Most of my frustration with Tedford centers around three areas:

1. Sticking with Maynard (this is by far No. 1 for me since it is so reminiscent of Longshore, post-injury)
2. Not playing Bigelow
3. Game decisions (fourth and one, FG when down 13 late, punting down 10, etc.)

These all could be easily changed overnight.

So if he benched Maynard, gave Bigelow ten+ carries, made some logical decisions and they somehow managed to win three or four games (but missed a bowl), would you keep him around for a year?

Yes, if at least 4, more positively if 5
Go Bears!

You lost me at "overnight"

You're in denial.

[SIZE="4"]There will be no turnaround.[/SIZE]

The fracture didn't happen overnight, and change won't either.

Oh my, what a sweet world this would be!

:tedford

GB54;841966665 said:

---

You lost me at "overnight"

---

LOL. You made it further than me GB54. I was lost at " changed "

Your memory is short.

Review the last 5-years and see if there's any chance of a turn-around. This is systemic problem not just a single-season problem.

GB54;841966665 said:

---

You lost me at "overnight"

---

Sorry, I meant to say if the changes (QB, RB, etc.) were made "overnight". And, I don't think 3-4 wins is a possibility, but this is a hypothetical question.

Oh, and I do think that announcing a HC change now, but letting JT finish out the season is the way to go. I was just worrying about the possibility of JT making the above changes and saving his job.

Robocheme;841966660 said:

---

Most of my frustration with Tedford centers around three areas:

1. Sticking with Maynard (this is by far No. 1 for me since it is so reminiscent of Longshore, post-injury)
2. Not playing Bigelow
3. Game decisions (fourth and one, FG when down 13 late, punting down 10, etc.)

These all could be easily changed overnight.

So if he benched Maynard, gave Bigelow ten+ carries, made some logical decisions and they somehow managed to win three or four games (but missed a bowl), would you keep him around for a year?

---

#3. For the record, Tedford's game management has been terrible for about six years running. This should not be a revelation for anyone and certainly not something he could turn around -he's clueless.

SmellinRoses;841966713 said:

---

#3. For the record, Tedford's game management has been terrible for about six years running. This should not be a revelation for anyone and certainly not something he could turn around -he's clueless.

---

I'd argue that his game management has been abysmal since 2002. After that first year, he's been conservative ever since. We almost blew a 21 point lead at home agains u$c, playing not to lose in 2003. In 2004, we had so much talent, even his poor game management decisions couldn't hurt us that much. Go back and watch the games and you'll see what I mean.

Robocheme;841966660 said:

---

Most of my frustration with Tedford centers around three areas:

1. Sticking with Maynard (this is by far No. 1 for me since it is so reminiscent of Longshore, post-injury)
2. Not playing Bigelow
3. Game decisions (fourth and one, FG when down 13 late, punting down 10, etc.)

These all could be easily changed overnight.

So if he benched Maynard, gave Bigelow ten+ carries, made some logical decisions and they somehow managed to win three or four games (but missed a bowl), would you keep him around for a year?

---

If if if if if.......

If we actually make it to the Rose Bowl this year, would it change my mind that we wouldn't make it to the Rose Bowl this year?

He would have to win the rest of the games for me to want Tedford back. We've had mediocre (last year) to slightly above mediocre (Hunger Bowl) seasons recently. Tedford is very capable of those (yet this season it seems he may not even be capable of that). That's not why we invested $321M and $2.3M with incentives all over the place -- to go to middling bowl games and not compete for the Rose Bowl.

bearsandgiants;841966730 said:

---

I'd argue that his game management has been abysmal since 2002. After that first year, he's been conservative ever since. We almost blew a 21 point lead at home agains u$c, playing not to lose in 2003. In 2004, we had so much talent, even his poor game management decisions couldn't hurt us that much. Go back and watch the games and you'll see what I mean.

