Freshfunk, just admit that you were wrong!

CalBear1998;841988635 said:

---

Bigs could also have blown out his acl for the 3rd time

---

Perhaps Bigs should retire? We don't want him to blow out his acl by playing a silly football game.

Cf98251;841988623 said:

---

Freshfunk, did you watch the SC game? Even if you did, go back and watch it again. Every time Bigs touched the ball (all 4 of them!!!), he averaged nearly ten yards per carry. You cannot possibly tell us that he could not have made much difference, that we could not have beaten SC if Bigs was on the field for most of our plays and got 20 or more carries. After all, we were right there even in the 4th quarter.

After saying this, I think you guys should go easy on Freshfunk. I understand your anger toward our coach but group bullying Freshfunk for his opinions is pretty churlish.

---

Yes, I did watch the game. I recall USC's running back running all over us. Like I've said on other threads, our ILB play is pretty soft. I also recall being unable to put much pressure on Barkley. I also recall being unable to shutdown Lee or Woods.

Their DL manhandled our OL. If you want to have any meaningful running game, you need some semblance of an OL. I don't know any offense that is built around an OL that is a sieve. You can do things to mitigate it but it's not a winning formula.

In that thread, Calumnus made the point that Biggie as a running threat could've changed the dynamics of the game. I said that that was a fair point. But that's somewhat of a weak point and, to me, it's more obvious that we were being dominated at every position and that their players (individually and as a whole) are far better than ours.

After all, was 2012 the fluke? How many times have we beat $C in the last 10 years? We've had running backs better than Biggie during that time who had plenty of game time and we still lost convincingly.

CalBear1998;841988632 said:

---

This is a bit of a leading question. Very little dust has settled at this point. JT has taught people how to coach. Yes, he put too much recruiting responsibility on one of his pupils (Tosh) because he did not anticipate anyone increasing his salary 10-fold. I don't think any coach would.



This is a bit childish and I'm starting to get the impression I'm wasting my time talking to some young lakers/yankees fans who don't really know what it means to support cal football on a long term basis.

To put it simply, the past 10 months has been a crisis. And when confronted with a crisis, the adult thing to do is to wait for the facts to come to the surface and then investigate what caused it so it can be prevented in the future. The childish thing to do is run away or try to sweep it all under the carpet. Cleaning house is childish in my opinion and will not do our program any long-term good.

---

That was meant to be sarcastic and not serious. Anyways, you say JT's pinnacle was 10 month ago, I'd say his pinnacle was OSU game in 2007. From your perspective, 10 months is too short to throw JT out, from many other people's perspective, 5 years is too long to deal with below mediocrity (and rapidly declining).

CalBear1998;841988632 said:

---

This is a bit of a leading question. Very little dust has settled at this point. JT has taught people how to coach. Yes, he put too much recruiting responsibility on one of his pupils (Tosh) because he did not anticipate anyone increasing his salary 10-fold. I don't think any coach would.



This is a bit childish and I'm starting to get the impression I'm wasting my time talking to some young lakers/yankees fans who don't really know what it means to support cal football on a long term basis.

---

You are wasting your time. My guess is that you are talking to fans who haven't voted in two presidential elections. I used to know everything, too, at that age.

CB1998 and FF, I appreciate your contributions to the board.

MisterNoodle;841988642 said:

---

You are wasting your time. My guess is that you are talking to fans who haven't voted in two presidential elections. I used to know everything, too, at that age.

CB1998 and FF, I appreciate your contributions to the board.

---

Way to assume, as in making yourself look like an ass. I've voted in the last several elections (even the non-presidential election years, who would have thought?).

I guess another low information fan supporting freshfunk's cause.

SkyBear;841988647 said:

---

Argumentum ad hominem.

---

But you are young, though.

SkyBear;841988650 said:

---

Yet another argumentum ad hominem.

---

Still not disputing the fact.

SkyBear;841988653 said:

---

An irrelevant "fact" that has nothing to do with the thread, or Cal football.

---

And there you have it.

CalBear1998;841988644 said:

---

Seeing how we like to exaggerate:

So when you're HC, your every down back will be a true-soph who had 2 acl surgeries in HS?

---

Right now, he gets 1 maybe 2 touches if he's lucky. Plus:

1. Coach says he's 100% healed and does not affect his play
2. He's 2 years removed from ACL surgery, more than enough time to recover
3. He was healthy all of last year and this year (but we're just tempting fate right?)
4. Coach says he's not playing because he doesn't know the plays or scheme or whatever other excuse he has but never mentioned ACL as an issue.

