Just to clarify: I was not trying to condone or encourage vitriolic hate towards SD. Now, should he be blown out by Nevada, err, Northwestern, my attitude may change. I appologize, carry on...
Face to Face Confrontaions: Player vs. Fan - What Purpose Does It Serve?
11,934 Views |
81 Replies |
Last: 13 yr ago by jordangoldnbear
calumnus;842041264 said:
Well said. People cannot see past their own biases.
The innuendo, slander, rumor-mongering, personal attacks and scape-goating of Cal student athletes on this board is ridiculous.
Yep. I have a highly intelligent friend who has even started to believe this crap. Maybe it's just a coping mechanism (for many here, too), but it really took me by surprise. I try to make myself scarce when I become engrossed, sometimes more effectively than at other times, and maybe we all could do this bit more.
Our Domicile;842041210 said:
First of all, you used the word "senile", not me.
Second of all, how typical for a Cal Fan to blame a 3-9 Season on just two players, ZM and KA. To any neutral Football Fan with a brain that disappointing record points to an entire organizational top-down meltdown at Cal, from Head Coach down to 3rd String Special Teamer.
Attitude? Our team ran onto the field with the American Flag of all symbols. They did that 4th Quarter "jump around" huddle during games. Gould with his Rope looked like he was leading the in-game rallies.
I didn't see a "losing attitude" at all. The results pointed to a loss. The scoreboard did. Losing was caused by a lack of execution, X and O's, a lack of talent at many positions from QB to Oline to even cornerback if you want to get nit-picky (Jimmy and Joes), but the Players never gave up attitude-wise.
For example, Coach Gould is a pure winner, but that couldn't stop his RBs from fumbling at certain times. Isi Sofele is a pure winner and pound-for-pound one of the hardest RBs Cal ever had, but sometimes that ball came out. I don't see a lack of "attitude" at all though.
"Attitude" is chicken-or-the-egg stuff for over-analyzing couch potatoes that see events second- and third-hand and then apply their silly notions of what a "winning" attitude is composed of after looking at the scoreboard. Another example -- Colorado Players want to win as bad any Cal Players in terms of "attitude", but the results are similar.
Here's another example -- the same type of quiet person is "pouting" when he is losing (Maynard), but very "stoic" when winning (Mariota). Swagger is "confidence" when winning, but "thuggish" when losing.
Fans just make up BS to suit and reflect their own values and insecurities. I say take care of Talent and Execution first and then Attitude presents itself afterwards. You can have a "winning" attitude to begin with, but a lack of Talent and Execution will leave you in a position where you are unfairly judged to have a "loser" attitude based on sheer results,.
Once again, tell me how do we measure it? Your handy, dandy "attitude" meter or something?
Did I ever mention the 3-9 season? It is how certain people played, not the record that upset me and many other posters on this board throughout the season. Stop making this about fan bias. The root of this debate goes back to jordan jumping on a parent of a player who said much of the same thing. If we aren't supposed to be criticizing players then what's up with that? I agree that the 3-9 season represents a total breakdown and that the players played with heart. But I also think there was division in the locker room because many felt Maynard didn't really win the job. KA must have had a part in it. So, when someone posts a thread pleading for KA to stay another year. All I did was point out that I didn't think he was a good "fit" under Dykes.
When a player is confronting an official and getting in his face over an obvious penalty-that's a bad attitude. My "attitude meter" is my ability to observe obvious things. It's the same "attitude meter" the announcers have when broadcasting a game. And it is amazing to me how KA could make so many amazing catches when Maynard is at QB but he can't catch a ball in his hands when Bridgford passes the ball. Pretty wierd stuff if you ask me.
Anyway, I know it is asking a lot. But I respectfully ask you to read the Okaydo thread that was closed and the thread asking KA to stay before jumping to conclusions about fan bias. Much of my intention is to flesh out jordan's real feelings after he jumped on Okaydo and, by the way Moragabear, for daring to suggest there were problems in the locker room. Essentially my intention was to protect the player, the parent of the player, Okaydo and Moraga bear from what was a bunch of mindless ranting on the part of jordangoldnbear.
So sorry if I stepped on some toes in the process, but for the life of me I don't know why jordan gets :bravo from calumnus after stuff like that.
I guses if you defend ZM and KA you are OK but if you don't you're not and whatever else you say does not matter.
When it comes to bias, friends of players have much more bias than a fan sitting in the stands. I have no reason to like or dislike ZM or KA. It is only what I observe that informs my opinion.
Anyway I'm sure we will be posting under better circumstances in the coming years. I, for one, am very optimisic about the future.
calumnus;842041264 said:
Well said. People cannot see past their own biases.
The innuendo, slander, rumor-mongering, personal attacks and scape-goating of Cal student athletes on this board is ridiculous. On the basketball board, someone said that Leon Powe was a selfish, thuggish player who "wrested-control of the team from Ben Braun"--in what universe?
What is strange is we see this character assassination over and over, often with some of our best (or not) players: Geoff MacArthur, Marshawn Lynch, Leon Powe, Desean Jackson, Jerome Randall, Patrick Christopher, Kevin Riley, Richard Solomon, Zach Maynard, Brendon Bigelow, Keenan Allen...
Interesting comment when much of this came from a student athlete to start with and then Okaydo and Moragabear were slandered for backing it. Certainly friends of players are going to have a much harder time seeing past their biases than a fan who has no prior association with a player.
jordangoldnbear;842041373 said:
Heartofthebear I love you! For you to spend that much time making up those two posts especially the second one made my day! As far as what you said its easy for you to use words like thug and thuggish when you clearly have never been apart of a team. If I had pushed a furd linemen and got in his face for a late hit on Zach you wouldnt say thats thuggish. You and the CMS would be cheering. Idk why you clearly have it out for Kee and Zach. Family member benched for them? I cant explain why you spent so much time on me only and not the thread topic. We all have our fav players or in the case of the locker room our good friends. Of course some players standup for guys they know better or dorm with ect. The whole spirit of Cal thing made me laugh. Its easy to use magic and the unknown to explain things you dont understand. You can say a guy gave up or whatever you want to say. It does not change the D not getting sacks. The kicker not making kicks. The RB not holding on to the rock. Its a team game! One guy doesnt kill it and one guy doesnt make it. Or two guys. You can blame two guys if that helps you feel better. That locker room and those players know it was a team effort win or lose.