---

:tedford

Robocheme;841966660 said:

---

Most of my frustration with Tedford centers around three areas:

1. Sticking with Maynard (this is by far No. 1 for me since it is so reminiscent of Longshore, post-injury)
2. Not playing Bigelow
3. Game decisions (fourth and one, FG when down 13 late, punting down 10, etc.)

These all could be easily changed overnight.

So if he benched Maynard, gave Bigelow ten+ carries, made some logical decisions and they somehow managed to win three or four games (but missed a bowl), would you keep him around for a year?

---

The difference between #1 and #2 and this year and 2007 is we saw Riley play against OSU and he played really well except for a bad decision as the clock ran down at the end. The only back-up we have seen in the past two years is Bridgford, and in each of the five times he as had a chance he has completed a lower percentage of his passes than Maynard--he played poorly against Presbyterian--he played most of the first quarter against Nevada and had 8 yards total. Maybe the problem is someone potentially better is on the bench. Bridgford is a pocket passer and we have no pocket, but maybe Hinder or Boehm or even Kline have enough mobility to avoid the rush and display a better arm?

Bigelow on the other hand, like Riley in 2007, has SHOWN what he can do in games.

As others have noted, Tedford has never been a great in game decision maker. Our best teams won by huge margins.

bearsandgiants;841966730 said:

---

I'd argue that his game management has been abysmal since 2002. After that first year, he's been conservative ever since. We almost blew a 21 point lead at home agains u$c, playing not to lose in 2003. In 2004, we had so much talent, even his poor game management decisions couldn't hurt us that much. Go back and watch the games and you'll see what I mean.

---

The kicker is that for the 2003 game it was [U]Pete Carroll[/U] of all people that blew it by being uber-conservative. $C had us on the ropes with minutes/seconds left in regulation down 3. I think they got to red zone and they decided to stop attacking the end zone, and instead decided to maximize their field position for a FGA to send the game into OT. They could have put us away. It gave us new life and encouragement -- and we took hold of the opportunity they gave us. I have to believe that Carroll's gunslinger mentality thereafter was shaped by the failure in that game.

You see how that works, JT? When the other team is encouraged by your decisions (Furd in 2009, tOSU, not giving Bigs more carries v. $C, no carried v. ASU), that should be the acid test as to whether it's a good idea or not.

KoreAmBear;841966987 said:

---

He would have to win the rest of the games for me to want Tedford back. We've had mediocre (last year) to slightly above mediocre (Hunger Bowl) seasons recently. Tedford is very capable of those (yet this season it seems he may not even be capable of that). That's not why we invested $321M and $2.3M with incentives all over the place -- to go to middling bowl games and not compete for the Rose Bowl.

---

If we won the rest of our games and went to and won the Rose Bowl--all would be forgiven.

I would forgive, not just because he finally got us to the Rose Bowl, but also because to do that he would have to make some serious changes in the way he does things--that would make him the coach that we want, instead of what we are seeing now, so there would be no need to replace him.

calumnus;841967012 said:

---

If we won the rest of our games and went to and won the Rose Bowl--all would be forgiven.

I would forgive, not just because he finally got us to the Rose Bowl, but also because to do that he would have to make some serious changes in the way he does things--that would make him the coach that we want, instead of what we are seeing now, so there would be no need to replace him.

---

Almost anything would be forgiven short of murder if someone lead us to the Rose Bowl.

Winning all remaining regular season games would do it for me. Otherwise, no.

sycasey;841967018 said:

---

Winning all remaining regular season games would do it for me. Otherwise, no.

---

That would probably put us in contention for the Pac-12 North title because we could have all tie-breaks if the other North teams (read, Oregon and Oregon State) just lost 2 like we theoretically would. Nah, don't even want to spend any energy thinking about this.

No way. After 11 years, JT needed to get us to a Rose Bowl by now. I don't see how 3-4 wins with the talent we have would make me believe he will ever get us there.

