Is Tedford in danger of becoming Ben Braun?
by bringbackbuddytrees on Dec 28, 2009 11:10 AM PST
Email
Print(Bumped up for discussion. The argument expressed here does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CGB's writers, but is meant to encourage debate of the issue.)
Let me start by saying, I still thoroughly respect Tedford for being a class act and salvaging the program from a perennial Pac-10 doormat. He is loyal. He has high graduation rates and is very much driven by good intentions and high character. Recruits like him, players are loyal to him, and he is a role model to the Pete Carrolls and Jim Harbaughs(John doesn't seem like such an A-hole.) of the world. He seems like a nice guy; he is starting to seem like Ben Braun. Good but never going to be great.
Scheme and Strategy:
Braun's hallmark, in his prime at Cal, was playing stiffling defense which often held more talented and larger opponents. His weakness seemed to be offense which seemed haphazard and often lacked form or consistency. Then his last year, he stumbles upon first round NBA scorer Ryan Anderson paired with NBA-body Devon Hardin and decent guard play and the scoring problem disappears. Unfortunately, so did the trademark defense.
Tedford's hallmark was developing NFL quarterbacks starting with Fresno State (David Carr, Billy Volek), Oregon (Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, AJ Feeley, etc.) and Cal (Kyle Boller, Aaron Rodgers). He was considered an offensive mastermind, running an efficient and creative passing attack out of a "pro-style" offense that has consistently produced 1,000 yard rushers along with the quarterbacks. When his quarterbacks didn't succeed in the NFL (pre-Rodgers), I believe the criticism stung him that they were not being prepared enough or that he was babying them with giving them half-field reads, etc. This coincided with attempting to be more of a head coach than just a offensive coordinator and quarterback coach following the 2007 meltdown post-Oregon State. Fast-forward to the QB run of Ayoob, Longshore, and Riley with people questioning his QB credentials.
Why Not Go to More Spread like everyone else in college football and increasingly in the pros?
The Former Andy Ludwig vs. the Current Andy Ludwig: Contrasting what Utah was doing with what Cal was doing helped define why Cal hasn't been successful or consistent on offense for a while. Utah had a true freshman QB, Jordan Wynn (who wanted to go to Cal) throw for over 300 yards and 3 touchdowns. He had more poise, accuracy and success than Riley but it wasn't because he was better. It was because his offense made it simple for him; watching him was nothing more than pitch and catch. Wynn didn't do much other than throw laterally most of the time like most spread QBs (i.e. Bradford or McCoy) to wide open receivers who counted on their other receivers to make blocks or allowed their talented skill players beat one on one matchups or sometimes 3 on 2s. QB builds confidence, throws a high percentage, the ball is out quickly which puts less strain on the O-line (clearly a Bear weakness), and it gives great athletes the opportunity to make plays in the open field (Cal has in spades.) It is like water torture on a defense, especially an undisciplined one like most college defenses, which is bound to break sometime which Cal did. It gets consistent first downs which the Cal offense hasn't been able to do in years and it keeps a subpar defense or threatening opposing offense off of the field (also means less punts and special teams which are always an adventure for Cal.) The short passing/screening game also leads to shots down the field once the defense starts being overly aggressive which is how Utah scored over the top.
I'm not sure why Tedford Doesn't Employ More Spread/Short Passing Offense but here are my theories:
1. Mike Dunbar and his spread didn't mesh with Tedford's desire to maintain a ground game.
2. He still has NFL ambitions and knows that the League still prefers a balanced "pro-style" attack, so if he ever aspires to be an NFL offensive coordinator, he wants to stay in a "pro-scheme."
3. He can sell QB recruits that they won't be Alex Smith once they go pro. He also can promise carries to running backs.
I don't think Cal needs to go to shotgun spread, but it needs to make the game simpler for its quarterbacks. For all their frequently noted deficiencies, Ayoob and Longshore had some strengths but they needed 2-3 years to get the ever changing offense with its annual change of coordinators. By the time they got a handle on the offense, by which time, their confidence (and the teams and fans confidence in them) was too damaged to repair. I remember Kyle Boller getting flack for only having to read half the field and those Tedford-coached QB questions raised by Mel Kiper explained why Rodgers went from the consensus #1 or 2 pick to falling to #24. But I think Tedford has been overreacting to criticism and needs to focus on making it easy on the 18-19 year olds that are committing to leading his offense.
Making the Most of Talent:
As much as the new facilities will help by 2012, I don't think Cal should look at USC as its model to emulate in the Pac-10. With the academic rigor and less tradition, I think Cal needs to gear its program around its talent instead of making the talent be restricted by the "system." With top 50 of all-time point guard, Jason Kidd and Lamond Murray, Shareef Abdul-Rahim, Sean Lampley, Ed Gray, and Ryan Anderson, Cal shouldn't have struggled to get in the tournament. Similarly, while Cal Football hasn't had multiple 5-star recruits at every position like the USCs or Floridas, Cal has had some serious studs in Justin Forsett, JJ Arrington, Rodgers, and Marshawn. I think Desean Jackson best illustrates the problem with talent. Desean was a star of stars and electric anytime he got the ball in high school; he is gaining a similar reputation in the pros. At Cal, he gained Heisman consideration merely on the strength of his punt returns and the few balls that actually got to him. Few times did Cal run reverses or screens (the double-moves or stop and gos) to him, they just hoped he would get open.
When Oregon State got major league talent in the Rogers brothers, it built its offense around them and insured they got 20-30 touches a game because they were equalizers. At Stanfurd, they knew they had Toby Gerhart and built a power running attack around him and slowly worked in their freshman QB. I don't think the same could be said about Cal with Desean or Jahvid. For Cal to compete with the big boys, it needs to find its strength and exploit it (like the Stanford game.) If Cal sticks with Riley, then I don't think his strength is being a pocket passer waiting for long-developing downfield routes.
Hope for the Future:
I have very little hope things can be any better next year, just as with Braun when Anderson declared. For the past two plus years, its not just losing but not even being competitive in big games that is depressing. The lack of consistency seems to point to a lack of a direction or focus. I have no sense that the coach or team know how to fix what is wrong. Cal had USC at home with a returning QB, a Heisman candidate running back, and almost all of its defense except the linebackers but still failed to even approach second place in the Pac-10, in a year when Arizona, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington all got SC. Recruits won't help a flawed strategy nor will increasing motivation when there does not seem to be an identity to the team. In rebuilding teams, you can point to youth but I don't think that this team can use this excuse. Since next year holds any promise of being any better, can Tedford survive another year of this, whatever it is?
