Should Kevin Riley Have Started All of 2008?
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 3:15 AM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
Print
via www.dailycal.org
(Don't forget to tell us what you think of us in the feedback report! We crave your validation.)
After witnessing the last two weeks, Cal fans have pretty good right to be worried about their quarterback again. So let's throw out a discussion question.
I'm not going to talk about the 2007 quarterback situation, since the situation has already been discussed ad verbatim. Briefly though, let's visit last season: Having seen Riley play over the first five weeks, do you guys think that Kevin Riley should've been the de facto starter in 2008?
I'll discuss the pros and cons of having Riley start all of '08 after the jump.
So let's say Riley plays all of last season. Let's say Jeff Tedford benches Nate Longshore and he is only allowed in the game for medical reasons (which would've been after the Oregon concussion and the Emerald Bowl).
Pros
State of mind? Everyone's an armchair psychologist when it comes to quarterback, but it's hard not to think about it after the last two weeks. Riley has stated that last year's experience did affect his mental confidence and he tried to be too perfect. He was always looking over his shoulder early during the season, and he was indeed pulled once (Colorado State).
Could that behavior have transitioned into this season? He indeed used the same refrains after the USC game, that he was trying to make the perfect throw instead of the right throw. It seems from the first three games that he's developed quite a bit, but not enough to react well to adversity.
Receiver development has also suffered. The receivers also have had their troubles; their routes have been good at times but lazy at others. It's fair to say our quarterbacks and receivers might not yet be on the same page.
So it isn't out of the question to say our receivers didn't develop as much as we would've liked them to. It takes time to read and react to gain a rhythm with your quarterback, and you could say the shifting between quarterbacks has caused some
Valuable game experience: Riley was brought in for relief efforts against Arizona and USC, two of the toughest opponents Cal faced last season. Imagine if he played all four quarters and got a chance to read and react against tougher road opposition? He only had two true road starts (the Washington State game was more of a scrimmage and he had two relief appearances with mixed results).
Cons:
We might've lost a game or two we could've won. Longshore played an efficient game in two of his starts (Arizona State, Arizona, USC, Miami), and kept us within reach for two others. Although he wasn't exactly lighting the world up (54% completion rate is pretty bad), it is better than Riley's completion rate and his accuracy struggles.
If the struggles cost us wins, Tedford would again have been criticized for stubbornly sticking to a quarterback, which could've led to even further discontent from Cal fans. Our Coach can't win, can he? When he puts in one quarterback and it doesn't work, he gets criticized.. When he tries to mix and match between two and it kind of works, he gets criticized. Safe to say a six or seven win season would've been looked upon less fondly than eight or nine.
The extra playing time might not have helped Riley at all. Playing an extra three games does not guarantee much. Riley was inconsistent through most of 2008. After one strong performance against Michigan State, he did not play well enough the rest of the season to justify the starting spot. In addition, the offensive line wasn't very good last season and is still mixing and matching this season.
What do you guys think? Sound off.
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You can autoschedule posts man
I wrote this awhile ago.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 3:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Okay, okay, but why do you schedule for 3 AM? Just wondering.
by CaliforniaCMB on Oct 11, 2009 11:01 PM PDT up reply actions
These guys are college students, not pros. While lots of pros and cons can be made about QB development, I think that giving seniors a chance to play and giving them the best chance to win matters for something, especially when there’s little upgrade in the backup.
I guess the real question is did the Bears have a realistic chance to win the Pac-10 last year? It’s borderline really, we did play well enough for three quarters to hang with Oregon State and USC. I’d say our chances were low, which is why you could argue that the Bears might have been better off eating their lumps with Riley and thinking long-term.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Voted for "not changed a thing"
I haven’t seen too many accurate passes from Riley yet this season. It seems pretty clear now why Tedford was alternating between Longshore and Riley… Riley simply isn’t what many of us hyped him up to be and isn’t THAT much better with Longshore, especially considering how Longshore’s first full season was actually quite good. I’m not saying he won’t be, and surely the o-line and receivers share a sizable amount of blame for his woes as well, but I think most of us extrapolated Riley’s skill a bit too far based on that Armed Forces game. Right now, I don’t see any reason to believe that starting a few extra games would have helped Riley in his development, though maybe at the end of the year I’ll be eating crow.