If you can win you put the players in that can win. Injuries happen, it's part of the game. I'm sure if you ask Bigelow if he wants more carries he would say yes.

I'm not straight out asking for a full load, but jezzuz 2 carries? Why even play him? Is his ACL injuries contagious?

CalBear1998;841988665 said:

---

I do not think any of the accomplishments during the 2007 season were as significant as what JT accomplished 10 months ago at the US Army All-American Game. In fact, if you or anyone else on this board really believes any of JT's prior accomplishments were even in the same ballpark as what he accomplished last January, you really know absolutely nothing about college football.

---

If JT won that game, Cal would have been #1 in the AP and Coaches Poll.

This is less significant than signing up a bunch of All-Americans? Are you kidding me????

Sorry, the only football stat that counts for me is Wins, not how many all-american non-binding verbally commit to you at the same time. I count my chickens when they hatch.

There really is nothing more meaningful to discuss on this with you. You can go count the moral victories, I'll count the real ones.

freshfunk;841988640 said:

---

Yes, I did watch the game. I recall USC's running back running all over us. Like I've said on other threads, our ILB play is pretty soft. I also recall being unable to put much pressure on Barkley. I also recall being unable to shutdown Lee or Woods.

Their DL manhandled our OL. If you want to have any meaningful running game, you need some semblance of an OL. I don't know any offense that is built around an OL that is a sieve. You can do things to mitigate it but it's not a winning formula.

In that thread, Calumnus made the point that Biggie as a running threat could've changed the dynamics of the game. I said that that was a fair point. But that's somewhat of a weak point and, to me, it's more obvious that we were being dominated at every position and that their players (individually and as a whole) are far better than ours.

After all, was 2012 the fluke? How many times have we beat $C in the last 10 years? We've had running backs better than Biggie during that time who had plenty of game time and we still lost convincingly.

---

First of all, you claim that "we were being dominated," but then how were we only down by 8 points in the 4th quarter! with a chance to possibly tie the game? Alabama beating MSU by 30 points was a domination, because MSU was out of it in the first quarter. Again, just think, my friend, even though Bigs hardly saw the field, we were down by only 8 in the fourth quarter.

Second, you say SC's DL manhandled our OL, which I kind of agree, but then how was Bigs able to average nearly ten yards per carry? Can't you admit that Bigs' abilities are so special, the way he hits the hole is so lighting quick, that even the weak OL did not really matter when he was on the field? Again, even though SC's DL manhandled our OL, Bigs was able to gain nearly ten yards per carry. Explain that to me.

Third, yes I agree that there is a slight talent disparity between SC and Cal, but that disparity is larger between SC and Stanford, yet the Cardinal has SC' number, because Stanford uses their strength, which are powerful running game and stout defensive front, to their advantage. Cal's strength this year is absolutely Bigs' speed and the ability to hit the hole and then out run everyone else. Can you possibly tell me that we used our biggest strength to our advantage against SC? If Bigs was on the field for every play, I bet you even Maynard would had a pretty decent day, because their defense would had to think about Bigs running past them on every play, which would have opened up our passing game.

Finally, unfortunately Lynch and Best played for Cal when the SC machine under Carroll was the strongest. If we had Lynch or Best on our team this year against this year's SC team, I am pretty certain that we would have won the game. So, just because we lost previously to SC does not mean we would have lost this year too. BTW, I sincerely believe that Bigelow is just as special as Lynch and Best, so I would not say they were "better" than Bigelow just yet. Let's see what happens next year.

Cheers, brother!

CalBear1998;841988685 said:

---

I am not talking about moral victories. I'm not talking about being ranked #1 for a week in 2007. I'm talking about recruiting. The pinnacle of The Jeff Tedford Era was getting all those commitments on national TV in January 2012 at the US Army All-American Game. Cal football's previous pinnacle was in 1991 when Bruce Snyder was going to have one of the top recruiting classes in the nation for 1992. Within months of both pinnacles, we had a crisis and no one knows why. The only way to find the reason is to wait for the dust to settle and examine the evidence. I know this. JT knows this. If the fans are too dumb to know this then he would rather leave anyways. But none of us have that luxury. If we clean house, all the evidence will be gone and we won't know the cause. And the next time we reach a pinnacle, the same thing is going to happen because we won't know how to prevent it. I really cannot talk to you about this anymore at this point because I am trying to learn from a catastrophe whereas you are trying to find someone to hold accountable for it. We really have no direct line of communication on this and it is frustrating for both of us.

