A view of a coach (Long) - discussion about Tedford

2,694 Views | 15 Replies | Last: 13 yr ago by sycasey
mvargus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is little question that right now the performance of the Cal Bears has been extremely disappointing and that the fans are unhappy. Much of the blame for this has to be laid at the feet of Jeff Tedford, who as head coach is ultimately responsible for the preparation of the team. The question then must be, why is a man who was so successful just a decade ago, failing so miserably this year.

I think the start of the answer to this questoin can be found in Tedford's biography. From that you can build a picture of the types of offenses the man was exposed to, and start to theorize what he's looking to do now.

Tedford was a QB for Fresno state and then played several seasons in the CFL in the late 80's early 90's. In my mind this is critical. Back then most teams in the CFL used a variant of what is now called the "Vertical Passing" offense. Good examples of that offense would be the Pittsburgh Stealers back when they had Bradshaw at QB, Swann and Stallworth as the WRs and Harris as the RB, or the Miami Dolphins of the mid-70's back when they had a season where they went 17-0. The Oakland Raiders also used this offense for many years.

This offense is a modificatoin of the smash-mouth philosophy. The change is that in addition to basing the offense around a solid run game, the QB is expected to be able to stretch the defense with long passes. Mobility isn't much of a concern for the QB, and in reality there isn't many reads. When a pass is called, its usually a 7 step drop and then a long pass.

After Tedford retired he became a coach as Fresno State, where he was given credit for the emergence of Trent Dilfer and later David Carr (although he was at Oregon when Carr was a sophomore.). I don't know much about the offense at Fresno state, but back then the conference was not known for fierce defenses. Pocket Passers could do well in the conference.

Tedford moved to Oregon, which is where the QB Guru label was solidified, but here is where you start to see some of the flaws. The 2 QBs he is given credit for coaching were Akili Smith and Joey Harrington. Smith was a mobile QB with indifferent accuracy. Tedford helped Smith stand in the pocket and trust in his blockers. He then helped in the development of the offense that gave Harrington a true chance to shine. Although there were elements of the spread starting to appear, the base of the offense was still a vertical passing scheme.

Then Tedford landed at Cal. He brought in a solid offensive philosophy. The offensive line quickly gelled and gave Kyle Boller plenty of time to throw. the NFL scouts looked at the development of Kyle Boller and declared Tedford a true QB guru because he took a QB that had struggled for years and turned him into a star. But what most people missed was the running game. in 2002 Joe Igber an unheralded RB ran for nearly 1200 yards. It was this that helped the team turn around from the 1-10 season.

2003 and 2004 were definitely the best seasons that Tedford had at Cal. He "discovered" a pocket passing QB in Rodgers who had an accurate and powerful arm. Teams feared the ability that Rodgers had to throw deep and the team had WRs like MacArthur who could stretch defenses. The amount of fear that Rodgers generated was a huge part of why J.J. Arrington ran for more than 2100 yards in 2004.

But 2005 was definitely a mental shock to Tedford. His choice for QB (Longshore) was injured in the first game, and due to the fact that he'd recruited JC transfer QBs twice in the past 3 years he didn't have another pocket passer as a backup. Instead he was forced to play Joe Ayoob. In many ways Ayoob was similar to Akili Smith in that he was a mobile, but inaccurate QB. However, this time Tedford didn't manage to build up Ayoob's confidence quickly. At first Ayoob wasn't terrible, but teams figured out that he didn't have a strong arm. So they developed a simple defense. Stop or slow the running game and crowd all short passing routes.

It worked. Ayoob never did well throwing long, and his confidence shrank as the season progressed. By the end of the season Tedford was forced to replace Ayoob with Steve Levy. There is no questoin in my mind that his had a huge effect on Tedford's psyche. The vertical passing system that he was tied to had failed. Waht bothers me is that it appears he blamed the system, but didn't accept his own problems. The issue was that Ayoob was not the right QB for a vertical passing system. And rather than adjust the system, Tedford tried to force him to play in a system he was not suited for.

So we come to 2006. Tedford having learned the wrong lesson from 2005 brings in Dunbar to add "elements of the spread" to the offense. The funny thing is that Longshore was the perfect QB for a vertical passing scheme.

2007 I think was the final nail in the coffin of what I consider Tedford's "breakdown". Longshore was injured in the Oregon game and then Riley made a mental mistake.

The mental mistake was the big thing. Deep down I believe that Tedford always thought that any QB he coached would be perfect mentally. The discovery that Riley could make a mistake broke him. There is no question in my mind that the reason he kept sending Longshore out in game after game was due to the error Riley made. In Tedford's mind a QB that could make that level of mental mistake was unable to win games, so he stuck with Longshore rather than play Riley.

Since then we've seen this flaw emerge in more than just QB selection. Tedford completely abandoned the idea of holding to just one offense after 2007. But deep down the key elements remained.

