Jeff Tedford, Commander-In-Chief Of The Cal Offense Once Again?
After 2007, Cal fans began to implore Jeff Tedford to cut back. Stay away from the offense. Stay away from that gigantic playcard. Focus on the team, focus on the big picture, and not just the quarterback and stop wearing himself down checking out the Xs and Os. It seemed Tedford was willing to do just that for the past three seasons, working with Frank Cignetti on gameplans but letting Cignetti do the playcalling, then almost totally stepping away to let Andy Ludwig run his own ship while he focused on the program and recruiting as a whole.
With Ludwig now out and with Jim Michalczik waiting in the wings for an official announcement, it looks like we're ready for a radical shift back to the old philosophy. It seems Tedford is returning to a variant of that 2002-2005 & 2007 philosophy, where he will again focus on the offense and the quarterbacks (the two thorns that have kept our team from being major competitors the last few seasons). With Eric Kiesau installed as the passing game coordinator and Michalczik probably focusing on the run aspects or resuming direct playcalling duties, Tedford seems to be emulating a strategy that worked superbly for his team's archrival.
Under the Stanford Cardinal model under Jim Harbaugh, the now 49er head coach called some plays and was heavily involved in gameplanning, but left most of the playcalling to then offensive coordinator David Shaw, and organized the run game with run game coordinator/offensive assistant Greg Roman. This type of offense by committee could work superbly, backfire horribly, or do something in between. No one really knows.
So why the change? Why would Tedford go back in this direction?
It's what he does best. We can talk all we want about how Tedford needs to lead with fire and with passion, how he needs to be more aggressive, how he needs to always go for it. We don't know how well those things affect games, and we probably will never be able to capably measure those things.
What we do know is the man is an offensive mastermind. He built Fresno State into one of the best offenses in the country. He powered Oregon to their finest period in the Mike Bellotti era, progressively winning eight, nine, ten, eleven games in four straight seasons. With the rapport of George Cortez, Tedford built Cal from an offensive doormat to a powerhouse for the middle of the decade that attracted premier talent, coming the closest to toppling USC in its heyday from the top of the Pac-10.
And the man developed quarterbacks. Trent Dilfer, Billy Volek, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Kyle Boller, Aaron Rodgers, pre-injury Nate Longshore--all of these guys performed superbly on the collegiate level. Other than the hiccups with Joe Ayoob and the injured Longshore, Tedford's resume is filled with success stories, all the more prominent now that his greatest success story is competing in football's biggest game a week and a half from now.
I always felt it was a mistake to completely divorce himself from the thing he was best at; it just didn't seem to leave Tedford with much to do on gameday. Just think in the back of your mind about all the curious decisions we've seen on the sidelines the past few seasons. I'm not going to debate whether they were right or wrong, but did we EVER have this many debates when Tedford was heavily involved in running the offense? The man we used to revere often reminded me more of Abe Simpson than the Tedford-bot we'd all grown to appreciate.
It seems like it's time for him to reengage in the game before it completely passes him by.
Quarterback development. This is pretty much the no-brainer. Cal quarterback play has been a tough watch the past few years. It took Kevin Riley three years to finally become a solid QB under Ludwig's tutelage when Tedford took a step back--regardless of what people say, he won a lot of games and became better over time. All this despite being saddled with some horrible offensive lines that eventually ended his Cal career.
When he went down though, Ludwig's deficiencies were laid bare with Mansion's brief stint at the starting position. Sheer incompetence on every level. (You know that helpless feeling Chicago Bears fans felt when Todd Collins did nothing for two drives, only to feel sheer bafflement that Caleb Hanie went in a few drives later? For Cal fans, watching Brock Mansion and realizing that Beau Sweeney was an even WORSE version of Brock was tough to swallow).
Needless to say, Tedford needs to be more hands-on, and it appears as if he will be. Given the wide open situation at quarterback this fall, how he works and helps build with Allan Bridgford, Zach Maynard, and Austin Hinder will go a long way to telling us if he can still develop quarterbacks, or if the magic has truly left him.
Tedford Juniors making their mark. I'm going to go out on a limb on this one. It has to really really bug Tedford that all the coaches that got the best of Tedford this year and last year are offensive-minded coaches, many of whom are heavily involved in gameplanning. (You know, the exact thing that unknowledgable Cal fans got so worked up over in 2007 and wanted Tedford to move aside for someone else to handle). It has to really irk Tedford that Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian, Chip Kelly and Jim Harbaugh all managed to beat him at his own game, and decisively so for that matter.