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.
116 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very thought-provoking post. I honestly don’t know enough about the spread to speak to your suggestions there, but I do want to clarify one thing:
However good Tedford might have been as a QB coach when he was Oregon OC, the whole idea of Tedford-as-QB-guru is NOT reflected in the statistics of his time at Cal.
Cal has consistently ranked in the top third of the Pac-10 in rushing statistics; it has struggled to rank in even the top half of the Pac-10 in passing statistics. As a matter of fact, for the 2002-2008 period Cal leds the Pac-10 in rushing yards per game.
So…the idea that any successful Cal offense must necessarily be based on a passing game is debatable. If you look at our rushing game this year – it was pretty damn good, and that was in spite of the fact that opposing teams didn’t respect Riley at all and frequently stacked the box (to say nothing of our o-line troubles).
I don’t know enough about CFB to evaluate the talent of our players, but I don’t think that our scheme is necessarily the problem. Just my $0.02.
The Braun comparison is not warranted at all. No offense, but anyone who understands the game of basketball will tell you that Ben Braun is one of the worst coaches to ever get a chance to coach a major conference team. Watching a Ben Braun-coached team attempt to play basketball is one of the most painful things you can do – simply put, they play awful basketball. Theo got progressively worse under Braun the further removed he was from his Alocco days – it’s only under Monty that his basketball IQ has returned to where it was when he was a senior in HS. We’ve now seen what Randle is capable of with a good coach – whereas under Braun he wasn’t very good and wasn’t improving at all. Braun ruined Hardin’s career – Hardin didn’t get better in 4 years under Braun, despite a guy like Pete Newell (a true basketball genius) having only positive things to say about Hardin and his work ethic/desire to improve and listen. Braun was a good recruiter, don’t get me wrong, and that’s why he stuck as long as he did….but when it came to understanding the game and teaching it to his players, he was as bad as you’ll ever see. Tedford and his staff are pretty clearly not in the same boat – they consistently win, players actually progress under their coaching, they’ve had more success than just barely making it into the NCAA tournament (see: multiple Top 25 finishes and a Top 10 finish) ….just not a good comparison at all.
Also, looking at star players as an example of what a team should be able to accomplish isn’t a good comparison, it’s just so apples-to-oranges. A star basketball player is a true game changer, after all, they only have 4 other teammates on the court. A star football player can only do so much, and is much more dependent on his teammates to succeed. So it’s just not the same situation at all. For instance, you wanted more screens to Desean….in theory, sure, getting the ball in his hands is great. In reality, we didn’t have a single receiver 6’0+ or 180+ pounds that played….so who, exactly, is supposed to block on these screens to spring Desean? Even a talent like Desean can only do so much on his own, whereas you look at what guys like Rose, Wall, Melo, or even lesser talents like Anderson can accomplish on their own in basketball, and there’s just an enormous fundamental difference that doesn’t allow for any meaningful comparison at all….
I get what you’re saying, and I don’t want for a second for people to think that I’d be accepting of the sort of mediocrity that was the hallmark of Braun’s last five years at Cal, but I also want to make clear that Tedford’s lowest moments at Cal have not approached where the basketball program was through the middle of this decade.
- Tedford has still never had a losing season; Braun had three in his final five years
- Since coming off probation (not of his own doing), Tedford has never missed the postseason; Braun missed it three times in his final five years
- Tedford has won a share of a Pac-10 title, something Braun never did
- Tedford’s teams have consistently been in the national rankings, something only occassionally acheived by Braun’s teams
- Braun’s final few teams were not only not relevant in the Pac-10 (Leon Powe notwithstanding), but were largely irrelevant on campus, something you can’t say about Tedford’s teams
You can argue that Tedford’s program has plateaued, even regressed a bit, over the last few years, and I don’t think the level we’re at now is a level we should be accepting of in the long tun, but it’s still settled at a significantly higher level that Braun’s program was at through most of this decade.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Dec 28, 2009 12:33 PM PST reply actions 3 recs
Jeff Tedford isn’t Ben Braun. Jeff Tedford is Jeff Tedford.
"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
Really?
He seems like a nice guy; he is starting to seem like Ben Braun. Good but never going to be great.
Been reading BI lately?
Fast-forward to the QB run of Ayoob, Longshore, and Riley with people questioning his QB credentials.
Please list who the QB coaches have been since 2006. I’ll do it for you since you probably wouldn’t have made this comment if you did the research yourself. 2002-2005: JT, 2006: Dunbar, 2007: Daft, 2008: Cignetti, 2009: Ludwig. Notice how QB play has been crappy since JT has delegated QB duties to other coaches? Ayoob in 2005 is not a good example for rebuttal. Any reasonable person knows that it wakes upwards of 2 years for a QB to learn JT’s offense. Ayoob was forced into starting in a pro style offense less than 9 months being on campus (maybe even less, but I think he was a spring enrollee). Ayoob was heralded for his play in a spread offense while at CCSF. BIG, BIG change for him. QB play was stellar when JT was QB coach. People that give him sh!t for our crappy QB play the past 4 years and question his status as a QB guru need to check themselves. It’s easy to blame JT for everything when the whole story is not known. I feel JT needs to take on the QBs again. JT is the MAN when it comes to grooming QBs but he needs to be working with them every day in practice which he hasn’t been doing in an effort to become more of the CEO type Head Coach that people have called for him to be.
Wynn didn’t do much other than throw laterally most of the time like most spread QBs ….The short passing/screening game also leads to shots down the field once the defense starts being overly aggressive which is how Utah scored over the top…..Why Tedford Doesn’t Employ More Spread/Short Passing Offense
Have you seen the accuracy of our QB? Have you seen the reliability of our receivers? Have you seen the way our OL block on screens? An OC’s playcalling is limited to what the players can do. Cal tried all that stuff during the bowl game with inconsistent success. You weren’t paying attention it appears.
I don’t think Cal needs to go to shotgun spread, but it needs to make the game simpler for its quarterbacks… 2-3 years to get the ever changing offense with its annual change of coordinators. By the time they got a handle on the offense, by which time, their confidence (and the teams and fans confidence in them) was too damaged to repair
Agreed. I have ideas on how this can happen but I’ll save that for another day.