The offense is expected to run the ball well.
The QB is expected to have a powerful and accurate arm that teams fear.
The QB is to avoid sacks and if possible avoid hits altogether. Few QB runs are called and the option will not be a huge part of the offense.

----

The funny thing is that I don't believe that Tedford even recognizes what he is doing with the offense anymore. The foundation of his belief in offense systems was damaged in 2005 and destroyed in 2007. since then he has had no focus for his offense. The problems with Bigelow getting playing time is a symptom of the same mental breakdown. Tedford can no longer forgive a mental mistake by an underclassman.

I'll admit I have been down on Tedford since 2007 when he kept sending an injured Longshore out to start in game after game. Anyone watching the team objectively could see that Longshore was unable to step into his throws and was terrified of any additional contact. Teams knew that the long pass was no longer an option for Cal and the offense suffocated under an unrelenting pressure at the LOS.

And that pressure has never ended. The USC game demonstrated it perfectly as USC had their OLB's crowd the LOS and jumping on any outside running plays stuffing Sofele for a loss several times.

I'm pretty sure that Tedford has no idea that this is happening. The lack of a mental anchor for his offense leaves him unable to see the flaws in the offensive play, nor in the talents of the players on the field. In the end, this must be his downfall.
hubear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Valid points,and maybe even spot on.Now add in the dysfunction of the Desean team and the lack of Oline recruitment{Not just blue chippers,but any}a dollop of bad penalties,and Voila.
sbmhsu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think that is a very true. Throw in the addition f coach Marshall that seemed to further destroy our online and we no longer establish a bruising running game like we used to have.

The question I've always had (and why I remained a pumper if you will for so long) is, with a coach that has been through all this, how can he not eventually recover? I guess sometimes its just too much? I think we can all agree there is no hope he returns to the coach he was his first five years
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
+1

I have a hard time believing that the backups have as weak of arm as Maynard. You could see how limited he is on the fly pattern to KA, who was forced to adjust back to the fluttering ball (the pass which drew the PI). What is also the case is that this offense "works" - when we can stretch defenses we force the safeties to play straight up which means we CAN run between the tackles.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I might quibble with certain elements here and there, but generally I think the thrust of this analysis is correct. Something happened to JT in 2007 and he took all the wrong lessons from the collapse that season. Instead of getting back to his bread-and-butter and reinforcing the kind of simple-but-effective offense that allowed someone like Boller to instantly thrive and the players to have fun, he went and added more complexity and tightened the screws further, which slowly started the decline everywhere: the QBs couldn't handle the (increasingly difficult) system, the O-line couldn't handle the blocking schemes, talented backups at all positions couldn't get in the game because they didn't know the whole playbook, etc.

Now we see what happens when there has been too much failure and the players are no longer bought into it (this first started happening in 2009): dissension in the ranks and sloppy play everywhere.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When he first came in, the players were desperate for a new direction. JT, with his first assistants, provided that. Game day adjustments shortcomings were evident from the start, however.

Recruiting bumped up due to enthusiastic young assistants selling a mirage. The accedental recruitment of A. Rogers further extended false image of Cal football. A couple of years of really good recruiting came out of those first few winning seasons, leading up to a ridiculous, long term, guaranteed contract awarded to JT for stumbling to a victory over a Big Name, .500 team in the frigging Food Nut Bowl.


The vast majority of fans were so enthralled with the new false image of Cal Football as a elite program that they labeled those who questioned the coaching in the program as heretics, and had them banned.

So here we are.

:tedford
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Was 2008 really THAT bad? We lost road games at USC, Oregon State, and Arizona, and the Maryland debacle. OSU wasn't that bad that year. We were about Arizona level. 2008 Toejams finished ranked 6th.

2009 and 2010 were the years of Riley. We all know how that turned out.
2011 and 2012 will be known as the dark years of Maynard.

In a lot of ways how bleak you see this is how you think about 08. Otherwise you might conclude that the challenge is two "wiffs" in a system that demands high QB play.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie;841964481 said:

Was 2008 really THAT bad? We lost road games at USC, Oregon State, and Arizona, and the Maryland debacle. OSU wasn't that bad that year. We were about Arizona level. 2008 Toejams finished ranked 6th.

2009 and 2010 were the years of Riley. We all know how that turned out.
2011 and 2012 will be known as the dark years of Maynard.

In a lot of ways how bleak you see this is how you think about 08. Otherwise you might conclude that the challenge is two "wiffs" in a system that demands high QB play.


2008 (in terms of total record) was good given the circumstances, but in retrospect it was another part of the continued downfall of JT's offense. We added a bunch of new "wrinkles" that year to little additional success. At the time I thought it was just a "rebuilding" season and we'd get back to something like the 2006 type team shortly. Not so, unfortunately.

Decline doesn't always happen in perfectly linear fashion. Sometimes you show flashes of the old greatness but still keep circling downward.
mvargus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaltownie;841964481 said:

Was 2008 really THAT bad? We lost road games at USC, Oregon State, and Arizona, and the Maryland debacle. OSU wasn't that bad that year. We were about Arizona level. 2008 Toejams finished ranked 6th.