I don't believe Tedford is an arrogant man, but he is definitely a proud one, and I bet he was sick inside to watch his prized offenses fall deeply short of expectations, particularly during those final four lifeless games with Brock Mansion. You could tell how stung he was after the season ended. In the back of his mind, he probably believes he can beat those guys if he gets the keys to the Batmobile again.
The defense is its own independent arm. In my estimation, people were way too harsh on Bob Gregory during his tenure as Cal defensive coordinator. However, the only main quibble I always had was how the defense seemed to be designed to get the ball back to the offense rather than to make plays on their own. Tedford tended to be hands-off with Gregory so he could focus on his side of the field.
With Clancy Pendergast, that philosophy seems to have shifted. Cal's defense showed that it had the capability to step up and win games on its own, much like the USC teams in the post-Leinart/Bush/White era. Against Oregon and Washington, the defense made huge plays that nearly turned the tide of the game; unfortunately the offense was so inept that they had trouble taking advantage of what should've been game-changing turnovers.
Thanks to the defense finally starting to look self-sufficient thanks to Tosh Lupoi and Kenwick Thompson's recruiting prowess, Tedford can finally free himself to try and do what he does best--kick ass with his offense, while the defense does its thing on the other side. And I imagine many fans would be satisfied with that strategy in a way they weren't three years ago.
The 2007 collapse is always overrated as an offensive problem. Cal fans forget there were a LOT of things wrong with that 2007 team. It was not all on gimpy Longshore and Tedford bumbling away.
- Offensive line woes: As soon as guys started getting injured, the team's offense eroded. Poor pass protection saw Longshore throw the ball away on an inordinate amount of passing downs (sacks allowed is one of the most deceiving stats in college football) or occasionally up for grabs in hopes of making a play. The run attack got stiffed on several occasions against poor defenses. Michalczik is always regarded highly by Cal fans, but this offensive line could never meet the challenge down the stretch.
- The speedy but overwhelmed Justin Forsett being entrusted with the majority of the carries; Forsett performed admirably, but his offensive line could not block for him and he went down on first contact a lot, stalling many important drives. This forced Longshore to pass from many long-yardage, obvious passing down situations.
- The weakest defensive line of the Tedford era, Gregory's boys could never get a big stop in run defense (other than a young Tyson Alualu, there was really no blue-chip talent on that D-line). Offenses in the Pac-10 (particularly Arizona State, Washington and USC) used the clock to their advantage and kept the Bears off the field.
- Tom Schneider got injured before the start of the season, leaving us with the inconsistent Jordan Kay to try and make things happen--his inability to nail field goals or strike good kickoffs put our teams in disadvantageous situations offensively (less points) and defensively (short fields for the opposing offense to work with).
- Talent depth was a major problem on that team. If recruiting stays on its upward trend, it should be less of a problem going forward.
While the offensive results were less than desirable during the latter half of that season, I never thought it was the disaster nega-Bear fans made it out to be. We'll see if it happens again.
The storm clouds are brewing. I don't know exactly how much pressure donors are putting on the athletic program, but it wouldn't be a stretch to say they were probably very displeased with the direction of their football team. Consecutive losing seasons at this point will be treated harshly, regardless of the marginal talent level of the team he had to work with.
Tedford knows this is a sensitive time. He knows how thin and young our team will be next year, regardless of the influx of talent. He knows another losing season could severely damage the prestige of the team at a time when the faculty continue to pressure the regents and chancellor to cut more deeply into athletics. He knows the recruiting classes will be in place soon, and any more seasons of negligence could begin hampering those positive steps.
And clearly, with Tedford no longer working so much with that unit, the offense has been average to plain bad the past few years. Tedford wasn't going to wait around and see if Ludwig could turn things around from being blown out and shut down seven times the past two years. Go back, look at all those blowouts, and you'll see approximately three to six meaningful points COMBINED in those contests. Competitive losses are hard to take but perfectly acceptable--losses like those just can't be tolerated. And so Ludwig went.
All the excuses are soon about to be used up. He's sacked all the coaches everyone has complained about. The incomplete facilities that had long been considered the main hindrance to our recruiting woes will be completed over the next year. The highly touted recruiting classes are about to start hitting the field the next two years, and while they are defensively-tilted, there is enough offensive talent around to expect them to produce at a competent level.
Jeff Tedford has put himself directly on the line. Whoever is calling plays the next few season can no longer be scapegoated for offensive woes. This offense will almost certainly be Tedford's. The credit or the blame will now go solely to him. Only victory can save him.
80 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great article Avinash
I wasn’t around these part during the 07 season but I never wanted to Tedford to step away from the offense.