---

I'm pretty familiar with catastrophe (ie premium membership and my network) and the blame assignment is not even contentious. The dust is just noise, but please go wait for the pictures of Osama bin laden's body before you confirm he is once and for all dead.

CalBear1998;841988521 said:

---

There is something strange hapening but I don't know what it is. JT's greatest moment was just 10 months ago when all those blue-chippers committed to us at the US Army All-American game.

Until you show me the brain MRI with radiologist's signed report, I like freshfunk am going to have a difficult time believing JT somehow forgot how to coach.

---

You're confusing process with results. A guy could be the slickest talker, the greatest motivator, the best analyst of X's and O's, the craftiest play caller, but if the last four years are full of losses and things are no better or even worse than they were, he's gotta go.

Doesn't matter how smart or likable he appears to be; he's not getting it done.

Rushinbear;841988717 said:

---

You're confusing process with results. A guy could be the slickest talker, the greatest motivator, the best analyst of X's and O's, the craftiest play caller, but if the last four years are full of losses and things are no better or even worse than they were, he's gotta go.

Doesn't matter how smart or likable he appears to be; he's not getting it done.

---

Wait, you mean we don't get a trophy for having the most all American decommits?

CalBear1998;841988685 said:

---

I am not talking about moral victories. I'm not talking about being ranked #1 for a week in 2007. I'm talking about recruiting. The pinnacle of The Jeff Tedford Era was getting all those commitments on national TV in January 2012 at the US Army All-American Game. Cal football's previous pinnacle was in 1991 when Bruce Snyder was going to have one of the top recruiting classes in the nation for 1992. Within months of both pinnacles, we had a crisis and no one knows why. The only way to find the reason is to wait for the dust to settle and examine the evidence. I know this. JT knows this. If the fans are too dumb to know this then he would rather leave anyways. But none of us have that luxury. If we clean house, all the evidence will be gone and we won't know the cause. And the next time we reach a pinnacle, the same thing is going to happen because we won't know how to prevent it. I really cannot talk to you about this anymore at this point because I am trying to learn from a catastrophe whereas you are trying to find someone to hold accountable for it. We really have no direct line of communication on this and it is frustrating for both of us.

---

"No one knows why?" "Wait for the dust to settle?"

This isn't rocket science.

We had a great coach in 1992 who knew how to scout and develop talent (he was ridiculed for signing Pawlawski who had been called the "worst recruit" in the conference and then coached him up to offensive POY and two bowl victories). The incoming recruits (including Jake Plummer and future Heisman winner Rashaan Saalam) went elsewhere when the coach wasn't retained.

Similarly, in 2011 we had verbal commits from an impressive group of 4 & 5-star players who had developed a relationship with an assistant who chose to leave; they had no feelings of loyalty to the program itself (and the coach then began negatively recruiting them away from Cal, which happened to be his own alma mater).

Retaining this staff is not going to reveal anything we don't already know, and may result in the worst recruiting class in over 10 years. Cal presents an attractive option for prospective coaches because of our location, facilities, and players; as recruiting declines so will our attractiveness.

The lesson to learn is to make greater effort to retain coaches who are on the verge of bringing in a fabulous recruiting class. If Tedford & Co. have a great class ready to sign in 2013, then we should keep him/them despite this years abysmal performance; if not, we need to cut out losses.

freshfunk;841988503 said:

---

Unless you're writing a check or JT resigns, he's still HC. No amount of flaming here will change that.

---

Precisely.

To re-iterate a week-ago post, how's that Tedford working for us ever since he signed that contract extension?

This is all on Sandy, and when there is a change at the top of the football program, it should be a two-fer.

southseasbear;841988768 said:

---

If Tedford & Co. have a great class ready to sign in 2013, then we should keep him/them despite this years abysmal performance; if not, we need to cut out losses.

---

You gotta be kiddin' us, right?

Cf98251;841988623 said:

---

After saying this, I think you guys should go easy on Freshfunk. I understand your anger toward our coach but group bullying Freshfunk for his opinions is pretty churlish.

---

The level of discourse on this board is pretty impressive. One wouldn't find the use of the word "churlish" on most other boards, especially boards representing those fans who went to SC and its ilk.

Now if we could only find a way to bring up our football program!