I don't have it out for ZM and KA. I didn't force them to behave the way they do. Very few people believe that ZM should have been the sole starter for 2 yrs. running. But I suppose you think he deserved to be because that is your bias. No I did not enjoy watching ZM force passes to his triple covered brother for 2 yrs. while NFL talent like Marvin Jones and Richard Rodgers were wide open.
Any other head coach would have benched Maynard after the UCLA game last year. But you have the guts to attack JT after he stuck with ZM. That's pretty bunk on your part.
How convenient for KA, who stated before coming to Cal that it was his dream to play with his brother Zach. And, gee, look what happened. There little dream came true. That's what I have a problem with. Yes I have a bias...against biases. I don't think players should be preferring to play with certain players over others.
And don't lecture me about what it means to be on a team. I have a career as a public servent for 15 years running that requires me to be a team player every day. If I favored some coworkers over others it would result in a dangerous situation. In my profession some people have been fired over the kind of antics that you so righteously defend.
Heartofthebear PLEASE leave your career BS at work. Dont bring it here. No one cares what you do. If your not on a D1 football team starting then whatever it doesnt matter at all here. You keep brining up bias bias BIAS yet cleaerly YOU have a bias for going so far out of your way (to post as long winded comments as you so often do) to protect the ideal of a parent of player and his awful rumors. What good do you think it brings here or anywhere? What good comes from saying "he is only starting cause coach likes him!" sounds like High School drama to me. In fact that is what HS kids say "he is only starting because he kisses coaches ass!" im sure. Its easier to blame a coach who is gone and players who are leaving than accept that your player got benched for lack of talent. Instead of shutting up and doing work and proving every one wrong and saying I told you so, this parent and player lobby the public for support. Really? How sad. Maybe THAT kind of work ethic of deffering the work to others is why he rode the pine. What good comes out of this rumor spreading? Nothing. Lobbying the public to blame the guy leaving and finding a scape goat who wouldnt be around to defend himself is cowardly. YOUR bias is blinding you my friend.
heartofthebear;842041572 said:
Interesting comment when much of this came from a student athlete to start with and then Okaydo and Moragabear were slandered for backing it. Certainly friends of players are going to have a much harder time seeing past their biases than a fan who has no prior association with a player.
What good could it possibly bring to anyone spreading slander against bears like the "student athlete" did? If you honestly think he only did it to give fans info and a scope on the program YOUR bias blinds you. Ask yourself what did he have to gain from lobbying the public against Zach and Kee? Certainly his reasons for slandering Zach and Kee go way beyond anything your willing to admit...
Since Jordan knows ZM and K A so well, I believe him to be good friends with them. It is odd he just joined and has the audacity to come on here and call everyone out. And the post about your g.f.being braver was a really over the tip piece of sh*t. Please go back where you were. If you think ZM was a good qb. for a PAC12 team, then you are the one blinded. If you say the rumor is not true you but be on the team. I care what heartofthebear does, so you were wrong there also. Ever since certain players have played and started for Cal, there has been a majority of discontent. Please move on.
Is it time for one of these yet?
I admit it I'm biased against players who play favorites with their relatives. And I hope we never see it again at Cal. And I don't think we will under Dykes. When Maynard started against Fresno St. and for a good deal of 2011, I was very excited about Maynard. I even defended him in the game against Stanford late in the year. But over time his conduct and KA's inability to perform with Bridgford at QB as well as various behaviors during 2012 have led me to conclude that Cal is better off without them. So I'm glad to see them go. There was no bias initially. They behaved in ways that made me feel they were being unduly dominating of the team and its chemistry.
In a court of law, the defendents relatives rarely are considered reliable witnesses because of their bias. It is the jury, in effect folks that sit in the stands and observe without any prior association with the defendant, that are trusted with deciding the case. There is a reason for that---jurors are objective, and relatives are subjective.
Anyway, I am now putting you on ignore because....[SIZE="2"]JORDANGOLDNBEAR--YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK, GOOD-BYE[/SIZE]
In a court of law, the defendents relatives rarely are considered reliable witnesses because of their bias. It is the jury, in effect folks that sit in the stands and observe without any prior association with the defendant, that are trusted with deciding the case. There is a reason for that---jurors are objective, and relatives are subjective.
Anyway, I am now putting you on ignore because....[SIZE="2"]JORDANGOLDNBEAR--YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK, GOOD-BYE[/SIZE]
Thank you it was about time you stop making of fool of yourself trying to defend the actions of a parent with an agenda. Your last post was amazing! I loved it! Basically you said... "I didnt have bias at first but I did over time." Lol. Isnt that how bias work? The whole court of law of pretty good cause we are all on trail right? Zach and Kee can face their occusers right? Please dont bring stuff like that up it holds ZERO weight in things like this. It was so nice to see instead of sending me another long winded defense of the parent's agenda you just used a reference I barely remember from some long dead show.
davetdds;842041666 said:
Since Jordan knows ZM and K A so well, I believe him to be good friends with them. It is odd he just joined and has the audacity to come on here and call everyone out. And the post about your g.f.being braver was a really over the tip piece of sh*t. Please go back where you were. If you think ZM was a good qb. for a PAC12 team, then you are the one blinded. If you say the rumor is not true you but be on the team. I care what heartofthebear does, so you were wrong there also. Ever since certain players have played and started for Cal, there has been a majority of discontent. Please move on.
