expectations or having appropriate consequences, not preparing the players properly, not motivating the players, etc., ultimately the buck stops with the coaches, and the head coach in particular.

goldenjax;841957760 said:

---

Its even more Bizarre to read the irrational posts from people Hating on Tedford. He could've won against Ohio State and SC and the haters would still pile on him. Shaq said it best, "Hatters gonna Hat".

---

Problem with JT is that he always could/should have won games that he ends up losing.

CalBarn;841957673 said:

---

No.....it's Tedford! Please don't encourage him to waste Kline's blueshirt year to try and salvage this sad season. As a matter of fact, don't let him waste any more promising careers.

---

See Brendan Bigelow 2011

sandiegobears;841957965 said:

---

This is where a lot of people respectfully disagree with you. I don't post nearly as much, but been here a long, long time (rec.sports.cal or something like that). It looks like you've been posting for 2 years, so maybe you are student, I don't know (SODA Hall showers, right?). But it just seems like from your posts, you are about where most of the people on here were about 3 years ago. No offense, seriously, and I'm still a huge Cal fan, but it's just big picture that Tedford is the cause of the failure. Call it offensive line, playcalling, Pendergast, Tosh-gate, QB development, fitness, facilities (bad, now good), fault line, I don't care, we don't have to nit-pick on details, but this ain't gonna get any better at this point. I'm not a Tedford "hatter," but it's just time for a change.

---

I think you misunderstand me. I think it's time for a change at HC too.

However, I'm interested in rational reasons on where we're failing and how we could improve. I see a lot of opinions that are basically just personal attacks.

Saying "more bigelow" was the solution to winning is delusional. Did they miss every other part of the game where we got dominated? Again $C 200 yards passing, 300 yards rushing. How does Bigelow change that?

If you're going to criticize JT's game management, then tell us what you would do better and WHY your decisions would be better. As I see it, we just have really limited options based on talent.

Whether I'm a student or not should be irrelevant. If it affects how you judge me, I graduated over a decade ago but I think ageism is wrong.

seniority, stubborness, inflexiblity, stupidity

matadude;841957592 said:

---

He's calling the plays, but there is someone that needs to make the plays. The calls were there, the plays were there, the guy running the plays can't execute the plays. That team revolves around a QB. If your QB has bad body language and can't execute you are setup for disaster. Let's face it, we might have that QB that has what it takes on the sidelines and his name is Kline. Maynard isn't the answer he knows it, his brother now knows it, the team knows it and I know the fans know it. The walking out of bounds on 3rd in long just wrote his legacy as a quiter. Let's get back home and beat up the Sun Devils. Go Bears!!!!!

---

Losses are nor coincidental. Yes, it's coaching. Tedford is the CEO of a failing company, yes the buck stops with him. He's failing.

schristeck;841958001 said:

---

SC does not have more talent than us at every position - only QB. The OL that dominated us is a patchwork group that was led by a SR C playing on a bum ankle.

In fact, a coach worth $2 million+ would have this group towards the top of the PAC. We have a VERY talented group. They are grossly underserved by their coaches and scheme.

---

You know we're underachieving when we have so many guys in the NFL (in top 10) and such an average record.

Sorry, it wasn't about ageism, it was because you sound like me from a few years ago and I really don't know how long you've been posting on here.

I don't have solutions...well, actually I do, but I'd never post them here. And there are better football experts on here than me. But that doesn't mean I don't get the big picture, I recall clearly watching Deltha O'Neal almost single-handedly beat Stanfurd back in 1999. I turned to an Old Blue (since I wasn't as old then) and I said "Holmoe needs to go now." He made an impassioned argument that Holmoe should stay. We all know how that turned out.

Suffice to say that the older I get, the more I wish my handle was RoseBowlBeforeIDie. I had 12 tickets to the Rose Bowl in 2004, nuff said.

sandiegobears;841958111 said:

---

Sorry, it wasn't about ageism, it was because you sound like me from a few years ago and I really don't know how long you've been posting on here.

I don't have solutions...well, actually I do, but I'd never post them here. And there are better football experts on here than me. But that doesn't mean I don't get the big picture, I recall clearly watching Deltha O'Neal almost single-handedly beat Stanfurd back in 1999. I turned to an Old Blue (since I wasn't as old then) and I said "Holmoe needs to go now." He made an impassioned argument that Holmoe should stay. We all know how that turned out.

Suffice to say that the older I get, the more I wish my handle was RoseBowlBeforeIDie. I had 12 tickets to the Rose Bowl in 2004, nuff said.

---

I just think plain vitriol is counterproductive.