Mel Kiper explained why Rodgers went from the consensus #1 or 2 pick to falling to #24
Kiper is an idiot. Give me some hair gel, a comb, a snazzy suit, and put me on tv and I can do a better job.
As much as the new facilities will help by 2012, I don’t think Cal should look at USC as its model to emulate in the Pac-10.
Agreed completely.
I think Cal needs to gear its program around its talent instead of making the talent be restricted by the “system.”
Again, you are not paying enough attention to what’s happening on the field. JT and Ludwig have plenty of plays that are tailored to our talent but people only notice things when a TD happens. They don’t notice enough when a certain play fails because of a bad pass or bad run blocking. Successful play tailored to Best: TD pass vs fucla that isolated him on a LB. Failed play tailored to Best: Riley overthrows Best on a simple flat route in the endzone vs Wazzu.
I think Desean Jackson best illustrates the problem with talent. Desean was a star of stars and electric anytime he got the ball in high school; he is gaining a similar reputation in the pros. At Cal, he gained Heisman consideration merely on the strength of his punt returns and the few balls that actually got to him.
You are right, DJ does illustrate a problem with talent. I would have loved if there was a QB with a rocket arm like McNabb on our roster that could throw the long bomb to DJ on a consistent basis.
Few times did Cal run reverses or screens (the double-moves or stop and gos) to him, they just hoped he would get open.
Again, you are not paying attention to what is going on during games. Cal ran plenty of end -arounds for DJ. There were a number of WR screens run for him. Double moves don’t work when you are being blanketed in coverage by 2-3 defenders and when a QB can’t ge the ball over the top to you.
My suggestion to you: Relax, have a happy new year, and enjoy basketball season. Come back in a few months in time for spring ball just to get away from things. You sound really stressed and confused. The time away will do you good.
Ayoob in 2005 is not a good example for rebuttal. Any reasonable person knows that it wakes upwards of 2 years for a QB to learn JT’s offense.
That doesn’t quite wash. Why recruit Ayoob at all if he was going to take his entire tenure at Cal to learn the offense? I don’t think Tedford would miss a trick that badly. I think Tedford probably had a legitimate expectation that Ayoob would start in 2005 (which was what everyone else involved expected), but something went wrong away from the public eye.
Certainly it’s an interesting topic, in and of itself.
"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
I do think JT had a legitimate reason to believe Ayoob could start in 2005, but I’m speaking from hindsight in regards to it taking ~2 years to learn the offense and another year playing in it to really understand it per off the record convos. With the exception of Rodgers and perhaps Boller, nobody else comes close. Maybe Nate but he didn’t start in 2004 for obvious reasons and he was injured in 2005.
To be fair, bringbackbuddytrees didn’t write this post in a stressful/uptight/frustrated manner, so calls for him to calm down or whatever seem unwarranted.
Notwithstanding the issue of whether his arguments are merited, he wrote what he wanted to say in a straightforward, non-inflammatory manner, one that should encourage open and respectful discussion.
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
It’s a reasonable question to posit and to take insult by it implies a lack of open mindedness IMHO.
Well it depends on what your opinion on “reasonable” is, I guess. Ben Braun was a horrible coach, and unless you have some reason to say that about Tedford (in my opinion the evidence points strongly to the opposite), it is a pretty ridiculous opinion…so I dunno, if the comparison turns out to be ridiculous, is it a reasonable question to begin with?
by Missing Barry on Dec 29, 2009 9:20 PM PST up reply actions
No, Ben Braun wasn’t horrible, and the question is a legitimate one to ask. Braun isn’t a great coach, but ‘mediocre’ fits him a lot better than ‘horrible’.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Well, taking his recruiting into account, he’s not that bad, as he did bring in a decent amount of talent. When it comes specifically to the coaching part of things though, yes, he IS horrible. I have never seen another program play worse basketball than Cal did under his tenure. Any semblance of an offensive gameplan was missing entirely, the players consistently made bad decisions (because Braun didn’t coach them to make good ones), their fundamentals were lacking, to say the least, they rarely improved over their 4 years in any substantial way….they just didn’t know what to do on a basketball court beyond their own individual skills, and essentially were out there playing organized pickup basketball. That’s entirely a reflection of Braun’s inability to coach basketball in an effective manner. Watching a Monty-team play is refreshing, to say the least….
by Missing Barry on Dec 30, 2009 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
See, I’d still disagree, at least somewhat. I think Braun had a lot of trouble getting blue chip talent to improve; where he excelled was in maximizing mediocre talent. Guys like Solomon Hughes, Ryan Forehan-Kelly, Rod Benson, Dennis Gates all got quite a bit better under Braun. Sean Lampley, Joe Shipp, Brian Wethers all may have been pretty highly-rated, but they also all thrived in Braun’s offense.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
No offense, but honestly I don’t think you watched “Braun’s offense” very closely. There wasn’t much to it at all. Most of those players were pretty mediocre and honestly not all that important to the teams end results – in basketball, it tends to be the top 3 or so players in almost every case that are the significant factors in how well a team does – guys like Hughes, Forehan-Kelly, Gates are all just role players who don’t do a whole lot to determine the outcome of games. I’m even a huge fan of the Boom Tho Movement, but the reality is Rod Benson just wasn’t much of a player at Cal – he didn’t rebound much, didn’t block many shots (29 blocks in 66 career games can’t possibly be right, can it?), didn’t score a whole lot….it’s not like Braun turned any of them into any more than role players, either.
The real point is if you broke down the film of Braun-lead offenses, you’d see almost no movement designed to actually accomplish anything, no cuts to space (when was the last time a Braun player effectively backdoor’ed his man?), no offball picks with a purpose that actually hit a guy to give the moving offensive player an advantage….it was a lot of 1 on 1 style ball where a very talented player like Ubaka (god he should have been so much better, kid had skills but wasn’t taught to play winning basketball at all) or Powe had to carry the offense, creating shots for themselves and their teammates, which is why it was so ineffective.
The sad thing that really proves my point is even a guy like Lampley wasn’t a good offensive player. I liked Lampley a lot, don’t get me wrong, and he obviously scored a lot of points (not sure if he’s still the career leader but he definitely was when he left)…but just look at his scoring efficiency and you’ll see evidence why Braun’s teams underachieved. Points aren’t what matter. Scoring efficiency is. For a post player to score as much as Lampley does while barely cracking the 50% mark is pretty terrible. At least his senior year he shot a good enough percentage from the line and got to the line enough to make his scoring come at an acceptable efficiency, but for the previous 3 seasons, it was basically worthless. Don’t be fooled by per game numbers – there’s a reason Cal never saw a whole lot of success under Braun – they just didn’t do the things that wins games, because he was an awful coach.