I understood about half of that... Sorry. From what did make sense.... No I dont think Zach is an amazing QB I just dont like anyone throwing anyone under the bus to scape goat the failures of the Cal program. Its cowardly to blame the guys who are leaving. The team failed. From HC to prat squad. To find some guys who are leaving and say "oh well those guys killed this team" is pretty low. I wouldnt act any differnt if ANY team mate was slandered on here. Everyone failed. Not just Kee and Zach. They were apart of this team and will always be defended as such. A parent with an agenda to lobby the public and spread rumors is not really a good place to find out any unbiased and non bitter info. Just fyi.
heartofthebear;842041681 said:
I admit it I'm biased against players who play favorites with their relatives. And I hope we never see it again at Cal. And I don't think we will under Dykes. When Maynard started against Fresno St. and for a good deal of 2011, I was very excited about Maynard. I even defended him in the game against Stanford late in the year. But over time his conduct and KA's inability to perform with Bridgford at QB as well as various behaviors during 2012 have led me to conclude that Cal is better off without them. So I'm glad to see them go. There was no bias initially. They behaved in ways that made me feel they were being unduly dominating of the team and its chemistry.
In a court of law, the defendents relatives rarely are considered reliable witnesses because of their bias. It is the jury, in effect folks that sit in the stands and observe without any prior association with the defendant, that are trusted with deciding the case. There is a reason for that---jurors are objective, and relatives are subjective.
Anyway, I am now putting you on ignore because....[SIZE="2"]JORDANGOLDNBEAR--YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK, GOOD-BYE[/SIZE]
Seriously....more like broken link. I think we've finally found someone who can match Amy's inanity....
Cal_Fan2;842041725 said:
Seriously....more like broken link. I think we've finally found someone who can match Amy's inanity....
can you please tell me what "inanity" is? Its when you believe the slander and agenda of a bitter parent right? I thought so... Maybe davidtdds can prescribe something for that?
heartofthebear;842041681 said:
I admit it I'm biased against players who play favorites with their relatives. And I hope we never see it again at Cal. And I don't think we will under Dykes. When Maynard started against Fresno St. and for a good deal of 2011, I was very excited about Maynard. I even defended him in the game against Stanford late in the year. But over time his conduct and KA's inability to perform with Bridgford at QB as well as various behaviors during 2012 have led me to conclude that Cal is better off without them. So I'm glad to see them go. There was no bias initially. They behaved in ways that made me feel they were being unduly dominating of the team and its chemistry.
In a court of law, the defendents relatives rarely are considered reliable witnesses because of their bias. It is the jury, in effect folks that sit in the stands and observe without any prior association with the defendant, that are trusted with deciding the case. There is a reason for that---jurors are objective, and relatives are subjective.
Anyway, I am now putting you on ignore because....[SIZE="2"]JORDANGOLDNBEAR--YOU ARE THE WEAKEST LINK, GOOD-BYE[/SIZE]
You cannot see that your position is just conjecture and rumor? So Keenan Allen is to blame for Bridgford's low completion percentage and interceptions? Like Desean Jackson was blamed for Longshore's low completion percentage and interceptions in the second half of 2007? It should be clear that in 2007 that was just a myth that was perpetuated by a faction of coaches/players/parents/fans to avoid saying there was anything wrong with Longshore or with Tedford's decision to start him.
It appears that the people who were the biggest advocates that Bridgford should be starting (and explained away all his incomplete passes as the fault of the wide receivers and tight ends) are the biggest proponents of the Keenan Allen conspiracy theory (that and a portion of the former "In Tedford We Trust" crowd). However, the majority of Bridgford's incomplete passes and drops were to receivers other than Keenan Allen. Similarly, while Allen made many great difficult catches of Maynard's passes, most of his drops were on Maynard passes too. Wide receivers sometimes drop passes. Moreover, it was Keenan Allen that stuck up for Bridgford after the Nevada game. Similarly, when Maynard made a good play, Bridgford enthusiastically congratulated him and when Bridgford made a good play Maynard enthusiastically congratulated him. Neither QB had a very good year, but they are both Golden Bears. I think Bridgford will look much better in the new offense, though other QBs may be even better. I am rooting for them all-they are all Golden Bears.
Whenever a team loses like in the second half of 2007 or in 2012 there will likely be dissension on the team and among the fans. The same is true among failing companies or struggling nations. People search for answers and they gravitate towards easy answers, conspiracies and scapegoats. In the 1930's Germany it was the Jews. In America (throughout our history) it has usually been immigrants or for decades "welfare queens." For Cal football, it seems to be our star wide receivers (including Geoff MacArthur in 2003).
Honestly, I think we should close the chapter on 2012, stop trying to assign blame and just wish well to everyone and look forward to the future.
Well said calumnus. I attempted to say exactly that but you said it much better than I could. Thank you! Great examples too! I hope it opens the eyes of at least a few! Go Bears! ALL Bears!
calumnus;842041737 said:
You cannot see that your position is just conjecture and rumor? So Keenan Allen is to blame for Bridgford's low completion percentage and interceptions? Like [COLOR="Blue"]Desean Jackson was blamed[/COLOR] for Longshore's low completion percentage and interceptions in the second half of 2007? It should be clear that in 2007 that was just [COLOR="blue"]a myth that was perpetuated by a faction of coaches/players/parents/fans[/COLOR] to avoid saying there was anything wrong with Longshore or with Tedford's decision to start him.