No one is buying JT out. Either he resigns, plays until his contract is up or miraculously brings the team back (doubt it).

I think our talent is under utilized. But even if they were better utilized, I would still expect losses against teams like $C and Oregon. It's not that we can't win. It's that they're that good. You have to respect that.

I think people like to think Cal is better than it is. They like to think that there's a silver bullet out there. If only Bigelow had more touches. If only we had a new head coach. If only. People like to think we're on the cusp of going to the Rose Bowl. I think that's all wrong.

No matter how it's done, I think we really need to build before we can reasonably expect ourselves to be contending for the conference title.

Also, preseason, did anyone expect us to win against OSU or $C? I'm pretty sure most everyone predicted a loss.

Nevada was probably the upset we didn't expect but, even then, we knew that we're very weak against the pistol.

So far we're pretty close to what reasonable fans would expect us to be.

> People like to think we're on the cusp of going to the Rose Bowl. I think that's all wrong.

> I think people like to think Cal is better than it is.

Uh, that would not be me. I predicted 6 or 7 wins. I don't have vitriol toward Tedford or any players. I hope they try their darnedest to win every game. But I just think it's not happening and why argue about details when what's broke probably isn't fixable? I'm not rooting for losses, I never would.

Next week against ASU is a make or break game. If they lose, the team will probably question themselves and might finish with 3 or 4 wins and if that happens, Tedford is done. Someone with a crapload of money will buy out the contract, it's happened before and it will happen again. Will the next coach do better? I do not know, but one can hope. You only have to look at Stanfurd for hope, they resurrected a moribund program and they have no advantage over Cal other than perhaps a wider, national recruiting base and a country club atmosphere. And I personally don't expect us to beat SC every year, but once every few years (like the year of John David Booty?) isn't much to ask. Oregon, that's another story, but that scheme is vulnerable and their talent gap isn't that large (if any). In fact, Cal has played them much tougher than most teams, but has struggled to finish them off.

pappysghost;841957917 said:

---

Why does a super star like Bigelow get half the carries that an average back like Sofele gets? You would think after the Ohio St. game the coaches could recognize how much more likely we are to score a touchdown when he's in the game. There is no telling how good the offense could be if Bigelow were used correctly. How can anyone in their right mind insist that the offense is better with Sofele running the ball?

---

Totally agree.....JT just being his conservative self. Go with the senior who knows the playbook. Really disappointed Bigs only had 4 carries.

GoldenYears;841958060 said:

---

No you're not. You've gotten rational responses. You've just ignored them all.

---

Quoted for truth...

matadude;841957592 said:

---

He's calling the plays, but there is someone that needs to make the plays. The calls were there, the plays were there, the guy running the plays can't execute the plays. That team revolves around a QB. If your QB has bad body language and can't execute you are setup for disaster. Let's face it, we might have that QB that has what it takes on the sidelines and his name is Kline. Maynard isn't the answer he knows it, his brother now knows it, the team knows it and I know the fans know it. The walking out of bounds on 3rd in long just wrote his legacy as a quiter. Let's get back home and beat up the Sun Devils. Go Bears!!!!!

---

Amy, where have you been???

freshfunk;841958125 said:

---

Also, preseason, did anyone expect us to win against OSU or $C? I'm pretty sure most everyone predicted a loss.

Nevada was probably the upset we didn't expect but, even then, we knew that we're very weak against the pistol.

So far we're pretty close to what reasonable fans would expect us to be.

---

It's not just losing the games, it's the way we play and the manner in which we lose. Yes, the record is what "reasonable" fans might have expected...because they factor in the coaching, recent play in last 5 years, etc. But that doesn't mean it's ok or acceptable and that we should be satisfied. Hell, we can always be satisfied if we lower our expectations - if that works for our fans, we should de-emphasize and play D2 ball.

goldenokiebear;841958226 said:

---

It's not just losing the games, it's the way we play and the manner in which we lose. Yes, the record is what "reasonable" fans might have expected...because they factor in the coaching, recent play in last 5 years, etc. But that doesn't mean it's ok or acceptable and that we should be satisfied. Hell, we can always be satisfied if we lower our expectations - if that works for our fans, we should de-emphasize and play D2 ball.

---

Honest question: In what manner do you play that's good and yet you still lose?

I would say that OSU, for the most part, was a game where we played well yet still lost. Doesn't mean we played perfect but we played well.

That was an improvement over Nevada and SUU.

So what was wrong with the USC game? Were we incredibly undisciplined? What was wrong with the manner win which we lost?

