BearsLair72;841982302 said:
Well, here is the answer:
And if you think a QB can't be better under a new coach here is another one for you:
So, let's take that issue off the table, get rid of this boat anchor on the program and take a chance on someone, anyone....
BerlinerBaer;841982504 said:
Our OL needs to be completely rebuilt.
mbBear;841982652 said:
As a fan, what's exciting to me is that the next hire for Cal will have completely different circumstances than ever before: facilities, stadium, and increased revenue (ie. Pac-12 Network) will be resources that previous hires never had. Lastly, Tedford (and for all the venom being spilled over him, put that aside for a moment)will leave Cal in a much better place than most of the new hires have faced-"winning" at Cal isn't seen as impossible, especially by recruits.
okaydo;841982620 said:
I remember a few people said the same thing when Holmoe was fired.
You may not get somebody better.
The thing is, Tedford and his people aren't coaching anymore, or they are not effective in their coaching.
A new coach just needs to get the fundamentals down and he'd be vastly superior to Tedford.
We're at rock bottom here.
mbBear;841982652 said:
As a fan, what's exciting to me is that the next hire for Cal will have completely different circumstances than ever before: facilities, stadium, and increased revenue (ie. Pac-12 Network) will be resources that previous hires never had. Lastly, Tedford (and for all the venom being spilled over him, put that aside for a moment)will leave Cal in a much better place than most of the new hires have faced-"winning" at Cal isn't seen as impossible, especially by recruits.
okaydo;841982620 said:
I remember a few people said the same thing when Holmoe was fired.
You may not get somebody better.
The thing is, Tedford and his people aren't coaching anymore, or they are not effective in their coaching.
A new coach just needs to get the fundamentals down and he'd be vastly superior to Tedford.
We're at rock bottom here.
And what I mean by rock bottom is nothing's changing. Even really horribly mediocre coaches would've made a QB change by now. Or done something dramatic to shake up the team.
Tedford is sticking to his guns as we dive off a cliff (I can't think of the proper saying this late at night.)
We can only go up.
GB54;841982795 said:
I don't know any organization in the world-other than college football teams-that worries about replacing an incompetent manager with a more incompetent manager. It's retarded.
freshfunk;841983089 said:
If there's a coaching change, I'd be curious to see what happens to recruiting and all the relationships our current coaching staff have built.
BearlyLegal;841982752 said:
Agree with 82grad. Hate the check with me time wasting
Crap. Line up and run a play. Have an identity like Stanford did yesterday and pound a weaker, less confident opponent. We look like baby seals instead of
Bears. Ridiculous.
Phantomfan;841982513 said:
This team is 2 or three years away from being respectable if Tedford leaves. That is assuming part of the problem was recruiting. Any sooner and every sunshinepimper would be forced to kick their own nuts.
FiatSlug;841983153 said:
The same thing was said, and frequently, about the program in 2001 as we stared down the obvious change at head coach at the end of the Holmoe era.
The irony is that the succeeding head coach, one Jeff Tedford, restored respectability in the program the next season. 2002 is only 10 years ago, but it might as well be an entirely different generation.
So much has changed. The big difference between 2002 and 2012: Cal has facilities that do not hold back the program. And there is still talent on the roster.
Cal needs a new head coach and a new coaching staff. I only wish we could be assured that Ron Gould would be held over, again.
Jeff82;841983171 said:
Allegedly, Gould is the one not allowing Bigelow in the game. Therefore, he should go also. Either that, or he should have the nads to open his mouth and say that the lack of touches for Bigelow is in fact Tedford's doing, not his.
FiatSlug;841983153 said:
The same thing was said, and frequently, about the program in 2001 as we stared down the obvious change at head coach at the end of the Holmoe era.
The irony is that the succeeding head coach, one Jeff Tedford, restored respectability in the program the next season. 2002 is only 10 years ago, but it might as well be an entirely different generation.
So much has changed. The big difference between 2002 and 2012: Cal has facilities that do not hold back the program. And there is still talent on the roster.
Cal needs a new head coach and a new coaching staff. I only wish we could be assured that Ron Gould would be held over, again.
GoldenYears;841983204 said:
I wish we could get a fanbase that worries more about who the head coach is than worrying about whether we can retain a RB coach that can't get his most talented RB more than 2 carries in our biggest game.
The whole JT discussion reminds me of the last couple of seasons of Ben Braun -- lots of frustration but also lots of talk of an expensive buyout, about how the alternative could be worse, etc.GB54;841982795 said:
I don't know any organization in the world-other than college football teams-that worries about replacing an incompetent manager with a more incompetent manager. It's retarded.
BearyWhite;841983372 said:
The whole JT discussion reminds me of the last couple of seasons of Ben Braun -- lots of frustration but also lots of talk of an expensive buyout, about how the alternative could be worse, etc.
Then suddenly he was gone, Monty was hired and the rainclouds were swept away, leaving sunny skies in their wake.
82gradDLSdad;841982740 said:
I remember thinking during the ASU game, these guys aren't that good but they just play fundamental football: blocking, tackling, no penalties, no breakdowns. Hell, their QB did not look good but he ran their offense, he completed the easy balls, he didn't throw stupid interceptions, etc. They just played basic football. Sometimes I think the Pac 12 teams, in an effort to match Oregon, have gone over the top trying to run the hurry-up spread instead of just playing basic, fundamental football. Just concentrate on blocking, tackling, special teams and being tough and strong and your team will be good year in and year out. And sometimes, in those magical years, you'll be great. Quit trying to be multiple and confusing the hell out of your players to the point where they forget what the fundamentals of football are.
StillABear;841983274 said:
Whether there are merits or not to retaining Coach Gould, in no way can a new coach be constrained in forming his new staff. As much as our assistants and head coach, for that matter, are good guys, a change has to be made and a complete purging is likely and probably desirable. Our players deserve to be put into a position to win and this staff collectively can no longer do that on even a partially consistent basis.
A change will be made whether it be this year or next. I'm pretty sure that the economic realities of our new facility will have a huge bearing on the decision. I don't think we can afford to have a repeat of the 2001 season, when it was plainly obvious after 2000, if not well before, that Tom Holmoe was in way over his head and the program was sinking fast and no amount of hope would help.
We can and will attract some very highly competent candidates for this premier job. There should be no worry about it getting worse----really how could it?
LethalFang;841983320 said:
I'm not at all convinced that we have no talent on the OL.
Most these guys are 3-4 stars. Even if they are not nasty future NFL first rounders, they should be good enough to hang with other college teams.
We had 2-star players on Holmoe's line, and even they held their own when they got better coaching, and none of them was a high NFL pick.
I expect us to be a bona fide top 25 team next year (without Tedford of course).
Jeff82;841983171 said:
Allegedly, Gould is the one not allowing Bigelow in the game. Therefore, he should go also. Either that, or he should have the nads to open his mouth and say that the lack of touches for Bigelow is in fact Tedford's doing, not his.