[COLOR="blue"]It appears that the people who were the biggest advocates that Bridgford should be starting (and explained away all his incomplete passes as the fault of the wide receivers and tight ends) are the biggest proponents of the Keenan Allen conspiracy theory (that and a portion of the former "In Tedford We Trust" crowd). [/COLOR]However, the majority of Bridgford's incomplete passes and drops were to receivers other than Keenan Allen. Similarly, while Allen made many great difficult catches of Maynard's passes, most of his drops were on Maynard passes too. Wide receivers sometimes drop passes. Moreover, it was Keenan Allen that stuck up for Bridgford after the Nevada game. Similarly, when Maynard made a good play, Bridgford enthusiastically congratulated him and when Bridgford made a good play Maynard enthusiastically congratulated him. Neither QB had a very good year, but they are both Golden Bears. I think Bridgford will look much better in the new offense, though other QBs may be even better. I am rooting for them all-they are all Golden Bears.
[COLOR="Blue"]Whenever a team loses[/COLOR] like in the second half of 2007 or in 2012 there will likely be dissension on the team and among the fans. The same is true among [COLOR="blue"]failing companies or struggling nations[/COLOR]. People search for answers and they gravitate towards [COLOR="Blue"]easy answers, conspiracies and scapegoats.[/COLOR] In the 1930's Germany it was the Jews. In America (throughout our history) it has usually been immigrants or for decades "welfare queens." [COLOR="Blue"]For Cal football, it seems to be our star wide receivers (including Geoff MacArthur in 2003)[/COLOR].
Honestly, I think we should close the chapter on 2012, stop trying to assign blame and just wish well to everyone and look forward to the future.
+1
Damn. You absolutely nailed it in so many ways.
People that depend on QB man-crushes as their only connection to Football will always find fault with the WRs and, in general, Loser Fans will always need scapegoats.
calumnus;842041737 said:
You cannot see that your position is just conjecture and rumor? So Keenan Allen is to blame for Bridgford's low completion percentage and interceptions? Like Desean Jackson was blamed for Longshore's low completion percentage and interceptions in the second half of 2007? It should be clear that in 2007 that was just a myth that was perpetuated by a faction of coaches/players/parents/fans to avoid saying there was anything wrong with Longshore or with Tedford's decision to start him.
It appears that the people who were the biggest advocates that Bridgford should be starting (and explained away all his incomplete passes as the fault of the wide receivers and tight ends) are the biggest proponents of the Keenan Allen conspiracy theory (that and a portion of the former "In Tedford We Trust" crowd). However, the majority of Bridgford's incomplete passes and drops were to receivers other than Keenan Allen. Similarly, while Allen made many great difficult catches of Maynard's passes, most of his drops were on Maynard passes too. Wide receivers sometimes drop passes. Moreover, it was Keenan Allen that stuck up for Bridgford after the Nevada game. Similarly, when Maynard made a good play, Bridgford enthusiastically congratulated him and when Bridgford made a good play Maynard enthusiastically congratulated him. Neither QB had a very good year, but they are both Golden Bears. I think Bridgford will look much better in the new offense, though other QBs may be even better. I am rooting for them all-they are all Golden Bears.
Whenever a team loses like in the second half of 2007 or in 2012 there will likely be dissension on the team and among the fans. The same is true among failing companies or struggling nations. People search for answers and they gravitate towards easy answers, conspiracies and scapegoats. In the 1930's Germany it was the Jews. In America (throughout our history) it has usually been immigrants or for decades "welfare queens." For Cal football, it seems to be our star wide receivers (including Geoff MacArthur in 2003).
Honestly, I think we should close the chapter on 2012, stop trying to assign blame and just wish well to everyone and look forward to the future.
Bet you wouldnt say that to Bridgeford or Longshore's face
calumnus;842041737 said:
You cannot see that your position is just conjecture and rumor? So Keenan Allen is to blame for Bridgford's low completion percentage and interceptions? Like Desean Jackson was blamed for Longshore's low completion percentage and interceptions in the second half of 2007? It should be clear that in 2007 that was just a myth that was perpetuated by a faction of coaches/players/parents/fans to avoid saying there was anything wrong with Longshore or with Tedford's decision to start him.
It appears that the people who were the biggest advocates that Bridgford should be starting (and explained away all his incomplete passes as the fault of the wide receivers and tight ends) are the biggest proponents of the Keenan Allen conspiracy theory (that and a portion of the former "In Tedford We Trust" crowd). However, the majority of Bridgford's incomplete passes and drops were to receivers other than Keenan Allen. Similarly, while Allen made many great difficult catches of Maynard's passes, most of his drops were on Maynard passes too. Wide receivers sometimes drop passes. Moreover, it was Keenan Allen that stuck up for Bridgford after the Nevada game. Similarly, when Maynard made a good play, Bridgford enthusiastically congratulated him and when Bridgford made a good play Maynard enthusiastically congratulated him. Neither QB had a very good year, but they are both Golden Bears. I think Bridgford will look much better in the new offense, though other QBs may be even better. I am rooting for them all-they are all Golden Bears.
Whenever a team loses like in the second half of 2007 or in 2012 there will likely be dissension on the team and among the fans. The same is true among failing companies or struggling nations. People search for answers and they gravitate towards easy answers, conspiracies and scapegoats. In the 1930's Germany it was the Jews. In America (throughout our history) it has usually been immigrants or for decades "welfare queens." For Cal football, it seems to be our star wide receivers (including Geoff MacArthur in 2003).
Honestly, I think we should close the chapter on 2012, stop trying to assign blame and just wish well to everyone and look forward to the future.
Calumnus, I agree with a lot of your points but this is not about me. Moragabear alluded to the fact that a good percentage of the players felt the same way...here is the quote:
MoragaBear
Staff Writer
Posts: 16,020
Join Date: Jul 2008
11-24-2012, 11:53 AM
________________________________________
There are A LOT of bearents on these boards. Many post and many don't.