Despite my railings against Braun’s awful, awful coaching, I just want to say again that I do think it was the right move to keep him around for a while – he did bring in enough talent to earn himself that time, and did have enough success in the beginning to deserve to stick around a while. In the end we just found out how bad his coaching ability really is, which is why we moved on…
by Missing Barry on Dec 31, 2009 1:46 AM PST up reply actions
A couple comments
- Rod Benson led our team in scoring in 2005 (i think it was that year — whichever one Powe was injured for). Considering where he started (he was basically a volleyball player when he came in), I think he turned out ok.
- Lampley is still the career leader in points scored, though Randle has an outside shot of eclipsing that mark, especially if the Bears can make a deep postseason run. His senior year was my freshman year, so those are pretty much the only memories I have of him. If you say he was mediocre in his previous three years, you’ll get no argument from me.
- I’m also not going to argue that there was much to Braun’s offense. There really wasn’t. It was indeed baffling at time, though his teams still managed to score points and win games often enough, at least early on. Sure, that was partially good recruiting, but not always. And while we’re on the subject of recruiting, Braun didn’t bring in a single McDonald’s All-American, did he?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Hey, take that attitude over to BI.
So what can you say?
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
We DID go spread
under Dunbar.
It didn’t really work. Here’s the thing about complaining about scheme – at the level we’re at, any scheme (pro-set, spread, triple option, 3-4, 4-3) will work if exectued right . . . and all will fail with poor execution. Tedford likes the Pro-Set and we have made a decision as a program that it’s easier to recruit linebackers than defensive linemen – so I’m quite satisfied with both a pro-set and a 3-4.
And you really don’t remember all the different ways we tried to get DJax the ball in space? End arounds (touchdown against Colorado State), bubble screens, swing passes, double moves (that entire ame against oregon) there was a million ways we tried to get DJax the ball in space.
Well
There are a lot of aspects of an offense, so it is not a valid comparison but 2006 under Dunbar was a pretty good offense – 12th in the nation in overall offense (since then: 50, 47, 46).
I’d love to be back up the 12th personally – the second best year under Tedford (best was 2004 – 5th in the nation).
Source: NCAA football statistics
You know this is the internet, you don’t actually need to cite your sources.
So what can you say?
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 29, 2009 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
Tedford deserves better than a comparison to Ben Braun
Looking ourselves in the mirror as a program and being critical about our program is one thing. But this is thought provoking in a throw Tedford under the bus sort of way. And for what? Because we haven’t gone to the Rose Bowl in his 8 years?
Tedford’s program has:
- 67 wins since 2002.
- 7 straight bowl appearances.
- Two 10-win season
- Graduated players at a very high rate
- Basically created unemployment for the stanfurd Axe committee.
I’m not sure enough of us understand how hard it is to do what Tedford has done. He has won at Cal. If that were so easy to do, how come it wasn’t done since 1959, save for a couple of Mike White years and two Bruce Snyder years? If it was so easy to do, why did Rich Brooks tell Tedford not to take the job because “it’s impossible to win there”?
Okay, fine. We want to take the program to the next level. BCS bowls, the Rose Bowl, Pac-10 championships. I get that. I really do. But Coach Tedford hasn’t gotten stupid since 2002. And we’re not finishing 8th and 9th in the Pac-10 like Ben Braun’s last couple of teams. We have a good coach who has given his heart and soul to the program, given us great victories, and given us actual belief that we can be something great as a football program.
Criticize him and his staff? Sure, let’s do that. Oski knows I’m puzzled as hell about why we got blown out in every loss this year, yet could step up with unbelievable heart to beat Arizona and stanfurd. But I need a lot more evidence than consecutive seasons of 7-6, 9-4, and 8-5 to think that the program has plataued, much less that the sky is falling on it.
Praise be to Tedford!
by Ohio Bear on Dec 28, 2009 1:10 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Did Rich Brooks really say that? What a bitch. I think that’s bullshit.
So what can you say?
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 28, 2009 2:05 PM PST up reply actions
Also bizarre. Could Cal really be that much harder to win at than Oregon when Brooks started there?
"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
Reasonable expectations
Anyone who was a Cal fan in the Holmoe era is reminded just how far we’ve come under Tedford. What’s wrong with “plateauing” (sp?) with winning seasons and expecting a record around 8-5 or 9-4? I think the tendency, as with any addiction, is to want more and more piled onto what you’re already getting. Holmoe era behind us, people are no longer satisfied with going to a bowl game every year, now they want to go the the BCS games. Not sure its reasonable to expect that.
The compensation provided under [Jeff Tedford's] contract is funded exclusively from athletic department revenues and private fundraising and no State or general campus funds are used in this arrangement.
by dballisloose on Dec 29, 2009 5:56 AM PST up reply actions
It’s called progress. Why shouldn’t you expect the program to get better slowly over time? It’s not like we expect to go to a BCS bowl every single year. But one every now and then isn’t too much to expect.
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2009 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
Why shouldn’t you expect the program to get better slowly over time?
By definition, it would be impossible for all programs to get better over time. Therefore, some must remain in place or even regress over time.
by HolmoePhobe on Dec 29, 2009 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not talking about “all programs”, I’m talking about OUR program. I also don’t expect it to get better every single year necessarily. But there should be two steps forward with the one step back so that the overall trend is progress. If we reach the pinnacle, of course, there’s not as much room for improvement. But until then I’d like to see the trajectory of our accomplishments, track record, expectations, etc… trending upward.
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
So in other words you won’t be content with anything other than a perennial National Championship contender. And even then you’ll be disappointed the years they don’t win it (see: USC)….
It’s not like we expect to go to a BCS bowl every single year. But one every now and then isn’t too much to expect.
Now, this is a lot more reasonable. The thing is, as I’ve laid out in a couple of places in this thread, I do think Cal IS at the point where they’ll make a BCS bowl every once in a while, so I do think you should be happy where the program is at. It hasn’t happened yet, but it’s been pretty darn close, and eventually “close” will turn into “BCS bowl”, especially with USC not quite where it was at it’s peak, and 10 teams making BCS bowls instead of 8.
by Missing Barry on Dec 29, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
You know, you’re right, I wouldn’t be “content” unless we’re a perennial title contender. Nor do I think we should be content. But just because we want the program to continue striving for improvement and excellence, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t appreciate the progress that has been made. So even if I’m not completely “content”, as you say, I think I would be pretty happy with the occasional BCS bowl and hopeful that one day we can consistently crack the top 3 or 5. In fact, I’m pretty happy right now, in a broad sense. I know that we’ve come a long way, and as it stands we’re not terribly far from being a consistent contender for a BCS game. But, as I’m sure everyone does, I want to see it finally materialize, and I think that as fans, it’s not wrong for us to clamor for it and push the coaches and players to reach for it.