CalBear1998;841988685 said:

---

I am not talking about moral victories. I'm not talking about being ranked #1 for a week in 2007. I'm talking about recruiting. The pinnacle of The Jeff Tedford Era was getting all those commitments on national TV in January 2012 at the US Army All-American Game. Cal football's previous pinnacle was in 1991 when Bruce Snyder was going to have one of the top recruiting classes in the nation for 1992. Within months of both pinnacles, we had a crisis and no one knows why. The only way to find the reason is to wait for the dust to settle and examine the evidence. I know this. JT knows this. If the fans are too dumb to know this then he would rather leave anyways. But none of us have that luxury. If we clean house, all the evidence will be gone and we won't know the cause. And the next time we reach a pinnacle, the same thing is going to happen because we won't know how to prevent it. I really cannot talk to you about this anymore at this point because I am trying to learn from a catastrophe whereas you are trying to find someone to hold accountable for it. We really have no direct line of communication on this and it is frustrating for both of us.

---

Dude just stop with this inane "pinnacle" argument.

Cf98251;841988679 said:

---

First of all, you claim that "we were being dominated," but then how were we only down by 8 points in the 4th quarter! with a chance to possibly tie the game? Alabama beating MSU by 30 points was a domination, because MSU was out of it in the first quarter. Again, just think, my friend, even though Bigs hardly saw the field, we were down by only 8 in the fourth quarter.

---

By "dominated", I mean physically dominated. The score really doesn't tell the whole story. The only reason why it was so close was because of 2 costly turnovers by $C (1 I distinctly remember happening in the end zone). We were lucky the point total was so close for so long.

Quote:

---

Second, you say SC's DL manhandled our OL, which I kind of agree, but then how was Bigs able to average nearly ten yards per carry? Can't you admit that Bigs' abilities are so special, the way he hits the hole is so lighting quick, that even the weak OL did not really matter when he was on the field? Again, even though SC's DL manhandled our OL, Bigs was able to gain nearly ten yards per carry. Explain that to me.

---

I don't recall his specific play against $C but Biggie does have the ability to turn something out of nothing. He's done it time and time again.

However, this is something I would expect him to do once or twice a game. It's not something I expect him to do every single time he touches the ball. His successes stick out because they are exceptional. Yet we've seen him hit a line that can't produce a gap and him tackled for a loss. See the beginning of the UCLA game. We've also seen him contained when he tried to use his speed on the edge when the defense stays disciplined. See 'furd.

Quote:

---

Third, yes I agree that there is a slight talent disparity between SC and Cal, but that disparity is larger between SC and Stanford, yet the Cardinal has SC' number, because Stanford uses their strength, which are powerful running game and stout defensive front, to their advantage. Cal's strength this year is absolutely Bigs' speed and the ability to hit the hole and then out run everyone else. Can you possibly tell me that we used our biggest strength to our advantage against SC? If Bigs was on the field for every play, I bet you even Maynard would had a pretty decent day, because their defense would had to think about Bigs running past them on every play, which would have opened up our passing game.

---

This goes back to needing an OL to have a running game in the first place. No matter what RB you have, if your OL is whiffing on blocks then the opposing DL WILL get to your RB.

Quote:

---

Finally, unfortunately Lynch and Best played for Cal when the SC machine under Carroll was the strongest. If we had Lynch or Best on our team this year against this year's SC team, I am pretty certain that we would have won the game. So, just because we lost previously to SC does not mean we would have lost this year too. BTW, I sincerely believe that Bigelow is just as special as Lynch and Best, so I would not say they were "better" than Bigelow just yet. Let's see what happens next year.

Cheers, brother!

---

You're certain we would've won this game? Why's that? Because the only reason why we lost that game was because of our running game?

Look at our record this year. We're mediocre to weak in all three phases of the game. If we had a stout defense, then I would agree a win was possible. But the last 10 years of losses (oh right, 1 win which happened in OT) tells the real story.

In most people's predictions, they had us rightly losing to $C. That was before the season started when everyone was optimistic.

Sadly, people like to hold out for a win against $C. Otherwise why the rage over the loss? Because we didn't look good? Playing against good defenses have a way of making you look bad. The only time you look good in a loss is if it's a close game which I doubt people were predicting. The other explanation is that the level of rage over the loss is just an opportunity for negas to pile on.

freshfunk;841988840 said:

---

I don't recall his specific play against $C but Biggie does have the ability to turn something out of nothing. He's done it time and time again.

However, this is something I would expect him to do once or twice a game. It's not something I expect him to do every single time he touches the ball.

---

Are you satisfied rafterfan180?

Now we can expect to continue to get these brilliant pearls of football knowledge from the apologist and revisionist extraordinaire, freshfunk.