I've heard from a lot of bearents over the years and know many pretty well and I can tell you from personal experience that you need to take everything with a grain of salt, especially from disgruntled parents. Sometimes there's a lot of truth in what they say and sometimes there's very little. You'd be surprised how little they actually know sometimes because many players don't let their parents into their world and a lot of what parents say and believe is their own conjecture.
I can tell you that most players on the team love and respect Tedford even if they don't agree with all his decisions and that this was not a team swirling with dissention. I can tell you, though, that a very sizeable percentage were extremely frustrated with Tedford's insistence on playing Maynard at all costs and not playing and developing any of the other qb's and that the rumors about Maynard not going to class, cutting out on workouts and nearly being on academic probation were all true. I don't buy at all that 15-20 starters weren't going to class.
I also don't believe that Allen made it clear to the whole team that he wouldn't play if Maynard didn't play. I believe that keeping Keenan happy factored into Tedford's decision-making process but I don't believe it was quid pro quo.
It's also clear that Tedford started to lose a handle on the team in '07. In that year, factions and dissention were very real. Once the cat was out of the bag, I think he began to struggle in ways that weren't much of a factor in previous years, though it was never as bad in the following years as it was in late '07.
To me, it reached the point of no return. There was no way they could bring Tedford back in 2013.
________________________________________
I guess Moragabear is full of conjecture and rumour too.
Let me ask you this: Do you honestly think Maynard would have been the exclusive starter at Cal over a 2 yr. period if KA had not been here? IMHO, he would not even have received a scholarship.
If you think this is my personal vendetta, we could put it to a poll and see who is really in the minority here. I don't want to have to do that. It is true that I have some bias. But there is bias on both sides. And when you give jordangoldnbear and applause for posts that most here think are insane it does not bode well for your credibility either.
One thing is for sure, if JT thought he was avoiding a QB controversy by only playing Maynard, he clearly was out of touch with how much controversy he was actually creating by keeping other QBs on the bench. Indications are that it may have gotten to the point where some O-linemen started to rebel.
heartofthebear;842041912 said:
Calumnus, I agree with a lot of your points but this is not about me. Moragabear alluded to the fact that a good percentage of the players felt the same way...here is the quote:
MoragaBear
Staff Writer
Posts: 16,020
Join Date: Jul 2008
11-24-2012, 11:53 AM
________________________________________
There are A LOT of bearents on these boards. Many post and many don't.
I've heard from a lot of bearents over the years and know many pretty well and I can tell you from personal experience that you need to take everything with a grain of salt, especially from disgruntled parents. Sometimes there's a lot of truth in what they say and sometimes there's very little. You'd be surprised how little they actually know sometimes because many players don't let their parents into their world and a lot of what parents say and believe is their own conjecture.
I can tell you that most players on the team love and respect Tedford even if they don't agree with all his decisions and that this was not a team swirling with dissention. I can tell you, though, that a very sizeable percentage were extremely frustrated with Tedford's insistence on playing Maynard at all costs and not playing and developing any of the other qb's and that the rumors about Maynard not going to class, cutting out on workouts and nearly being on academic probation were all true. I don't buy at all that 15-20 starters weren't going to class.
I also don't believe that Allen made it clear to the whole team that he wouldn't play if Maynard didn't play. I believe that keeping Keenan happy factored into Tedford's decision-making process but I don't believe it was quid pro quo.
It's also clear that Tedford started to lose a handle on the team in '07. In that year, factions and dissention were very real. Once the cat was out of the bag, I think he began to struggle in ways that weren't much of a factor in previous years, though it was never as bad in the following years as it was in late '07.
To me, it reached the point of no return. There was no way they could bring Tedford back in 2013.
________________________________________
I guess Moragabear is full of conjecture and rumour too.
Let me ask you this: Do you honestly think Maynard would have been the exclusive starter at Cal over a 2 yr. period if KA had not been here? IMHO, he would not even have received a scholarship.
If you think this is my personal vendetta, we could put it to a poll and see who is really in the minority here. I don't want to have to do that. It is true that I have some bias. But there is bias on both sides. And when you give jordangoldnbear and applause for posts that most here think are insane it does not bode well for your credibility either.
One thing is for sure, if JT thought he was avoiding a QB controversy by only playing Maynard, he clearly was out of touch with how much controversy he was actually creating by keeping other QBs on the bench. Indications are that it may have gotten to the point where some O-linemen started to rebel.
Truth is not a matter of public opinion polls so I don't care if a majority of BI posters believe your conspiracy theories or not.
Players were frustrated with Tedford playing Longshore injured in 2007. Shoot, I was frustrated with Tedford leaving Aaron Rodgers in the 2003 Oregon State game when there was obviously something wrong with him (he had left the USC game the previous week with an injury) and we had a competent back-up who had just beaten USC. We were all frustrated with Ayoob's deteriorating play in 2005. Tedford picks a guy and then sticks with him. That was his MO. I don't blame Longshore for that and I don't blame Ayoob for that, I don't blame Riley for that and I don't blame Maynard for that. If the OL really "rebelled" because of that and refused to block, then they would be at fault for much of our problems (though I don't believe that either--I think they just were not very good).
Some people believe that Riley and his father "tricked" Tedford into giving him a scholarship. Then somehow tricked him into promoting him over Reed and and playing great in the Armed Forces Bowl?
Maynard may have gotten a scholarship because he came with the rest of the North Carolina players but I absolutely believe Tedford saw something he liked also or he would not have offered and I absolutely do not believe that Tedford simply gave Maynard the starting position at the most important position just because his brother was a good wide receiver. That is idiotic. I thought Tedford should go, but I think far more highly of him than that.