That said, I don’t think it’s fair to be disappointed every single time it doesn’t happen. Context is important. But I think it’s fair to be generally disappointed if it doesn’t ever happen over a long enough period of time.
USC fans are spoiled babies if they’re not taking their down year in stride.
by atomsareenough on Dec 29, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
I think that as fans, it’s not wrong for us to clamor for it and push the coaches and players to reach for it.
I guess the part where I chime in is when people act like we aren’t close and aren’t on the right path towards achieving this. It will happen. We know the coaches and players want to win, too, and given their success already, it’s bound to happen. Of course we wish it would have happened already, but some really bad breaks stopped it. Oh well. The future holds a BCS bid….
by Missing Barry on Dec 29, 2009 9:25 PM PST up reply actions
You know, you’re right, I wouldn’t be "content" unless we’re a perennial title contender. Nor do I think we should be content.
Then I think you´re going to be disappointed for a long time. Put things in context. Not sure how old you are, I´m 32 myself, but I´m not sure that Berkeley as an institution will support what it takes to be a perennial title contender. Its the culture of the school to support athletics to a point, even embracing being bad or being the underdog. But if you look at the money it takes (yes we’re investing in the construction of facilities) to be a UT or an Alabama or any of the other elite programs, I’m just not sure that Berkeley is going to make that investment given the political climate of being a public school in California.
The compensation provided under [Jeff Tedford's] contract is funded exclusively from athletic department revenues and private fundraising and no State or general campus funds are used in this arrangement.
by dballisloose on Dec 30, 2009 6:35 AM PST up reply actions
Hmm, let's compare Tedford's first eight seasons to Braun's
Braun:
1996–1997 California 23-9 12-6 T-2nd NCAA Sweet 16
1997–1998 California 12-15 8-10 T-5th
1998–1999 California 22-11 8-10 T-5th NIT Champions
1999–2000 California 18-15 7-11 7th NIT Quarterfinals
2000–2001 California 20-11 11-7 T-4th NCAA 1st Round
2001–2002 California 23-9 12-6 T-2nd NCAA 2nd Round
2002–2003 California 22-9 13-5 3rd NCAA 2nd Round
2003–2004 California 13-15 9-9 T-4th
Tedford:
2002 California 7–5 4–4 T-4th
2003 California 8–6 5–3 T–3rd W Insight
2004 California 10–2 7–1 2nd L Holiday 9 9
2005 California 8–4 4–4 T-4th W Las Vegas 25 25
2006 California 10–3 7–2 T-1st W Holiday 14 14
2007 California 7–6 3–6 T-7th W Armed Forces
2008 California 9–4 6–3 4th W Emerald 25
2009 California 8–5 5–4 T-5th L Poinsettia
Surprisingly the records are very similar.
Tedford: 1 tie for first, 1 second, 1 third, 3 4th, 1 5th, 1 7th
Braun: 2 ties for second, 1 third, 2 ties for fourth, 2 ties for fifth, 1 7th
Tedford has performed slightly better conference wise, and to his credit has never had a losing season, but maybe we’re selling Braun a little short based on his final few seasons. It seems like a comparison between the two is valid—good recruits, disappointing results, and about an equal level of success (mediocre bowls, first weekend finishes in the tourney).
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Dec 28, 2009 1:17 PM PST reply actions
And then fast forward to Braun's last seasons
And if Tedford has similar results (similar as in better results but a huge drop off, we’re talking 6-6 seasons unlike braun’s losing, 9th place pac 10 finish seasons), Tedford will most likely probably be fired.
Who knows, it could happen. College football is a crazy sport. But I’m not going to bet that Tedford is going to finish 9th in the pac10 anytime soon. This Ben Braun = Tedford seems like a very novel thought, but you have to make huge stretches to get anywhere.
A huge note people shouldn’t overlook. Ben Braun got a tournament team when he got his job. Tedford got a 1-10 team. Barely 1-10 I might add.
but maybe we’re selling Braun a little short based on his final few seasons
Personally, I sell Braun short because of the way his teams played basketball. He was an awful coach. This was reflected in how poorly his players played basketball. Good recruiter, which is part of the job and should be credited, of course, but it was very clear Braun does not understand X’s and O’s, or even if he does, he doesn’t understand how to teach his players the fundamentals and what they need to do on the court, so whatever knowledge he does have doesn’t get passed on to his players. He had enough success early on to warrant an extension, but eventually it became obvious that Cal needed to move on and look for a good coach.
by Missing Barry on Dec 28, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
One problem with this comparison is the state of the program when the coaches took over. Braun’s first two year was very successful – arguably based upon the talent brought in and coached by Bozeman.
Tedford’s first year came after Cal went 1-10, and then he lost a ton of seniors after his first year and still did well. Tedford has a better resume despite having to fix the worst program in the Pac-10. Braun managed to almost immediately lose momentum from a program on the upswing.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
And then Braun had three losing seasons in four years.
Are Tedford’s next three years going to be losing seasons? I sure hope not, but if they are then he will be “Ben Braun,” but he’s not now.
You know what I think would make a great dataset?
delta APR vs. delta Win pct. since the inception of APR.
So what can you say?
Perhaps, but I think you’d have to make the winning percentage a rolling average, like APR, because schedules vary from year to year and there is such a small sample size in football anyway.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Yeah. I’d still like to see, in data, whether increasing “goodness of students” corresponds to wins or losses. What if Ezeff and Hagan could’ve actually attended practice in summer/fall?
So what can you say?
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 28, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
Frankly, Tedford has had a greater run of sustained success than Braun ever had.
However, and where I really see the Braun comparisons/analogy, is the Athletic Department hanging on to Tedford past his expiration date. While Tedford’s expiration date is still a few years away we are trending toward the end of that date as opposed to the beginning.
by 33SwisherSweet on Dec 28, 2009 1:52 PM PST reply actions
Succession planning?
Please say its not going to be Gregory!