Good points. I do agree Riley was overhyped for his Armed Forces Bowl performance and the ability he showed at the end of Oregon State, and it led a lot of us to over-assess his abilities when we should’ve thought rationally that he was playing with Longshore’s skill players.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions
2008 is SO 2007. It’s over.
Sorry, at this point i don’t buy any excuse for Riley’s performance that isn’t about Riley and his coaching (personally, not in relation to other QB’s). He got plenty of starts last year to not have any excuse about experience. He’s got no one looking over his shoulder now so there’s no need for him to be over concerned with “trying to be too accurate” (a BS excuse if there ever was one).
And I say all of this will full confidence that Riley is going to improve and we’ll look back on the bickering of the last couple weeks and laugh come Sun Bowl time.
Us fans make way to much of way to small things. Just let the kids play. It’s bad enough when we’re all armchair quarterbacks, but there’s no need for us to be armchair psychologists too.
by kencraw on Oct 11, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Well, I’m saying that if Riley had gotten that experience, our first five games might’ve gone much smoother. I feel just like you that he should improve as time goes by this season. However, if he had gotten those snaps last year without having to look behind him, would his mental and mechanical edge be better prepared to deal with adversity like he faced in Autzen and against the Trojans?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Mental edge – perhaps. Mechanical edge – absolutely no. It’s been documented that Cignetti didn’t work on QB mechanics.
Who does work on QB mechanics? Tedford? That’d be a little disturbing.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Which probably should be added to the balance of positives vs. negatives of the Tedford regime. Hiring a quarterbacks coach who wasn’t prepared or willing to actually coach Cal’s quarterbacks? Quietly and inexplicably one of Tedford’s biggest missteps.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
You’re dead-on right. I like the kid, but those statements about trying to be too perfect and looking over his shoulder are excuses — and weak ones.
Every starter needs to be looking over their shoulder. If someone is playing better than you are, or you’re struggling, then it’s to be expected that a change will be made. Only at the QB position do we treat the players with kid gloves, and act like the job is one person’s private property. And what about Longshore having to look over his shoulder the last couple years? You could make the same argument that Nate would have played looser and more effectively if he wasn’t worried about losing snaps to Riley. But it makes no difference. Perform or stand on the sideline.
Football is a competitive sport, not self-esteem therapy. If worrying about what MIGHT happen if you aren’t perfect makes you collapse, then you don’t have any business in the huddle to begin with.
Riley has a ton of potential, but he needs to stop making excuses and focuses on correcting those things that are within his power to correct — not worry about anything else but executing each play.
by Monica's Dad on Oct 11, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Soon…can we please see “should Sweeney or Mansion get meaningful snaps to see if we can have an accurate QB in 2010?” It’s a similar situation to the question posed here. Having to go through growing pains in 2010 or 2011 because Tedford won’t pull an extremeley ineffective QB is tough to comprehend.
Seriously…with a potent run game…this offense just needs a QB who can hit guys in the numbers in the short-intermediate passing game. Not behind, not above, not below…in the numbers.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
It’s not really similar. Longshore and Riley had both seen a meaningful amount of snaps when they were being rotated in and out. Mansion and Sweeney have been practicing their handoff technique.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions
You know, if we decided to play nobody but freshmen and sophomores this year, we’d be really good in 2011. But you don’t play for 2011 in 2009; you play for 2009. Just like last year, we were playing for 2008. And if you don’t win in 2008, maybe you don’t pick up as many big-time recruits. Maybe your program momentum stalls. Maybe your players lose faith in you because you’re not necessarily playing to win, you’re playing to win down the road.