The situation was: Riley graduated, Mansion performed very badly in 2010, Sweeney transferred and Bridgford was coming off injury that had kept him from throwing for a year and appeared to effect how hard he could throw. Tedford knew our line was going to be bad (had fired Marshall and just brought Coach M back), had a small returning RB in Sofele (CJ was not there until Fall) and so decided to go with a shotgun spread approach with Maynard rather than Mansion or the less mobile Bridgford. That was it. Then having gone with Maynard, he stuck with Maynard like he always does. Bridgford probably did not look much better in practice as he did not look better than Maynard when he played and his statistics were far worse. We saw when Bridgford played that he did not throw the ball hard enough on the third down out patterns that are a Jeff Tedford staple.
Now personally, once the season was going to be bad, I would have made the change to a younger QB just for the future, just to give the fans (and players?) hope, but Tedford wanted to win each game and so he played the player he thought could do that (right or wrong). No conspiracy, no evil players manipulating the coach, just a coach making what he thought was the best decision that did not turn out well, but still may have been the best decision at the time. That being the position he put himself in after 10 years of running the program is one of the reasons he is gone. Time to move on.
I do think Bridgford will be more productive in Dykes offense as it is more of a short passing offense that will take advantage of his accuracy. He is a really good kid and I am rooting for him. Of course, other QBs may be better, and I am rooting for them too, so we will see how that all plays out.
Phantomfan;842041800 said:
Bet you wouldnt say that to Bridgeford or Longshore's face
I was not criticizing Longshore or Bridgford only some of their more zealous advocates that criticize or blame other players to protect or advocate for them--we have seen the same with advocates for Mansion, even Thurman on the basketball board.
In 2007, Longshore was hurt PERIOD. He played in obvious pain, he was a warrior. It is Tedford's job to decide who starts. Similarly Bridgford was coming off of shoulder surgery in 2011. I do not know what his arm strength was like before the surgery, but it was lacking after. He is an accurate thrower, and a good kid and appeared to be a loyal teammate supporting Maynard (and vice-versa). He has embraced the coaching change and I think he can be very effective in Dykes/Franklin's system. We will see.
heartofthebear;842041572 said:
Interesting comment when [COLOR="Blue"]much of this came from a student athlete to start with[/COLOR] and then Okaydo and Moragabear were slandered for backing it. Certainly friends of players are going to have a much harder time seeing past their biases than a fan who has no prior association with a player.
Who was/is this student-athlete?
heartofthebear;842041912 said:
...One thing is for sure, if JT thought he was avoiding a QB controversy by only playing Maynard, he clearly was out of touch with how much controversy he was actually creating by keeping other QBs on the bench. Indications are that it may have gotten to the point [COLOR="blue"]where some O-linemen started to rebel[/COLOR].
Since you're an expert on QBs, exactly how much better was AB over ZM the last two years? I see a statue with a somewhat slow release and average arm strength blown up to Tom Brady super-heroic status or similar by typical Cal Fans like they did with 4-star QB Brock Mansion.
If those Oline did "rebel" by not blocking for ZM, they're a bunch of cowards and I hope they played their last year or, if still eligible, will get replaced by [U]real[/U] OLM next season.
However, in reality, I think they likely sucked at blocking, had no talent and merely BLAMED it on a "rebellion" against the QB to save face to their meddling, helicopter "bearants" and "attaboy" friends back home. That's why AB was withheld by JT -- for pass-protection reasons caused by a pathetic Oline. That's the [U]football[/U] reason.
But, if the soap opera reason is true, maybe the "rebellion" was started by meddling "bearants" in the first place -- "If Junior doesn't get to play, I'll show them! Internet, here I come!!!" -- and Cal may have a group of Craig James-type parents running around, trying to dictate terms to our former HC.
Once again calumnus you provide insight into this program RARELY seen on these boards your total break down of heartofthebear was epic! Your logic is most impressive take away ALL the emotion from each side and your left with calumnus's posts. Well done!
Our Domicile I agree. Watch the tape of the stanford game Rigsbee and MSG got beat with just HORRIBLE footwork!! It was awful to review that tape and see their stances... They had no chance... You could see how hard they were trying too!!! They just werent coached good basics Tyler and Jordan are not very good. If they rebelled against Zach the explain they complete FAILURE in the running game? Did they hate Isi too? Cj? We had 3 rushing yards against Stanford is that Zachs fault too? Did they rebel in the running game? Nope! They just dont have the foundation and talent to be very good sorry parents... Excuses cant hide whats on film...
calumnus;842041963 said:
Truth is not a matter of public opinion polls so I don't care if a majority of BI posters believe your conspiracy theories or not.
Players were frustrated with Tedford playing Longshore injured in 2007. Shoot, I was frustrated with Tedford leaving Aaron Rodgers in the 2003 Oregon State game when there was obviously something wrong with him (he had left the USC game the previous week with an injury) and we had a competent back-up who had just beaten USC. We were all frustrated with Ayoob's deteriorating play in 2005. Tedford picks a guy and then sticks with him. That was his MO. I don't blame Longshore for that and I don't blame Ayoob for that, I don't blame Riley for that and I don't blame Maynard for that. If the OL really "rebelled" because of that and refused to block, then they would be at fault for much of our problems (though I don't believe that either--I think they just were not very good).
Some people believe that Riley and his father "tricked" Tedford into giving him a scholarship. Then somehow tricked him into promoting him over Reed and and playing great in the Armed Forces Bowl?
Maynard may have gotten a scholarship because he came with the rest of the North Carolina players but I absolutely believe Tedford saw something he liked also or he would not have offered and I absolutely do not believe that Tedford simply gave Maynard the starting position at the most important position just because his brother was a good wide receiver. That is idiotic. I thought Tedford should go, but I think far more highly of him than that.