The compensation provided under [Jeff Tedford's] contract is funded exclusively from athletic department revenues and private fundraising and no State or general campus funds are used in this arrangement.
by dballisloose on Dec 29, 2009 5:57 AM PST up reply actions
Asking the question that “we’re never going to be great” ignores the fact that we have had two great teams. 2004 and 2006 were great teams.
by LeonPowe on Dec 28, 2009 1:53 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Note to Sandy: No more contract extensions after Emerald Bowl appearances. That just sends the wrong message.
Now we have Tedford signed through the 2015 season. From here on out, the only contract extension he should receive is after a BCS appearance. Plain and simple.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 2:12 PM PST reply actions
Are you serious? As if Houston Nutt would have taken a single DAY of the treesitters. Tedford had to put up with that bullshit for two YEARS.
So what can you say?
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 28, 2009 2:14 PM PST up reply actions
Oh I’m very serious. SAHPC construction had already started this time last year. And he only got a $1 million bonus paid to him Jan. 1 of this year.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Actually I do. However, there’s no guarantee that a coach will be around just because they have a contract that overlaps with a player’s time in the program. Coaches leave and get fired. You think recruits thought Urban Meyer would be a lifer at Utah?
These contract extensions generally lead to large buyouts if a coaching change is needed ie Notre Dame.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
I see what you are saying. It should be more like the Braun contract extension and "terms " is what you are getting at, I think.
Yes, I think a better contract for Tedford would be one that has more incentives rather than guaranteed salary. I read his contract a while back, and I remember that a BCS appearance only gives him something like a $50,000 bonus. Well, with a base salary of $1.8 million, he couldn’t care less from a financial perspective what record he ends up with. And I don’t think he’s that desirable of a coaching candidate that he and his agent can negotiate better deals elsewhere.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
the point about Tedford's contract is really very minor
what’s missing in this contract argument is the acknowledgement of what must be in the heart of a man to get to the level of Dive 1 head coach—the kind of heart it takes to turn this program around so dramatically.
Money is an incentive, sure, as most CEOs of F500s will tell you. But to get to those levels, and the sheer amount of sacrifice they have to make to get there and sustain those positions you have to be motivated by more than just money. I will bet you my mother and my two baby nephews that JT’s Drive to Win at All Costs, competitiveness, willingness to work hard, and loyalty far outweight his greed, vanity and comfort.
by since1997 on Jan 4, 2010 4:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I didn’t say fired. I don’t want Tedford fired. I said contract extension. He received a two year contract extension after his Emerald Bowl appearance. That is what I disagree with.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
Yes. Without any restructuring to include more incentives, I think it sends the wrong message. We should not be afraid of losing a coach after an Emerald Bowl season.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions
Tell that to the Stanford AD…
So what can you say?
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 28, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
We should not be afraid of losing a coach after an Emerald Bowl season.
When you say we shouldn’t be afraid of losing a coach after a 9-4 season, it implies that said coach’s replacement would produce a better record than 9-4, which is a questionable claim.
I think the point is that a 9-4 coach shouldn’t be considered an “irreplaceable” commodity. Not that 9-4 coaches are a dime a dozen or anything, but they’re not an endangered species either. It’s not impossible to find a quality coach who can you to 9-4. It’s very hard to find someone who will get you to the top of the mountain and into the promised land, though.
by atomsareenough on Dec 28, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
Tom Holmoe has seriously messed with your head hasn’t he?
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 5:21 PM PST up reply actions
The entire postwar history of Cal football has accurately framed his expectations.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Ok, if he had become a fan in 1960 I could understand. But the immediate postwar period with Pappy Waldorf was arguably Cal’s best. Fans from that era have very high expectations.They kept the program alive during the dark period from 1960-2001.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 6:36 PM PST up reply actions
I of course hesitate to use anything from that long ago as a meaningful data point because a hell of lot has changed in 50 years. But Cal’s history would tell us that it’s possible to build a winner, perhaps even a ‘dynasty.’ But it’s really really hard and nowhere near the norm. You need a rare combination of administrative and alumni support, the right coach, patience, and quite a bit of luck.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
True, a lot has changed since that time, but from conversations with people who were around in the 50s, football was already serious business. So you’re right, with the right institutional support with all our built in advantages, Cal has some major potential.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Dec 28, 2009 6:57 PM PST up reply actions
Tedford took us from A to B.
He has yet to provide any evidence that he can take a program from B to C. What Tedford did in the 3 years following the 2001 season is nothing short of remarkable. Taking a perennial laughingstock and turning them into a BCS and conference contender is an incredible feat any way you slice it. The problem, however, is that JT has now had 8 seasons to take the team to a Rose Bowl, and it hasn’t materialized. I understand that the facilities weren’t even close to meeting even the bare minimum and Cal’s academic requirements are higher than they are at the vast majority of contending programs around the country. However- All Cal fans under the age of 35 are now not only used to but are expecting 9 or 10 win seasons on a yearly basis and, to them, the notion of a Pac-10 Championship and a Rose Bowl birth isn’t a dream, it’s a realistic demand. I’m not saying that Tedford should be fired now, but he’s taken the program to the point where 7-6 and 8-5 seasons are unacceptable, especially given the talent that the Bears have been blessed with during Tedford’s reign (Jackson, Lynch, Rodgers, Vereen, Follett, Best, and Mack). In my opinion, Tedford’s grace period is over. After the SAHPC and West Side stadium renovations are complete, starting in 2011, Tedford should be expected to produce a Rose Bowl. If not, Sandy Barbour should start looking elsewhere for someone who can provide what Bears fans expect.
Go Bears!
by RollOnYouBears667 on Dec 28, 2009 3:15 PM PST reply actions
well
Why do you assume that there is an inevitable progression from (what you term) B to C? Taking a program from 9 wins to 12 is clearly more difficult than taking it from 6 wins to 9. I don’t understand the assumption that Cal “should” have gone to a Rose Bowl by now and that our not doing so indicates a failure on Tedford’s part.
I don’t understand the assumption that Cal "should" have gone to a Rose Bowl by now and that our not doing so indicates a failure on Tedford’s part.