If JT makes needed changes overnight under threat of being fired when he wasn't willing to make them over the past few years, then nothing has really changed. So no I don't think my feelings will change because clearly his feelings won't have really changed. And my concern would be that, once the pressure is off, that he will revert back to what he really believes.

SmellinRoses;841966713 said:

---

#3. For the record, Tedford's game management has been terrible for about six years running. This should not be a revelation for anyone and certainly not something he could turn around -he's clueless.

---

No. 10+ years is too long, lousy conference record, absolute predictability by our opponents, need I go on

The question posed is akin to: Will Jupiter and Mercury collide before the UCLA game Saturday?

The answer to both questions is NO. End of futile academic exercise.

Overnight slumber party at best

I think people here are losing perspective.

If JT did all of those things and won all his games then people would be happy but really, really confused. They would ask why this happened. Off season would be very interesting.

Let's say 2013 rolls around and we get off to another 1-4 start. It will be the same thing all over again with people asking for his head. There will be this glimmer of hope that he totally turns things around but all would NOT be forgiven. I'm not saying I, personally, would hold it against him. The anger here has been building for far too long for people to forgive him so "easily."

Honestly it would probably take several years of sustained excellence and an established pattern before people here truly "forgive" him.

1979bear;841967539 said:

---

The question posed is akin to: Will Jupiter and Mercury collide before the UCLA game Saturday?

The answer to both questions is NO. End of futile academic exercise.

---

If the team decides to play, and play hard, we beat UCLA. It won't be a coach's decision, it will be a team decision. It could happen.

AirOski;841967579 said:

---

If the team decides to play, and play hard, we beat UCLA. It won't be a coach's decision, it will be a team decision. It could happen.

---

I love this. I believe this. Thanks for posting this. GO BEARS!!!

Robocheme;841966660 said:

---

Most of my frustration with Tedford centers around three areas:

1. Sticking with Maynard (this is by far No. 1 for me since it is so reminiscent of Longshore, post-injury)
2. Not playing Bigelow
3. Game decisions (fourth and one, FG when down 13 late, punting down 10, etc.)

These all could be easily changed overnight.

So if he benched Maynard, gave Bigelow ten+ carries, made some logical decisions and they somehow managed to win three or four games (but missed a bowl), would you keep him around for a year?

---

The problem with 1. is we may not have a quarterback that's better. It isn't Bridgeford that should be obvious. I don't have a problem looking for one, but the odds are probably better than even money that the position is going to get worse not better.

I have no problem with 2. I think 2 is hurting Tedford more this year than his won loss record. It's one thing to lose, but to lose when your most dynamic offensive player is on the bench and everyone can see it is like trying to put a fire out with lighter fluid.

Number 3 is simply not in his DNA. It would be impossible for him to do it. You're not describing Tedford. Number 3 is fantasy land. Might as well say that Maynard starts playing like Aaron Rodgers and Rigsby starts blocking like Ryan O'Callahan.

pappysghost;841967653 said:

---

The problem with 1. is we may not have a quarterback that's better. It isn't Bridgford that should be obvious. I don't have a problem looking for one, but the odds are probably better than even money that the position is going to get worse not better.

---

The only reason that ZM is "better" than everyone else we have is because of the complete all-in approach he took with ZM since the fall of 2011. It's not like he even beat out Bridgford, per that one insider who used to attend the spring camp and reported back to us. I recall it being a dead-heat and Tedford broke it because ZM had the element of running and athleticism, which turned out to be a complete red herring. It should have been clear during the Oregon game, $C game and esp. the UCLA games in 2011 that he wasn't "it". We should have been phasing in more reps for AB, Hinder or Boehm. But most of Tedford's capital went into ZM and this is the return you get. I'm 100% sure that one of Bridgford, Hinder, Boehm, and/or Kline would have and will be better than what we're getting from ZM last year and up until now. Why? Because these guys weren't recruited by FCS programs. The chance that all 4 are FCS level QBs (which is what ZM essentially is) is zero. Yes, there is a chance that one of these guys is a Mansion, but not all four. I don't blame Zach at all. I actually think he's a decent enough kid and kudos to him for going after his dream - few of us have ever gone that far to make it to big time college football, and to be the starting QB to boot. It's Tedford who decided that he would rest his career on the arm of ZM.