The situation was: Riley graduated, Mansion performed very badly in 2010, Sweeney transferred and Bridgford was coming off injury that had kept him from throwing for a year and appeared to effect how hard he could throw. Tedford knew our line was going to be bad (had fired Marshall and just brought Coach M back), had a small returning RB in Sofele (CJ was not there until Fall) and so decided to go with a shotgun spread approach with Maynard rather than Mansion or the less mobile Bridgford. That was it. Then having gone with Maynard, he stuck with Maynard like he always does. Bridgford probably did not look much better in practice as he did not look better than Maynard when he played and his statistics were far worse. We saw when Bridgford played that he did not throw the ball hard enough on the third down out patterns that are a Jeff Tedford staple.
Now personally, once the season was going to be bad, I would have made the change to a younger QB just for the future, just to give the fans (and players?) hope, but Tedford wanted to win each game and so he played the player he thought could do that (right or wrong). No conspiracy, no evil players manipulating the coach, just a coach making what he thought was the best decision that did not turn out well, but still may have been the best decision at the time. That being the position he put himself in after 10 years of running the program is one of the reasons he is gone. Time to move on.
I do think Bridgford will be more productive in Dykes offense as it is more of a short passing offense that will take advantage of his accuracy. He is a really good kid and I am rooting for him. Of course, other QBs may be better, and I am rooting for them too, so we will see how that all plays out.
Well said. Again I agree with your points and appreciate the time you put in to clarify some things. Let me clarify some things:
[LIST=1]
I might add that at one time I was very upset at losing Tosh. Over time I have formed an opinion that Tosh never recruited to fit Cal. Instead he recruited to recruiting rankings. I have come to realize that recruiting to fit Cal is so much more important for the success of Cal than the degree of stars a recruit has. To this end I am looking forward to the Dykes era and the day when there are no longer any Tosh recruits on the Cal roster.
And to the Cal players. I love and appreciate what you do and support you in fulfilling your dreams at Cal. But I am only human and it disgusts me when I see a team break into factions and favoritism. Keep the team spirit alive and...
:gobears:
calumnus;842041986 said:
I was not criticizing Longshore or Bridgford only some of their more zealous advocates that criticize or blame other players to protect or advocate for them--we have seen the same with advocates for Mansion, even Thurman on the basketball board.
In 2007, Longshore was hurt PERIOD. He played in obvious pain, he was a warrior. It is Tedford's job to decide who starts. Similarly Bridgford was coming off of shoulder surgery in 2011. I do not know what his arm strength was like before the surgery, but it was lacking after. He is an accurate thrower, and a good kid and appeared to be a loyal teammate supporting Maynard (and vice-versa). He has embraced the coaching change and I think he can be very effective in Dykes/Franklin's system. We will see.
Hrm, it was a joke, in light of of the thread title.
Phantomfan;842042062 said:
Hrm, it was a joke, in light of of the thread title.
Oh, thanks, I thought it might be, but was I guess I was being overly defensive. I hate undue criticism of the players (especially personal) but am conscious that sometimes I cross the line myself.
heartofthebear;842041912 said:
Calumnus, I agree with a lot of your points but this is not about me. Moragabear alluded to the fact that a good percentage of the players felt the same way...here is the quote:
MoragaBear
Staff Writer
Posts: 16,020
Join Date: Jul 2008
11-24-2012, 11:53 AM
________________________________________
There are A LOT of bearents on these boards. Many post and many don't.
I've heard from a lot of bearents over the years and know many pretty well and I can tell you from personal experience that you need to take everything with a grain of salt, especially from disgruntled parents. Sometimes there's a lot of truth in what they say and sometimes there's very little. You'd be surprised how little they actually know sometimes because many players don't let their parents into their world and a lot of what parents say and believe is their own conjecture.
I can tell you that most players on the team love and respect Tedford even if they don't agree with all his decisions and that this was not a team swirling with dissention. I can tell you, though, that a very sizeable percentage were extremely frustrated with Tedford's insistence on playing Maynard at all costs and not playing and developing any of the other qb's and that the rumors about Maynard not going to class, cutting out on workouts and nearly being on academic probation were all true. I don't buy at all that 15-20 starters weren't going to class.
I also don't believe that Allen made it clear to the whole team that he wouldn't play if Maynard didn't play. I believe that keeping Keenan happy factored into Tedford's decision-making process but I don't believe it was quid pro quo.
It's also clear that Tedford started to lose a handle on the team in '07. In that year, factions and dissention were very real. Once the cat was out of the bag, I think he began to struggle in ways that weren't much of a factor in previous years, though it was never as bad in the following years as it was in late '07.
To me, it reached the point of no return. There was no way they could bring Tedford back in 2013.
________________________________________
I guess Moragabear is full of conjecture and rumour too.
Let me ask you this: Do you honestly think Maynard would have been the exclusive starter at Cal over a 2 yr. period if KA had not been here? IMHO, he would not even have received a scholarship.
If you think this is my personal vendetta, we could put it to a poll and see who is really in the minority here. I don't want to have to do that. It is true that I have some bias. But there is bias on both sides. And when you give jordangoldnbear and applause for posts that most here think are insane it does not bode well for your credibility either.
One thing is for sure, if JT thought he was avoiding a QB controversy by only playing Maynard, he clearly was out of touch with how much controversy he was actually creating by keeping other QBs on the bench. Indications are that it may have gotten to the point where some O-linemen started to rebel.
You do realize that MB says in the quote you bolded that this was not a team swirling with dissention right?
foradolla;842042219 said:
You do realize that MB says in the quote you bolded that this was not a team swirling with dissention right?
I took that to mean not in general but with regard to Maynard there was dissention. How much I don't know.
Our Domicile;842042027 said:
Who was/is this student-athlete?
Since you're an expert on QBs, exactly how much better was AB over ZM the last two years? I see a statue with a somewhat slow release and average arm strength blown up to Tom Brady super-heroic status or similar by typical Cal Fans like they did with 4-star QB Brock Mansion.
