Open Discussion, Riley or Longshore?
by rollonubears on Jun 9, 2008 8:18 PM PDT
Email
PrintIf there is another debate on the Golden Blogs about this subject already going on, my apologies, but I wanted to see what the average Cal fan wants (not that I don't know the expected answer). Please don't attack Longshore for his shortcomings, remember this is an objective debate. Personally, I'd prefer Riley because I love mobile quarterbacks; plus if he is comfortable now, imagine what he can do as a junior or senior. So please, I would like all opinions to be heard, vote in the poll then sound off in the comment section. GO BEARS!
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
34 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
honestly? no opinion
what i’d really like is an opportunity to see longshore play while fully healthy, something we haven’t seen him do since the Oregon game. yeah, the guy has been much maligned, but i’d be interested to see what he could do healthy.
i actually got to attend one of the fall practices last august; afterwards, i wrote:
- Longshore generally looked sharp and in command, although there were definitely errant passes in there, and I don’t think I saw a single deep ball completed in bounds. Some of that was good defense, but some of it was not.
- The backup quarterback competition hardly looks settled. From my amateur perspective, Kevin Riley looked slightly ahead of Kyle Reed, but neither of them looked like they would challenge Longshore for a starting spot. Cal fans need to hope Longshore doesn’t get injured, and Tedford would be wise to run whoever wins the QB competition out during the second half of blowouts; we need to develop depth.
I’ll stand by those statements; Longshore looked miles ahead of both Riley and Reed last August. Has Riley caught up, and perhaps even passed him? Until we get a look at a healthy Longshore, I honestly don’t know, but I’d sure be curious to see.
I want the best quarterback to play, whoever that is.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I agree mostly
but given since this isn’t looking like it’s going to be a banner year this year for cal football (though optimism is always a good thing) we should look towards the future. But also, last year we had one of the best receiving trios in the nation; this year is full of inexperience. If Longshore is healthy, I would not be upset (though i can’t speak for all cal fans) if he was named the starter, giving our new receivers some experience to start them out. Also Riley may be a grass is always greener on the other side option, given since it’s been Longshore for a few years and we want something new and exciting. I’d love to see a 2 qb set (like Chris Leak and Tim Tebow), but as good as Riley is, he’s no Tebow. Of course, if Tedford wanted to go the unexpected route, he should offer conflicting reports every single day in the week before the msu game as to who is the starting quarterback (Riley or Longshore back and forth for a week) then trot out Mansion for the first offensive set. That’d be pretty bad ass.
by rollonubears on Jun 9, 2008 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions
i understand trying to play for 2009...
...but as a coach, you just can’t do that. you can’t do it to your seniors who are playing their last season (especially Mack, who could’ve turned pro), and you can’t do it to the rest of your players, who need to know that the best players will always play (except in the case of disciplinary issues), and that the coach is doing his best to win every game. not trying to win is the easiest way to lose your players. it’s more feasible to do something like this with a professional franchise, where personnel decisions are often made by management, not the coaches, but a college coach doesn’t have that type of insulation.
as for the 2 QB set, it worked so well at Florida because Leak and Tebow were two completely different players. Meyer wasn’t subbing them in based on who was playing better (a strategy that would cause players to look over their shoulder all the time), but instead based on the situation. it was like subbing in a short-yardage back on 3rd and 1, or a blocking tight end instead of a pass-catching one for a running play. Riley does give the Cal offense a different dimension with his mobility, but I don’t think that he’s so different from Longshore that you could substitute them based on the situation.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I agree completely
So now we have to live by my cal football motto, in tedford we trust.
by rollonubears on Jun 10, 2008 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Riley!
Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley! Riley!
How’s that for an informed opinion?
Riley.
I’m sorry, but after the Longshoreman’s not-stellar performances in games like ASU, Washington, OSU and especially Stanford, I have lost total faith in him.
So it is this: He redeems himself by playing four full quarters of football, showing results by throwing a TD in all four.
Because that is the only way that he can redeem himself in my eyes.
EDIT:
Scratch OSU off that list. I forgot it was Riley who was in charge of that game. Whoops.
by Swamphunter on Jun 10, 2008 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Games that Nate Longshore
TOTALLY RUINED: UCLA, ASU, came scarily close to ruining Washington State, USC, Washington, Stanford. Yes. Every game since the injury. He will always be a mediocre quarterback whereas in Riley’s first career game he threw for 296 yards and made one stupid mistake. Nate Longshore threw that interception against UCLA which was run back for 6, and then, on the next drive, he threw the most lazy floating pass I have ever seen in my life. The UCLA linebacker calmly leaps and grabs it. Game over.