You play your best players as you see it, at the time you see it. The most important game is always the one on the coming Saturday.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Oct 11, 2009 10:19 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I just don’t know if there was a huge dropoff between Longshore and Riley. It wasn’t as if Tedford had that much confidence when his senior started either. Nate got pulled twice on the road in favor of Kevin in the second half. In all we had five games with quarterback shuffling (not counting blowouts).
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions
if Cal’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th QBs pass as inaccurately as Riley, then this program is in trouble.
My point: We need to see what else we have since 14-40 isn’t going to get Cal a win on Saturdays.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Riley's arms look like plastic in the picture
Act all day, dance all night. Let's get it poppin'... I'm in Bombay, trick!
Hmm
Lots of people who said “no” are voicing their opinions, but no one who said “yes” is. Anyone from that side of the aisle want to say anything?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 2:06 PM PDT reply actions
I voted Yes. I’d also vote “Let’s see Sweeney complete a meaningful 3rd down pass in 2009.”
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
If Sweeney is completing a meaningful 3rd down pass in 2009 something went horribly horribly horribly HORRIBLY wrong.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
did you watch the last two game?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Did you?
Cal Football: It could happen!
by CalBandGreat on Oct 11, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions
No, but I watched Pam and Jim’s wedding! That was happy.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, not the completing-a-meaningful-3rd-down-pass-in-2009 part.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 11, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Here is your “Yes”:
From the moment that Longshore threw the opening interception against Michigan State, if he had never played again, I don’t think that there would have been any clamoring from fans to put him back on the field. Once we lost the Maryland game, I think everyone understood that we were not a team that was going to win a Rose Bowl. Riley was actually good at times and it seemed important that our young receivers and him work out their issues together.
This got complicated by Riley getting hurt at Oregon.
I think you play for this season to an extent – but that isn’t the only thing you play for. Ask a Colorado fan today if they think burning a freshman QBs redshirt made sense. After all, Dan Hawkins was just playing for this season.
I don’t think that there would have been any clamoring from fans to put him back on the field.
Well assuming Riley’s concussion still happened then Longshore would’ve played again. Either a) he sucks due to lack of practice and we lose or b) He plays well like he really does and QB controversy starts again.
Either way it’s bad
In other words, Go Bears!
Yes, no doubt the concussion screws up an hindsight on this. Point being though the real problem was exactly what CalBear81 says in the next post down – I still don’t quite understand why the competition was reopened prior to the ASU game.
by Tedfordisgod on Oct 11, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Phil Jackson likes to have his teams face adversity prior to the playoffs. He believes this allows the players and team to realize what their collective and individual strengths are, how to lean on those strengths, and how to execute plays upon those strengths. Essentially learn how to play and perform well under stress at the most important moments in a game. Overcoming adversity also builds team trust which leads to greater chemistry and teamwork. Confronting one’s adversity and weaknesses allows the player and team to grow and become stronger.
Had Riley been able to confront his weaknesses last year I doubt he would have overcome his deficiencies and become a better quarterback. I honestly thought Riley had overcome his problems and matured as a quarterback during the Oregon game last year. He threw an early interception and overcame a fumble by Best, yet was still driving the Bears downfield accurately and efficiently, even with receivers dropping passes. Then he got hurt, then USC, and Oregon St. Now I can’t help but think of Riley as a momentum quarterback. When he is relaxed and comfortable, he can be great. When he is in a funk, he doesn’t get out. The 2008 games vrs. Wazzou, Colorado St, USC, Oregon St, and Arizona plus 09’s games vrs Oregon and SC severely outweigh the minor funks he got out of against Maryland and Minnesota this year.
by chowder on Oct 11, 2009 5:05 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Curious. You seem to agree with the Zen Master’s coaching philosophy, but disagree that it would’ve helped Riley?
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 11, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Yea, I kept disagreeing with whatever I had just written, then became too tired to figure it out, pushed post and went to bed. My main hesitation is that I can’t think of a game or a time when Riley overcame inaccuracies. To this point he has never been given the opportunity to overcome a stretch of bad games, and within a single game I can’t think of an instance when he was able to overcome his problems and play better in the 4th. You might cite Oregon st in 07, but I felt that was more his receivers than him. Having never seen him overcome adversity I am unsure he would have been able to overcome his problems during the Arizona games last year, thus I am unsure he would have become a better player.