OK we had to settle for a bunch of FGs. This is probably due more to their defense in the red zone. We haven't scored a non-garbage time TD against $C in a very, very, very long time.

We had 7 sacks. Injuries, losing starters and being out-talented will do that to you. Look at how $C looked when they lost their center.

No run game? Again, see last year.

I'm not saying we played well. I'm saying $C has a way of making teams look bad.

It doesn't help to play a top-ranked team so early in the season. I think we'll look a lot better next week and a continued trend from what we saw at OSU.

no Tedford is not the problem. The problem is that we over-react. After the Nevada game, everyone would have been happy losing "only" 27-9 to a 2nd ranked USC. But then last week we over-react to Cal playing tOSU tight and $C falling to furd and think we have a chance. Now I'm sure we are going to over-react to ASU wiping out Utah and expect to lose. There is no transitive law in football. Each game is it's own reality. We have been going up and down over-reacting about Tedford and Maynard ever since Maynard won the job in the spring of 2011. But regardless of our hightened or lessened expectations, the game takes on a life of its own. Our expectations have nothing to do with how events unfold on the field. If they did, life as a fan would be pretty boring. Enjoy the fact that, come every Saturday, we can witness the unknown unfold in all its drama.

If I sound different, I apologize, I've been taking too many CJ happy pills.

What I think is that JT isn't getting the most out of his players because the players don't connect with him on some level. Harbaugh and Carroll got more motivation out of their teams because they were in the drills... challenging the players and throwing balls or doing drills with them.

Players need to know there is a clear separation with the HC and their role but they also want to be able to see the passion and drive. I know JT is more of a reserved type but the reason why Tosh got so many recruits is because he was intense and if you asked him I think he'd get in there and put a helmet on and try to tackle the RB in a tackling drill.

heartofthebear;841958361 said:

---

After the Nevada game, everyone would have been happy losing "only" 27-9 to a 2nd ranked USC.

---

please stop.

heartofthebear;841958361 said:

---

no Tedford is not the problem. The problem is that we over-react. After the Nevada game, everyone would have been happy losing "only" 27-9 to a 2nd ranked USC.

---

So... why did we play USC? To be happy to lose?

GoldenYears;841958634 said:

---

Speak for yourself. I'm never happy losing to USC or anybody else.

---

based on the majority of posts, folks were not angry about losing to tOSU. Now, after the USC loss they are. The only real difference is that the expectations were much lower before the game in Columbus. My point is that we are reacting too much after each game by over-adjusting our expectations. Based on the history of this board, if we beat furd folks will be expecting us to beat Utah and will be upset if we don't. That was all I was really saying. I didn't mean "happy" like :woohoo or :beer:. I meant happy like
Boy, some people are sooo word sensitive. I'll try to be more technically accurate in my word choice next time for those of you who are interested in micro-managing my posts.

All the clues are there:
1) He's the one constant in the mix of variables. Good players and asst. coaches have come and gone. Yet, the team remains average.
2) We recruit quality players at the QB position, yet we cannot field a serviceable QB. Constant? Tedford. He's a QB killer! The only QB that can excel is someone with the talent to survive Tedford's horrible influence - Aaron Rodgers. All else regress under Tedford.
3) Play book. When your coach has a play card the size of a billboard, and you STILL can't make it work, you have a problem. More complexity = more confusion. Perhaps THE reason we can't field a serviceable QB.
4) Facilities. They WERE atrocious. Not any more. Remove THAT excuse!
5) I'd continue, but why bother...

It's obvious what the problem is.

Problem is USC is nowhere near close to being the #2 team in the country. So passing the loss off as acceptable is asinine. USC is maybe a top 25 team and that's it ... They've been mediocre in their last 3 games.

I wouldn't have an issuing losing if this team was well coached and lacked talent.

Now certainly there is talent missing at the OL but I think some of you don't understand how much talent is actually at Cal and who wanted that talent.

Keenan Allen, Brendan Bigelow, Steve Williams, Richard Rodgers, MSG, Zach Kline, McCain, Scarlett, Barr, Moala, Jalil, Ced Dozier, Forbes, J. Gibson, M Harris, J Jefferson, McClure, Powe, Tagaloa, Treggs, Whiteside

But when I see things like getting call for delay of game right after USC gets called for an illegal substitution I want to throw things at my TV. That's pop warner type garbage...

RaphaelAglietti;841959031 said:

---

Problem is USC is nowhere near close to being the #2 team in the country. So passing the loss off as acceptable is asinine. USC is maybe a top 25 team and that's it ... They've been mediocre in their last 3 games.