To second oaktownmario:
RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RILEY RRRRRRRIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYY
by RollOnYouBears667 on Jun 11, 2008 9:28 AM PDT reply actions
“Nate Longshore threw that interception against UCLA which was run back for 6”
Part of me really wants to reply to this. But part of me doesn’t want to get that whole discussion going again.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I could have
given examples of every single game he ruined for us this season. But that would be a waste of space, wouldn’t it?
by RollOnYouBears667 on Jun 11, 2008 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I was at that UCLA game
since my older sister is a freshman at fucla. That almost killed me, especially because my friend who lives in L.A. who went to the game with me got to have to upper hand at trash talking.
by rollonubears on Jun 11, 2008 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s so obviously time to move on…
It’s funny how when this issue is discussed many fans are under the delusional impression that Longshore is this great QB, he just had one bad game or something. It’s as if God ordained him to be Cal’s quarterback for all eternity. Well that’s not the way it works folks. To be fair and honest he has had two very weak seasons. Last season he singlehandedly lost about FOUR games! Even when Cal went to the Holiday Bowl it was more because of Lynch and his running game than Longshore and his passing game. Other schools bench more experienced quarterbacks left and right if they aren’t performing well. Apparently we are the only school in the country that has a no bench clause when it comes to our QB’s.
One thing I do know is that if Longshore starts and we end up losing say the first few games, or coming very close, you could see a massively enraged fan base near full revolt. When that day comes the California Golden Blogs of the world will no longer be able to placate us with their hollow promises that it will get better, or that it was never Nate’s fault. I guess Longshore has just been the victim of circumstance, NOTHING IS HIS FAULT! NOTHING! HE’S BETTER THAN JOE MONTANA!!!
I didn’t realize our hollow promises were currently successful in placating you.
SCORE!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
You know I love you guys, but at times it’s a love hate sort of thing. I’m sure you feel the same about me. However, this infatuation with Longshore must come to an end, lest you lose your considerable stature as the marquee Golden Bears blog!
What’s great about the SBN, Seth, is that you can control the content before. If you felt we were leaning one way too much with your front page stories, you can post up these FanPosts that argue the other direction.
I can’t speak to “our considerable stature as the marquee Golden Bears blog.” I can only speak to the fact that what will make a blog marquee is open and honest discussion. And SBN allows for that a lot more than the old site does.
As such, I look forward to your reasoned and level-headed critiques of our “infatuation with Longshore” in the future, Seth. And I’m, happy you are posting again!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Riley obviously brings more to the table that the lay fan can see with their bare eye. But according to Tedford, Longshore brings more to the table in terms of knowledge of the offense, and experience – things which most fans (or maybe even 100% of Cal fans) cannot see with their bare eyes. In short, I find it only natural that most Cal fans want Riley. On the other hand, it’s very hard to put your faith in positive aspects of a QB that you cannot see but supposedly exist, and can only be validated by the head coach.
Quite frankly, Longshore did NOT have two weak seasons in a row despite what some Cal fans might say. He did alright in 2006; not spectacular, great, good, or even above average, but okay. In 2007, he did okay too although prior to his injury he was on track for a great season.
As for Longshore single handedly losing games, if throwing INTs because of poor OL blocking or because the situation is a 3rd or 4th and long desperation situation, then yes, I guess Longshore single handedly lost games.
It’s time to move on. Longshore isn’t a great QB – I think we all know that. But he’s certainly not “weak” or a poor QB either. Yes, Tedford might have erred in playing Longshore so early after his injury, but by no means is Longshore the scapegoat for last season’s result.
Must we really discuss this more? I hope not. Let’s just support whoever is the QB next year whether it’s Longshore or Riley. Remember, both players are trying their best. Neither deserves to be booed or deserves remarks like “I hope you get injured” (which I began to hear towards the end of the season and is really really sad). If you have thoughts or criticisms on how the team is being run, send your emails to Tedford. Of all people, and despite our frequent references to him as a God, he is the most responsible for the team’s performance than anyone else.
I probably should have posted this a long time ago...
First I’ll throw into the hat that during the 2nd half of last season I was very much in favor of Riley getting some playing time.