In my opinion, the offense carried the 07 team until the injuries to the OL and Longshore became too much to overcome. I thought the biggest issue was our defense, mainly its youth and injuries to the DL. The defense had just lost a lot of players, including its best DL, LB, and DB (Mebane, Bishop, Hughes) to graduation after the 06 season. Rulon Davis had his annual injury, taking away our best pass rusher on the DL for a number of games. Plus we had no true corner opposite The Squid to take over for Hughes once he graduated.
Look back on the first half of the 07 season and you will see even during our 5 game winning streak to start the season the defense was giving up a lot of yards and points but our offense was up to the challenge to match teams point for point.
I think a lot of people tend to overlook the terrible season Kay had as our FG kicker. He missed clutch kick after kick. I believed he missed one right before half against UCLA, missed one against stanfurd, and a few more that I can’t remember. Throw in short kicks and bad kickoff coverage that put our struggling defense in tough situations having to defend short fields.
I, for one welcome our old offensive overlord back!
I always felt it was a mistake to completely divorce himself from the thing he was best at; it just didn’t seem to leave Tedford with much to do on gameday. Just think in the back of your mind about all the curious decisions we’ve seen on the sidelines the past few seasons. I’m not going to debate whether they were right or wrong, but did we EVER have this many debates when Tedford was heavily involved in running the offense? The man we used to revere often reminded me more of Abe Simpson than the Tedford-bot we’d all grown to appreciate.
Not much to do on game day? There is so much to do on game day.
What exactly do you mean by “curious decisions”? I think we know what you’re getting at but it is not quite clear. As for these curious decisions, I think they have popped up more recently because we have been worse as a team and playing in a lot closer games (compared to previous years where we have been blowing out opponents). And you seem to think that these curious decisions are more likely to pop up because he is head coach instead of being offensive coordinator but I think the opposite is true. When Tedford is playcalling, he gets really removed from the game. Key game decisions become tougher to make because he is so focused on other things, oh the other hand he has more time to focus on these key decisions as a head coach. If we want Tedford to make better decisions when it comes to these curious decisions then I think we would want him being a head coach rather than the offensive coordinator.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Possibly. I believe we’re noticing these decisions more partly because our team hasn’t been playing as well, but also because Tedford is the HC and we assign direct responsibility to his decisions rather than his gameplay.
He has probably made questionable decisions in both aspects, as both primary playcaller and as head coach, but we see the flaws in a different light since we think that’s the only thing he’s working on during the game when he no longer ran the offense.
Perhaps I should have said “the perception of making curious decisions.”
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 25, 2011 9:33 AM PST up reply actions
One of the more curious decisions I can think of is wishing goodbye to that lamp.
It’s a nice place for people to go watch your stupid [2010 World Series Champion San Francisco Giants].
by Spazzy Mcgee on Jan 25, 2011 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
Hooray!
I’m jumping up and down over this wonderful news. Ludwig ran a dull, lifeless, predictable offense. Good riddance!
I think you make a few good points but, overall, I get the sense that there’s a lot of finality and absolute certainty in this post when really there are a lot of things still TBD. Why not wait until we get a press release from Cal Athletics before going so far down a path of speculation (with such certaint at that)?
by Bears07 on Jan 25, 2011 9:50 AM PST reply actions 5 recs
You’re probably right. But I do feel reasonably confident that this is what’s about to happen.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 25, 2011 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
There are a number of things I can agree with in this article
but there are a few things I do not agree with. For instance,
I always felt it was a mistake to completely divorce himself from the thing he was best at; it just didn’t seem to leave Tedford with much to do on gameday.I do not know if you are exaggerating, but Tedford never completely went hands off with the offense. He ceded most playcalling duties but he still was involved in gameplanning and dialed up plays from time to time. The flea flicker in 2008 vs UCLA was his call.
the only main quibble I always had was how [Gregory’s] defense seemed to be designed to get the ball back to the offense rather than to make plays on their own.
I cannot figure out how one could draw that conclusion from Gregory’s 2004 and 2008 defenses.
It has to really irk Tedford that Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian, Chip Kelly and Jim Harbaugh all managed to beat him at his own game, and decisively so for that matter.
I know you are referring to the blowouts in 2009 by the hands of Sarkisian and Kelly but in the matter of a year, the “gap” so to speak has closed significantly. Tedford smacked Harbaugh 2 years ago, beat him last year, and was on the receiving end of a smackdown this year. SC was coming off back-to-back last second losses and were fired up to play Cal this year. I am not making excuses for the losses but I am trying to point out that things in college football are circular. The teams at the top are always changing. It was less than 10 years ago that Wazzu was the cream of the crop and look where they are now. Stanford was in shambles 8 years ago and they are sitting at the top now.