---

This is partly right--SC hasn't looked like a Top 5 team. But who has?

Bama and Oregon, for sure. But then who?

LSU...who looked pretty mediocre against a bad Auburn team? An FSU team that has had exactly one good win (and didn't exactly dominate Clemson)? Do we know anything about Georgia, South Carolina, or West Virginia at this point?

How about Stanford, K-State, and Notre Dame?

USC isn't dominant. This isn't the 2005 Trojans. Ditto Ohio State. Both are flawed football teams. But this year, both teams are loaded with elite athletes and probably deserve to be ranked somewhere between #5 and #25. Four games in, it's hard to tell exactly where.

Still chastising the Bears for losing difficult road games by complaining about how bad the winning teams have been is pretty masochistic. It's frustrating to watch us blow these upset opportunities when victory seems possible, but I'd much rather see us stay competitive for four quarters than watch those pitiful 48-14 games we played two years ago.

1-3 sucks and the schedule remains very, very difficult, but overall this team looks like it's moving in the right direction (which is something I didn't think I would say following the "win" against SUU.)

heartofthebear;841958967 said:

---

based on the majority of posts, folks were not angry about losing to tOSU. Now, after the USC loss they are. The only real difference is that the expectations were much lower before the game in Columbus. My point is that we are reacting too much after each game by over-adjusting our expectations. Based on the history of this board, if we beat furd folks will be expecting us to beat Utah and will be upset if we don't. That was all I was really saying. I didn't mean "happy" like :woohoo or :beer:. I meant happy like
Boy, some people are sooo word sensitive. I'll try to be more technically accurate in my word choice next time for those of you who are interested in micro-managing my posts.

---

Heart, haven't you heard?

:hatters

GhostBear;841959059 said:

---

This is partly right--SC hasn't looked like a Top 5 team. But who has?

Bama and Oregon, for sure. But then who?

LSU...who looked pretty mediocre against a bad Auburn team? An FSU team that has had exactly one good win (and didn't exactly dominate Clemson)? Do we know anything about Georgia, South Carolina, or West Virginia at this point?

How about Stanford, K-State, and Notre Dame?

USC isn't dominant. This isn't the 2005 Trojans. Ditto Ohio State. Both are flawed football teams. But this year, both teams are loaded with elite athletes and probably deserve to be ranked somewhere between #5 and #25. Four games in, it's hard to tell exactly where.

Still chastising the Bears for losing difficult road games by complaining about how bad the winning teams have been is pretty masochistic. It's frustrating to watch us blow these upset opportunities when victory seems possible, but I'd much rather see us stay competitive for four quarters than watch those pitiful 48-14 games we played two years ago.

1-3 sucks and the schedule remains very, very difficult, but overall this team looks like it's moving in the right direction (which is something I didn't think I would say following the "win" against SUU.)

---

I'm not as angry about the loss as I am by the execution or rather the lack thereof. You can't just go into a vacuum and say well they were ranked higher what did you expect. Granted, I'm not suggesting living in a delusional fantasy world where Cal is expected to go 12-0 every year, but I do expect Cal to win games where the opponent tries to hand them the game.

If USC was going to beat Cal I would like it to be a scenario where USC executed extremely well and clearly showed they were superior in execution. Frankly, USC was just as bad as Cal in terms of execution. That's why everyone is so frustrated/pissed off.

Hence the reason why coaching matters so much. If Cal had been well coached and executed properly Cal wins in the Coliseum, Cal wins in the Horseshoe and Cal wins against Nevada.

That's the whole argument I've been making since the beginning. It's about the ends justifying the means.

It's also about capitalizing on chances. USC held out a massive gift and Cal didn't take it.
Teams with less success than Cal in 2000's were able to beat SC more than once

For the record Kiffin is a terrible coach. He's never going to win a national title. He's Hackett redux except that Hackett is a great guy and Kiffen is a douchebag.

First of all the plays WEREN'T there, so quit parrotting the morons from California Golden Showers who have nothing meaningful to say and lots of time to say it.

Second, JT is the CEO of the program, so the buck ALWAYS stops with him. Yes, there is a DIRECT correllation between the ability of a coach and WINS. JT isn't winning because he isn't ANY GOOD. He used to be, but those days are clearly behind him, and he's never going to get good again, that's been proven by this point.

We need to insist on quality in our coaching, not sometimes, not every so often, consistently. And quality shows up in performance, which is ONLY judges by wins and losses, not some nerd's diagram of a "good play" over at Cowardly Goober Blogs.

Seriously... leave the CGB garbage over on their pathetic little circlejerk site.