I was in the Cal apparel store in Walnut Creek a few days after the bowl victory. The two guys working in the store were talking about the game, and their frustrations that Tedford took so long to finally get Riley in a game. They were acting like lots of fans, saying that the season wouldn’t have been such a disaster if Riley was inserted a few games earlier. The only other customer was a woman in the store, who identified herself as Michalczik’s wife, and started berating the employees! It was great. She generally said that Riley doesn’t have the decision making ability that Longshore has and in order to play Riley, the playbook had to be widdled down to such an extent that it would be too predictable. And honestly, she was angry with these guys.
I have no reason to doubt that this woman was who she says she is, and the logical person to complain to after work is the wife. So it seems that the coaching staff (remember, Michalczik was the OC then) felt very hesitant about using Riley. And this definitely made me re-think my pro-Riley stance. He’s looked good in games when he played, but teams have never game-planned to face him. Who knows what he’ll look like when teams get more film on him and start adjusting to his style?
Both qb’s are good. Longshore’s advantage is his ability to read defenses and his knowledge of the playbook. Riley is the superior athlete, and likely has the psychological advantage. It would be great to see Riley make the mental leap that Longshore made after 2 years and use his superior athleticism to help the Bears win some ballgames next year.
Interesting. This is a good window into Michalczik’s thinking but I don’t agree with him at all.
Tedford yanked Longshore in the Tennessee game and it helped him.
Longshore’s lack of mobility makes him very predictable and easy to game plan.
Longshore’s fragility makes him undependable.
Was Riley that predictable in the Oregon State and AF games? BTW, Michael Vick was predictable.
Blaming the receiver corps for every dropped pass dismisses the evidence from earlier in the season and Riley’s success with same said corps.
Lastly, and most unforgivably, Longshore lost the Big Game with great receivers, a great runner against the worst pass defense in the Pac 10. QBs are about winning games and Longshore is a loser.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
I guess the point
of passing that story along is that, despite the fact that most cal fans (including myself) think Riley is the deserving starter, perhaps there is more to the story. Riley is very good. But if he plays 12 games next year, he’s going to have some bad games. He’s not going to be the savior many of us have proclaimed him to be. He’ll be good. He may be great. But the Cal coaching staff, it seems, tends to think that Riley also brings a lot of liabilities that Longshore doesn’t. It’s almost the “bend but don’t break” offense.
I still, in my opinion, maintain that Riley deserves the opportunity to show that he is worse than Longshore, and not the other way around, Longshore had that chance last year, and we all know how it ended.
by Moscow Doug on Jun 17, 2008 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Riley
Long time reader, first time poster.
I for one, can’t bear going to another game with Longshore at QB. It’s just too difficult to watch. I went to the UCLA game and it hurt. I went to the USC game and it hurt. I went to the Big Game and it hurt. And this with 3 awesome receivers and a great runner.
Tedford says Longshore is really smart. That’s probably true and he’d know. But I know that Longshore lacks mobility and is fragile. FIrst time I ever saw him he got hurt. When Longshore drops back the defense drops back because there is no chance that he will run.
I watched Riley at the Spring game and he looked pretty good. Mansion looked shell shocked by comparison.
Longshore won the competition with Ayoob but not convincingly. He’s just not that good and certainly doesn’t deserve this level of loyalty. I remember a pie in the sky quote from him in the Chronicle about if he did well in 2007 coming out for the draft.
No, I think Riley is pretty good. If he hadn’t made that one bone head Freshman play, we wouldn’t even be talking about this. And he did it trying to win a game.
welcome!
welcome, Olsonist, glad to have you to join the discussion.
i totally agree with much of what you’re saying. i too went to all three of those games, and they all hurt me too. i also went to the washington game, which hurt just as much, if not more. honestly, watching that game brought back memories of the Holmoe Era. the team was not good, they were behind the whole game, and in my head, i kept making rationalizations like “if we score here, force a punt, and score again, we’ll be right back in this thing!” it was utterly depressing.
in a comment above, i mentioned seeing Riley in practice last fall, and noting that he wasn’t close to Longshore. having seen him a couple times this past spring, i can say that he looks much better now. he’s not perfect, but he looks very comfortable handling the offense.
however, you seem puzzled by the “level of loyalty” exhibited towards Longshore, and I gotta say, I just don’t see it. I don’t see much loyalty in the comments in this thread, and I don’t see much loyalty in the results of the poll above. I know this blog has been characterized as ‘Pro-Longshore’ in the past, but I never felt that was accurate. Instead, I feel that this blog has exhibited a strong loyalty towards Tedford, who has a much longer and more successful track record than Longshore. As long as Tedford kept running Nate out there, we felt like Tedford must have a good reason, even if we didn’t know what that reason was. In Tedford we trust.