I do understand this, what I don’t understand is ignoring 2004. Tedford essentially has produced a Rose Bowl team already. It just happened to come at a time when USC was putting up one of the best runs in college football we’ve ever seen (and yet Cal was still the better team that year and got unlucky in the Coliseum), and the BCS decided to pull the biggest screwjob in its history when Mack Brown whined his way into the Rose Bowl over a deserving Cal team (who also would have gotten into the Rose Bowl under the current BCS rules that include 10 BCS teams instead of just 8). Tedford HAS produced the type of team this quote is looking for, and with enough time, that WILL produce a Rose Bowl.
by Missing Barry on Dec 28, 2009 5:02 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, that’s the thing. What is a “Rose Bowl team”? Is it a team good enough to go to the Rose Bowl, or a team that GETS to the Rose Bowl? The existence of the 2004 Trojans means that those are two very different things.
by HolmoePhobe on Dec 28, 2009 10:58 PM PST up reply actions
And beyond the existence of the 2004 Trojans…the fact is Cal in 2004 was better than USC in 2004. On the road, Cal outplayed them. Every peripheral stat that correlates strongly with winning was in Cal’s favor. USC was lucky to walk out of there with a W. More times than not, Cal would have won. Unfortunately Cal only got to play them that one time.
by Missing Barry on Dec 29, 2009 12:08 AM PST up reply actions
Yes. A sample size of one is simply not sufficient to say that “Tedford has not produced a Rose Bowl-caliber team” or whatever.
by HolmoePhobe on Dec 29, 2009 12:11 AM PST up reply actions
the BCS decided to pull the biggest screwjob in its history when Mack Brown whined his way into the Rose Bowl
I couldn’t have said it better. However, the fact remains not only that Cal lost to a mediocre Texas Tech team that year, but that Cal should have beaten USC yet failed to do so. Cal outplayed USC in 2004 and should have won the game, yet they didn’t and as a result didn’t go to the Rose Bowl (or even the national championship game). That kind of loss, you blame on the coach, right? That was a Rose Bowl-caliber team. That’s not even close to the same thing as a Rose Bowl team.
Go Bears!
by RollOnYouBears667 on Dec 30, 2009 12:19 AM PST up reply actions
That kind of loss, you blame on the coach, right?
Given that I work in economics and have a strong background in statistics, honestly, I don’t blame it on anyone. I toss it up to sample error in USC’s favor. No need to explain it or blame someone for it, sometimes you just get unlucky. Can’t help that. In a sample size of one….well, yeah, it’s just unfortunate.
by Missing Barry on Dec 30, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
That kind of loss, you blame on the coach, right?
ALAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
"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
I'm not assuming that this "B to C" progression is inevitable
But I’m assuming that a progression from perennial contention to BCS appearances is what we want. Cal fans who lived through the Holmoe era might be content with not being a laughingstock and having a winning % above .500, but given where the Cal football program is right now, that’s far too low for satisfaction. They average 60,000+/game season after season and bring in top-25 recruiting classes routinely, and the coach of a program like that eventually needs to deliver to keep his job. Like I said in my comment below, the time has come for the bar to be raised, due to the recent (relative) success of the program. It’s high time we beat USC and won the conference, and if Tedford isn’t the guy that can deliver that within the next 4 or 5 years, fine- Kudos to him for making Cal the program that it is today, but he can’t finish what he started. I hope this isn’t the case, since Tedford is a classy and smart competitor, but if it is, I don’t have the reservations that other Cal fans seem to have about letting him go and looking for someone who can deliver that trip to Pasadena on New Year’s Day.
Go Bears!
by RollOnYouBears667 on Dec 30, 2009 12:12 AM PST up reply actions
I don’t think any of this comment is unreasonable at all. It just looks to me like the evidence we have right now of Tedford’s ability strongly indicates he is very likely to deliver what you want in the next 4 or 5 years. Obviously we can’t know what the future holds, so we can just make the best decision now based on the information we have, and I’m trying to make the case that Tedford’s had a lot of success so far and thus likely will take the next step sooner rather than later. Teams have up and down years, conferences have up and down years….sooner or later (probably sooner) it will work out in Cal’s favor.
by Missing Barry on Dec 30, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
JT has now had 8 seasons to take the team to a Rose Bowl, and it hasn’t materialized.
Yeah, its not like he had any obstacles in the way or anything. Oh wait, he had one of the greatest dynasties in the history of college football in his way.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Dec 28, 2009 5:05 PM PST up reply actions
ROLLONYOUBEARS FIIIIGHT
So what can you say?
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 28, 2009 5:35 PM PST up reply actions
Tedford should be expected to produce a Rose Bowl.
I don’t necessarily agree with this, but for the sake of argument – how many years would he be given to produce this result?
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Once he gets the team to the point where producing a winning season is practically a given, at least 60,000 people are in the seats for every game, and he’s recruiting at a level that competes with USC and UCLA…..7,8 years? I think that point was reached by 2004, so his deadline is approaching. I’m not saying that he should be fired now, I just think that his seat shouldn’t be as secure as the majority of old blues seem to think it is.
Go Bears!
by RollOnYouBears667 on Dec 29, 2009 10:26 PM PST up reply actions
I think there are definite issues with the program that need addressing, but I’d be a lot more comfortable letting Tedford take another crack or two at fixing them before I can the whole coaching staff and start over again.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I didn’t say anything about firing the entire coaching staff, and again, I’ll stress that I don’t think that Tedford should be fired now…..I just think that Tedford is at the point where he needs to prove that he can take the program to the next step, and that the transitional period from Pac-10 doormat to Pac-10 contender is over. Assuming that the program’s eventual goal is a BCS Bowl and a National Championship (if it isn’t, there’s something wrong), it’s JT’s time to show us that he’s the guy who’ll take us there. After, say, 5 more years of winning seasons that don’t lead to BCS appearances, it’s probably time for Sandy Barbour to look elsewhere.
Go Bears!
by RollOnYouBears667 on Dec 29, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
As long as Tedford doesn't become the next Mike Leach
and make Jahvid Best or any other player sit in a dark room during practice for having suffered a concussion I will be happy.
I can’t even imagine what happened at TT.
J-“Coach I got a concussion. I don’t think I can practice”
ML: “WHAT? A CONCUSSION?! That’s it. TIME OUT FOR YOU SON!”
J: “Coach I got a conc…”
ML: “Your father is a blight on college football. Go sit in the closet.”
"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
spread
I agree with most of what you said about the spread. I think all college programs, not named USC, Ohio State, Florida (oops, Florida already runs the spread and they finish in the top 5 two years in a row) should consider moving to the spread.