2009 and 2010 were the years of Riley. We all know how that turned out.
2011 and 2012 will be known as the dark years of Maynard.

In a lot of ways how bleak you see this is how you think about 08. Otherwise you might conclude that the challenge is two "wiffs" in a system that demands high QB play.


2008 Kevin Riley started most of the games. Longshore played in several and I think started 1. IF you are counting 2009 and 2010 as Riley years, 2008 is one as well.

And 2008 was still a rebuilding year for most of the conference. UW hadn't turned around yet and UCLA was still suffering from having poor coaches.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ASU played sound football. Their coach is defensive minded and they just didn't make many mistakes. That is how Tedford started: minimize the turnovers, run the ball, pass without sacks or interceptions, play sound defense and you will win more than you lose. And sometimes you will spring the upset against teams that are slightly better than you. When Tedford started to try and expand this he stumbled. Couple that with some horrible coaching hires and the spiraling began. The funny thing is that for Tedford ball (old Tedford ball) to thrive he needed to concentrate on special teams and defense. Keep the low risk, low turnover, ball control offense but win on special teams and play tough defense and you have a pretty good team. Tedford did none of that. Special teams have stayed below average, defense has been hit and miss, and the offense is now a mis-mash that only minimizes yards and points.
Cal Geek
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been wondering about this for awhile, and thought I'd see what you all think.

Has Tedford become more predictable? That is, do opposing coaches now know better what his game plans are, and what plays he will likely run in a given situation?
rjgoode
How long do you want to ignore this user?
spot on analysis here.

interesting quote yesterday from coach graham:

"Coach [Tedford] does a lot of stuff. He's a hard guy to defend. This is the hardest schematic team that we've gone against. There were more big plays due to alignment errors. You've got to give them a lot of credit. There were things that are difficult. They run like 67 different formations."

K.I.S.S. = better execution
BerlinerBaer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bobodeluxe;841964474 said:

When he first came in, the players were desperate for a new direction. JT, with his first assistants, provided that. Game day adjustments shortcomings were evident from the start, however.

Recruiting bumped up due to enthusiastic young assistants selling a mirage. The accedental recruitment of A. Rogers further extended false image of Cal football. A couple of years of really good recruiting came out of those first few winning seasons, leading up to a ridiculous, long term, guaranteed contract awarded to JT for stumbling to a victory over a Big Name, .500 team in the frigging Food Nut Bowl.


The vast majority of fans were so enthralled with the new false image of Cal Football as a elite program that they labeled those who questioned the coaching in the program as heretics, and had them banned.

So here we are.

:tedford


Revisionist history at its finest.

What's with the hyperbole on this board? Tedford needs to be fired. No exaggeration is necessary to argue that point.
HoopDreams
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you have no OL, at least in our pro style offense, you've got no offense.
Therefore if you have a pro style system with a pro style QB you've got massive problems

I think one reason why JT hasn't changed QBs, is because with our OL you need someone who is mobile, can scramble, and can't be a threat as a runner.

Our other QBs (my understanding) is he is our best scrambler and 'dual threat' QB we have.

I said many times before here that I prefer a dual threat QB in a spread offense for several reasons....one of the big ones is it can be successful without a veteran QB and a strong OL.

Dual threat QBs always takes the heat off the rush, and requires the defense to account for the QB as a runner. That's one less rusher, or one less defender in zone pass coverage, or double coverage.

Dual threat QBs takes the pressure off the OL, as there are fewer blitzes, and the mobile QB means they don't need to hold the blocks as long. The OL can therefore be smaller (and so they are hopefully faster/quicker). Look how teams such as TT (and even Nevada) who have smaller lines can still be successful.

If we have a strong OL and a great pro-style QB with enough experience to learn the complex system, then we can be successful. Look to USC for an example. However it's much more difficult for Cal to do this, so I think we should change up our offense.

Look at Oregon and others for a spread offense....they bring in a new QB and hardly skip a beat. UW became instantly relevant with a dual-threat QB. What I like about these offenses also is they get athletes in space, and the defense needs to cover vertically and horizontally, and there's always an outlet receiver when things break down (or the QB can run)
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HoopDreams;841964632 said:

I think one reason why JT hasn't changed QBs, is because with our OL you need someone who is mobile, can scramble, and can't be a threat as a runner.


Except we still aren't running an offense that actually takes advantage of QB mobility. We still have Maynard taking deep drops into a non-existent pocket. If we're going to do that anyway, maybe we should have a QB who is actually a pocket passer.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BerlinerBaer;841964608 said:

Revisionist history at its finest.

What's with the hyperbole on this board? Tedford needs to be fired. No exaggeration is necessary to argue that point.


Agree. Just because we suck now, there is no reason to start pretending that the good seasons were not actually good.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.