Tree Cutter;841966673 said:

---

Your memory is short.

Review the last 5-years and see if there's any chance of a turn-around. This is systemic problem not just a single-season problem.

---

No one else on this board seems to understand that this dates all the way back to 2007. Without Jahvid Best covering up JT's failings in 2008 the we wouldn't have even made it all the way to the Mac & Cheese Bowl. The picture should have been clearer for people at the end of 2009 without Best. Does everyone really consider 2009 a success? 8-5 and losing the Poinsettis Bowl to a non-BCS school is good?

Sheesh.

Robocheme;841966660 said:

---

Most of my frustration with Tedford centers around three areas:

1. Sticking with Maynard (this is by far No. 1 for me since it is so reminiscent of Longshore, post-injury)
2. Not playing Bigelow
3. Game decisions (fourth and one, FG when down 13 late, punting down 10, etc.)

These all could be easily changed overnight.

So if he benched Maynard, gave Bigelow ten+ carries, made some logical decisions and they somehow managed to win three or four games (but missed a bowl), would you keep him around for a year?

---

Better you should pull one of your teeth, put it under your pillow and hope to capture the tooth fairy and have carnal knowledge of her (or him).
Hapless, hopeless meanderings through the would, could, should maze is dangerous to your mental stability.

KoreAmBear;841967753 said:

---

The only reason that ZM is "better" than everyone else we have is because of the complete all-in approach he took with ZM since the fall of 2011. It's not like he even beat out Bridgford, per that one insider who used to attend the spring camp and reported back to us. I recall it being a dead-heat and Tedford broke it because ZM had the element of running and athleticism, which turned out to be a complete red herring. It should have been clear during the Oregon game, $C game and esp. the UCLA games in 2011 that he wasn't "it". We should have been phasing in more reps for AB, Hinder or Boehm. But most of Tedford's capital went into ZM and this is the return you get. I'm 100% sure that one of Bridgford, Hinder, Boehm, and/or Kline would have and will be better than what we're getting from ZM last year and up until now. Why? Because these guys weren't recruited by FCS programs. The chance that all 4 are FCS level QBs (which is what ZM essentially is) is zero. Yes, there is a chance that one of these guys is a Mansion, but not all four. I don't blame Zach at all. I actually think he's a decent enough kid and kudos to him for going after his dream - few of us have ever gone that far to make it to big time college football, and to be the starting QB to boot. It's Tedford who decided that he would rest his career on the arm of ZM.

---

If we could go back and make different decisions, things might be different, but we can't you have to deal with where you are at each step looking forward.

Even in the Spring Game the order of best looking QBs were: 1) Maynard 2) Kline 3) Hinder 4) Boehm 5) Bridgford

If a guy who just entered school (and should still be in high school) looks better than you running the offense after you have been in the program 3 years, can you really use Tedford not "investing enough capital" in him as his excuse for that, and his poor performances in games?

Kevin Riley had just jumped Reed on the depth chart when he made his first college start against OSU in 2007 and he looked really good. He had less capital "invested" in him than Bridgford or Hinder. Even Levy looked pretty good when he came in.

The first step is trying someone else out as the #2 (and have that be Kline if he if really the best) and then getting them a chance to show what they can do in the game if Maynard is struggling. Maybe Hinder because of his mobility?
But if Kline is the best and is the odds on favorite to start next year, there is no way he should be redshirted. He should be the #2 with a chance to come in and make something happen when Maynard is struggling and if he looks, good-start the Zach Kline era early.