All programs can’t change to the spread. If every team ran the spread, every defense would be constructed to defend the spread and nothing else. Defenses would be small and fast across the board, and at that point, a team constructed to dominate the line of scrimmage by being big and strong would push them around and have tons of easy success. There’s some sort of equilibrium that exists that optimizes the number of spread/pro/west coast/wish bone and whatever other offenses exist, and that equilibrium is constantly in flux based on the players being produced throughout the country and the coaching ability and its specialties. It’s a similar concept to why pitchers throw multiple pitches in baseball, for instance – they don’t throw their best pitch all the time because the optimum utilization is to sometimes use lesser pitches, which actually increases the pitchers overall effectiveness.
Now all that doesn’t mean Cal shouldn’t switch to the spread, just that all teams can’t switch to the spread, because at that point, some team would get an advantage by simply using a different system. Specific to Cal, I would say not to switch because Tedford has spent his entire career running a pro/west coast style offense, and spent his whole career learning the ins and outs and nuances of it. You don’t just switch to a new system without any learning curve. It’s a huge learning curve. I think we’re better off sticking with the knowledge/abilities we have right now.
by Missing Barry on Dec 28, 2009 7:15 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
solid thought process, i like it…..rec’d
The compensation provided under [Jeff Tedford's] contract is funded exclusively from athletic department revenues and private fundraising and no State or general campus funds are used in this arrangement.
by dballisloose on Dec 29, 2009 6:01 AM PST up reply actions
wow
I really don’t know about the Braun comparison,and actually don’t care, but I do know that this was one of the more entertaining reads on CBG in a while…my thanks to bringbackbuddy and my admiration for his cojones to put up this post and get folks talking…great stuff
"It's on the ROOF, oh yeah, one hundred PROOF, oh yeah....."
by TKE Prytanis 79 on Dec 28, 2009 7:34 PM PST reply actions
I’m not sure why Tedford Doesn’t Employ More Spread/Short Passing Offense but here are my theories:
1. Mike Dunbar and his spread didn’t mesh with Tedford’s desire to maintain a ground game.
2. He still has NFL ambitions and knows that the League still prefers a balanced “pro-style” attack, so if he ever aspires to be an NFL offensive coordinator, he wants to stay in a “pro-scheme.”
3. He can sell QB recruits that they won’t be Alex Smith once they go pro. He also can promise carries to running backs.
1) Ok, I can buy that.
2) I really don’t think that’s the case. Tedford has been here a while, and seems very happy here – his family is happy here too. I don’t see him leaving for the pro ranks anytime soon. I think he’d leave for another university before he went to the pros. Even if he did have pro aspirations, would he be so selfish as to shape an entire offense a certain way simply to make himself look better for a future job? No way.
3) I don’t think he crafts offenses to attract certain QB’s – it’s the other way around. If recruits are really that interested in playing for a spread-type offense, they wouldn’t come to Cal anyway. Also, if a recruit is has never played anything but spread offenses his whole career, Tedford probably wouldn’t heavily recruit that kid anyway. Recruits are gonna be attracted to systems that fit them, and coaches are gonna recruit kids that fit their systems. That really goes for QB’s, RB’s, whoever – it’s a reciprocal process.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
No.
Beats Stanfurd. Gets to the postseason and wins. Consistently ranked every year.
You can compare the conference finishes, wonderful. But the above three things separate the two rather easily, even during Braun’s first 7 years.
And, what made Braun “Braun” was the latter half of his career at Cal. I pretty much have no problem with his first 7 years, not as successful as Tedford, but pretty decent. However, the last 5 were awful and I do not whatsoever foresee a 5 year stretch like Braun had at the end for Tedford. This year’s recruiting class and our wins over Furd and Arizona give me more than enough confidence going forward, especially with the SAHPC on the way.
It'll be just you, me, and Peter Nincompoop.
yeah, that was my question – I wondered how many people on either side of the argument actually saw all of Braun’s tenure. I figured ‘very few’, but it’d be interesting to see how people’s view of him depended on what years they saw him coach.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
I saw Braun’s entire career at Cal. That’s why I was thoroughly disgusted with the comparison. These two coaches don’t even come close to each other if one has followed both their tenures at Cal. Trying to compare these coaches and find similarities is absolutely some of the funniest sh!t I’ve seen on this blog.
The confused folks should also take a look at Braun’s recruiting classes and report back what the transfer rate was for guys he brought in.
To me, Braun’s transfer rate was one of the most damning aspects of his tenure — even more than the unimaginative offense and the losing seasons. Some guys you can understand transferring, leaving for a mid-major in search of playing time — Tashaan Forehan-Kelley, Eric Bond, etc. But what happened to Marquis Kately? Nick Vanderlaan? Shantay Legans? Dominic McGuire? To say nothing of David Paris, and it’s worth noting that Gabriel Hughes almost left too. Something was definitely amiss within the atmosphere of the program for much of this past decade.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I’m just disgusted because of how poorly Braun coaches basketball. I’ll admit I don’t know that much about football and couldn’t break down film and analyze how well Tedford and his coaching staff do, but I am knowledgeable about basketball and could do that stuff for Braun and given how poorly I think of Braun….I just have to think even if Tedford and his staff do a bad job, it’s still very unlikely they come even close to coaching their kids as poorly as Braun did…
by Missing Barry on Dec 31, 2009 1:52 AM PST up reply actions
Re-read the title. I don’t think he is trying to ask whether Tedford has become Braun, but whether he might be on that path (i.e., promising start with good results followed by crash).
If the football team were to hit a tough stretch over the next few years leading to Tedford being replaced, the comparison would not be that ridiculous. I don’t personally think this will happen, but I do expect 2010 to be a tough season with as few as 6 wins a real possibility.
GOLD OUT MOZAMBIQUE!
Kevin Langford left as well. And there were a number of disgruntled players that wanted to leave but finished up: Carl Boyd, Donte Smith, and Gabe Hughes. Who can forget the Sensley saga. Who can forget Braun’s lust for foreign players that scored less in their careers than Christopher on a career night:: Shahar Gordon, Salsius Kuzminskas, and Jordi Geli.
Agree with this article
I have been asking this same question for the past couple of year.
Tedford and Braun both took us out of the cellar. However is Tedford going to get stuck like Braun did? After several years of mediocracy if you don’t take it to the next level you will inevitably fall. Falling is the worry I think all of us have for the program.
Out of curiosity, are we meant to understand your username indicates that you are a Cal alumn, Class of 2000 or that you work for MI6?
"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
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 |