Has my trust been shaken? Sure. Will the level of quarterback play we saw at the end of last year be acceptable? Obviously not. Still, at least to start the year, whoever Tedford runs out there under center will get my support.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Did anyone here actually watch Longshore in 2006? Except for Tennessee, sort of Arizona, USC and Stanfurd he was pretty decent. Yes the lack of QB pressure helped (Marshawn got the focus) but still. So I just don’t see how people can claim Longshore truly sucks.
In any case I vote ‘no opinion’ in this. I’ll let Tedford decide.
I used to be RR at the Cal Golden Blogs
It's better for CAL if Longshore wins out and plays his best!
While I also voted for Riley since I think he’s a better or going to be a better QB than Longshore, the better situation for CAL is Longshore wins out AND plays his best ever. This will preserve Riley another year but still give him 2 years starting which then after, CAL unleashes its annual senior QB studs Mansion, Sweeney, Bridgford, et. al. year after year.
It was only 2 years ago when Longshore had a stellar year with less in experience and quality WR’s. A healthy and confident Longshore has shown us what he’s capable of. Let’s hope he really impresses this year.
Go Bears!
by NewYorkGoldenBear on Jun 12, 2008 4:23 AM PDT reply actions
Dual-QB system
As I’ve mentioned before, a two-QB system would be ideal for 2008, especially with all the rebuilding going on. When I say two-QB system, I don’t mean the Urban Meyer variety, but the Wisenhunt (Arizona Cardinals) variety. Nate Longshore at his best is an effective game manager that can control the tempo of the game and make smart decisions. The problem is that he’s not good at playing from behind. Whenever Cal falls behind or needs to run a hurry up offense (or even just for a goal line situation), put Riley in. Otherwise, Longshore is there. This system worked with Leinart and Warner and helped the Cardinals defeat the Steelers.
It's Riley's turn
It’s not so much that Nate sucks even though he did last year. It’s the complete package as a QB that must be considered.
With Nate last year, Cal had to go into a max protect formation when passing to protect the slow footed Longshore. That made our offense predictable and easy to defend against. With two WR’s to defend against the CB’s for the other team can cheat and try for the big pick knowing they have lots of help behind them. So when Nate had to throw in the 4th Qtr well you know how that turned out.
With Riley at QB you have a whole new dimension to deal with if you’re trying to defend against our offense. But most importantly our offense with Riley is very unpredictable. So Riley at QB is more effective and more of a nightmare for opposing deffenses. Riley is better not just because he can escape the rush, but because he can throw on the run effectively.
Nate had his opportunity to shine, and he did not perform well enough for us to win games last year. Even in 06’ Nate was a good QB but not one that could take over a game and stage a big 4th qtr come back in the clutch.
Riley has the hot hand now, and it is his time to start and see what he can do. Nate continues to get hurt and seems to be injury prone. Time for Riley to start at QB.
Phil Steel seems to think that Riley will start and Cal will finish 2nd in the Pac-10 this year. And that could happen this year for us at Cal. Riley is that good and brings that big of a different package to our offense the likes of which we really haven’t seen before here at Cal.
Other factors that will help Cal be successful this year include:
1.) Tedford now being a true head coach and not offensive coordinator.
2.) 6’ 2” WR’s that are fast. If they can catch the ball and overcome a lack of experience then look out.
3.) 3-4 Defense should be more effective than last year.
4.) Awesome leadership on the O-line with Mack could pay off big time.
5.) Favorable schedule… more Pac-10 home games this year.
6.) Cal catches U$C after $C plays 6 straight games in successive weeks this year.
Can Cal make it to the Rose Bowl this year? Yes but it will take Cal going on an incredible roll and Riley seems to be able to make that happen.
riley
i want to see riley because he has so much potential to be great and nasty nate has shown that he cannot lead a bcs caliber team. also, we cant forget about the rest of the team. Would they rather play for nate or kevin? A qb needs to be the team leader and nate has blown his chances too many times to lead the pack. anyone have that stat on nates 4th quarter statistics for his career at cal?(ouch)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
Related FanShots on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