Good points. The sample size is indeed a little strange since 2008; he’s had his good moments and bad ones.
Michigan State—got better as the game went on
Wazzu—game was a rout, really don’t count that
Maryland—got way better as time went by
Colorado State—not very good, benched
UCLA—inaccurate throughout, I give you that
Oregon—played pretty well on the first drive, that stupid concussion changed everything
Oregon State—off again.
Furd—yeah, he had nothing again
Washington—over before it started
Maryland ‘09—started slow, played better later on
Minnesota ’09—ditto
Oregon ’09—had good moments, just couldn’t finish
USC ’09—gag.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 12, 2009 7:01 AM PDT up reply actions
And even within the games lst year its hard to determine if the passing problems were because of Riley.
Mich. St.-played well, with some drops and good protection
Wazzu-didn’t need to pass
Maryland-looked horrible early, but the line was also getting shredded. As the defense switched to a prevent he vastly improved, as you would hope.
Colorado St-played poorly, got benched
UCLA-the wide receivers dropped a ton of balls, with only one or two passes that truly missed the intended target
Oregon-as i said previously, i thought he had matured during this game, then got knocked out
USC/Oregon St-the line got shredded contributing to slew of errant passes
Furd-had once beautiful pass to Vereen, but didnt need to pass to win
Washington-didn’t need to pass to win
r u in Riley’s Top Friends in fb?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
You seem angry.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 12, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes someone gets it!
This is what I was arguing for last season. Riley should have been the starter the whole way through last year, as were playing a new crop of WRs who would have to grow with a QB. Longshore helped at times, but he wasn’t the future anymore.
Longshore had to grow with the WRs in 2006, in order to get off to his fast start in 2007. Riley needed 2008 to grow with the frosh/soph WRs, work out the bugs and have some experience to fall back on when he hit rough patches this year.
I think Tedford felt some pressure to try to go all out to win the Pac-10 last year and hence sacrificed some of Riley’s progress by playing musical chairs at QB.
Again, we have to let Riley play the rest of the way in order to determine if he is the answer.
Yeah but Longshore was proficient in 2006
His stats matched John David Booty’s up till the SC game where we got raped. ’06’s o-line wasn’t even that great. Tennessee killed us and Longshore had to scramble a bunch of times. Same with in SC. It was as bad as Oregon this year or worse. I know in ‘06 Nate had to learn with the receivers, and it was pretty clear the Hawk was turning into his go-to guy and this was dead obvious by ’07, but the way Nate stepped up in 06 is far different from Riley this year… Plus Riley’s had half of last season really and even a game in 07 to work off of.
It doesn't matter...
I understand this post is more for just verbal masturbation, but we’ve made our bed and we must lie in it…
Riley should have been able to build off what he did last year, but our situation was a very awkward one… Nate, although he F’d up hard in 07 playing with a high ankle sprain (cough broken foot cough) always had the potential to be a top draft pick but could never put all the pieces together, but was still very productive at times… So its hard to say bench him in favor of Riley, as Riley was not any better (until the 4th quarter that is) and when Nate was on, he was on. Although in retrospect I think Riley should have started for experience purposes for this year.
In that same respect though, that’s like saying we need to mail in the rest of 2009 to get Beau or Brock ready for 2010, which no logical fan thinks is the right answer… In 2010-11 we’ll have better insight into this, but we still have a game next week, and Riley gives us the best opportunity to get a W
So should he have played all year in 2008? I don’t know, but really, it doesn’t matter
I hear El Paso is beautiful in December....
Showing loyalty is a good thing
I don’t know much about recruiting but I would think how Telford stuck with Longshore to increase his longshot to make it into the NFL will resonant positively with future recruits.
by LEastCoastBears on Oct 12, 2009 12:05 PM PDT reply actions
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
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
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 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