If those Oline did "rebel" by not blocking for ZM, they're a bunch of cowards and I hope they played their last year or, if still eligible, will get replaced by [U]real[/U] OLM next season.
However, in reality, I think they likely sucked at blocking, had no talent and merely BLAMED it on a "rebellion" against the QB to save face to their meddling, helicopter "bearants" and "attaboy" friends back home. That's why AB was withheld by JT -- for pass-protection reasons caused by a pathetic Oline. That's the [U]football[/U] reason.
But, if the soap opera reason is true, maybe the "rebellion" was started by meddling "bearants" in the first place -- "If Junior doesn't get to play, I'll show them! Internet, here I come!!!" -- and Cal may have a group of Craig James-type parents running around, trying to dictate terms to our former HC.
Dom... I don't think it's worth debating topics with people whose main strategies are
a) to mischaracterize me and
b) to shame me
I doubt anything I write is going to be respected by you anyway so what's the point.
Clearly you disagree with me, but chances are that calumnus is going to have a much better chance of changing my point of you because he doesn't use those tactics. But take heart, you are not so different than many. Clearly many on this board think that players are beyond reproach and attempts to criticize them mean the OP is fair game for shaming, misquoting etc.
I don't need to apologize to anybody for having a problem with a player. And I am OK with my status as a fan and I will continue to root for Cal as a team and the players as individuals. All I can say is that, in my heart, I want what is best for Cal and I am sure we all can honestly disagree about what that means without being rude. I do my best to be fair with people and I don't deserve the treatment I often get here. I was rude to jordan because he really earned it.
Sorry, but I don't see what I said made you feel you had to make me a QB expert.
jordangoldnbear;842042033 said:
Once again calumnus you provide insight into this program RARELY seen on these boards your total break down of heartofthebear was epic! Your logic is most impressive take away ALL the emotion from each side and your left with calumnus's posts. Well done!
You still haven't told me how it went when you "bashed" players to their face. What was the point and/or what purpose did it serve. If the purpose of challenging folks to say things to a players face was to make folks think more respectfully, then how come you were "bashing" players to their face to start with? And how is that not creating a cancer when clearly your friends ZM and KA are beyond reproach but other players are worth bashing and then still other players are called "pussy" and "wimp" because they had a problem with the cancerous attitudes that were going on. It is particularly interesting that you say nothing bad about ZM, when he was reportedly close to being suspended for missing classes etc. I guess your emphasis on education doesn't apply to him then.
heartofthebear;842042344 said:
...Clearly many on this board think that players are beyond reproach and attempts to criticize them mean the OP is fair game for shaming, misquoting etc.
I don't need to apologize to anybody for having a problem with a player....
Yet, you won't name this player. I don't think he is beyond reproach or criticism if he or his Mommy told certain people about some Locker Room drama. He (or his Mommy) isn't innocent. He is fair-game.
heartofthebear;842042351 said:
You still haven't told me how it went when you "bashed" players to their face. What was the point and/or what purpose did it serve. If the purpose of challenging folks to say things to a players face was to make folks think more respectfully, then how come you were "bashing" players to their face to start with? And how is that not creating a cancer when clearly your friends ZM and KA are beyond reproach but other players are worth bashing and [COLOR="Blue"]then still other players are called "pussy" and "wimp" because they had a problem with the cancerous attitudes that were going on. [/COLOR]...
No, they and their Position Coach are "pussies" and "wimps" if they blame something as nebulous as "attitude" for their general lack of Talent and dereliction of Duty (ie. not doing their jobs, the jobs they received scholarships for).
Our Domicile;842042682 said:
No, they and their Position Coach are "pussies" and "wimps" if they blame something as nebulous as "attitude" for their general lack of Talent and dereliction of Duty (ie. not doing their jobs, the jobs they received scholarships for).
It is always interesting that the people in an organization who go around spreading rumors and innuendo, complaining about the perceived preferences given to someone else as an excuse for not giving their full effort themselves, then label the other person a "cancer."
Your own attitude is your own responsibility--blaming others for your attitude reflects a lack of maturity. Of course, these are mostly teenagers we are talking about, so a certain lack of muturity comes with the territory--it is one of the things one hopefully acquires in college (see Gabe King's comments on his college experience).
I do think that Tedford had difficulty explaining his decisions to the press, so the same was probably true of his ability to explain his decision making to the team (and probably didn't think he had to). That does tend to encourage second guessing, and speculation about motives, especially when the results are far less than desired. And playing time is the most contentious thing in organized sports from t-ball and peewee football on up--the one parents especially habitually complain about (if their kid is not starting, then the starter never deserves to be starting).
And as far as the OP, whenever I run into a player, even one who has under-performed (like Joe Ayoob) or struggled in the class room, I thank them for their efforts and encourage them. I tell them to hang in there and to make the most of their opportunity at Cal. Then I give them a "Go Bears!"
So it's OK for jordangoldnbear to get into a players face and "bash" him even though he isn't a player himself because of what he percieves as a lack of effort, but it isn't OK for a fan in the stands to bash a player for the same because he isn't a player. All because one of them is sticking up for ZM and KA and the other one is not. This is very confusing to me. I'm really not sure what the rules are. The only thing that seems to make sense from this is that it isn't OK to bash ZM and KA but it is OK to bash other players NO MATTER WHAT. Sounds like a dictatorship to me, which amounts to a type of cancer.
Featured Stories
See All
Joshua Pierce, In His Words: Why I Chose Cal
by Bear Insider
The Rodcast: Michael Cooper Film Breakdown
by Rod Benson
Isaiah Crosby, In His Words: Why I Chose Cal
by Bear Insider
Ace Herman-Dawson Commits To Bears' Stellar 2027 Class
by Joaquin Ruiz