Cal is due in the next few years to have a few good years but the stars really have to align in order for that to happen. Talent, coaching, desire, execution, and luck all play a huge role in how successful teams are. Looking at this list, one can see what Cal has addressed the past 2 offseasons.
by Cali49a on Jan 25, 2011 10:00 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
I cannot figure out how one could draw that conclusion from Gregory’s 2004 and 2008 defenses.
Gregory’s defenses were designed to give up short yardage and a lot of first downs and bait the offense into making mistakes. Only during 2004 & 2008 (when the personnel were there) did the defense play gangbusters.
I know you are referring to the blowouts in 2009 by the hands of Sarkisian and Kelly but in the matter of a year, the "gap" so to speak has closed significantly. Tedford smacked Harbaugh 2 years ago, beat him last year, and was on the receiving end of a smackdown this year. SC was coming off back-to-back last second losses and were fired up to play Cal this year.
Indeed. 2009—Sark & Kelly. 2010—Kiffin and Harbaugh.
The point is not that Tedford’s teams can adjust and adapt to new trends and fads; they have shown that they’ve been able to handle new challenges. The point is that other teams are succeeding at the same type of coaching style that Tedford himself enjoyed early in the decade.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 25, 2011 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Gregory’s defenses were designed to give up short yardage and a lot of first downs and bait the offense into making mistakes.
If we use that type of thinking, I can argue that Pendergast’s defense is designed to take too many risks and give up big plays with a feast or famine mentality.
In talking to Gregory or Pendergast, they essentially had/have the same goals on defense but how they go about achieving those goals were/are different. I liked a lot of things Gregory did but I also hated a lot of things he did. Same goes for Pendergast. How somebody perceives their defenses is more of a matter of preference.
Fans like thrilling sacks and massive plays for loss. They don’t like giving up 3 yards, incomplete, giving up 4 yards, punt, as much. They’ll lean towards the more exciting D, even if the results would be approximate.
The author, who has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at University of California Berkeley, where he was able to observe the culture and the way the senior management operates.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I like punts, I don't care how you force the punt, just as long as they punt
You could give up 9 yards on the first play, as long as they don’t get that tenth yard on 2nd or 3rd down I am just as satisfied.
The only thing I like more than a punt is a turnover.
I agree with one exception. If a team is successful in getting 2-3 yards per play, they’ll be more likely to take a chance on 4th and 2 (as is becoming more and more popular in our conference) than if they’re scared you’re gonna sack them for a 3 yard loss. I like that we’re penetrating the O-Line more this year.
Let them go for it on 4th down and watch them FAIL!
and give us great field position.
Going for it more often on 4th down is actually a winning strategy. Coaches are way too conservative. If anything, you should want the opposing coach to be more conservative than average!
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2011 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
I have seen those statistics and agree to a point
If your offense isn’t very good I would not go for it on 4th & 2. If your defense is not very good, I would not go for it.
I also wouldn’t go for it deep in your own territory.

4th and 2 is a pretty high percentage play…..
This is for the NFL, and I believe it’s for 3rd downs. I doubt college is that much different, and I doubt the numbers change much for 4th down, but if you have good reason why they might, feel free to suggest it….
I’d still probably go for it often. But yes, where you are on the field, how good your offense is, how good your defense is, and how good your opponents offense/defense are all factors that must be considered.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2011 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
Apologies for the lack of a title. Forgot.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2011 12:51 PM PST up reply actions
There is a similar analysis for fourth downs that was done after Belicheck went for it on Fourth down from his own 32 or whatever. Interestingly both run and pass are good odds, but it’s pass that is the biggest winner. IIRC it was like 53 v 56%.
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Jan 25, 2011 6:32 PM PST up reply actions
The only team I see regularly flop on 4th and short is Cal—-everyone else seems to get things going on this final down. Or for that matter on goalline moments (please recall ’10 vs Oregon, vs Washington as the latest examples).
by Joe Bandsmen on Jan 25, 2011 11:22 PM PST up reply actions
didn’t used to be the case
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Jan 26, 2011 8:14 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not arguing for or against either strategy.
Both have worked in the past (in the Pac-10, Alliotti is an aggressive DC, Carroll was less so) and will continue to do so in the future.
My argument is that fans/donors are much more at ease about the defense with Pendergast/Lupoi at the helm than they were when Gregory was leading. So they will be less hostile to the thought of Tedford focusing most of his efforts on the offense. This should give him more rope with the donors since the offense is clearly the problem right now.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 25, 2011 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
Aggressive defense requires personnel. Just ask USC how that went for them this year.
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Jan 25, 2011 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
Less aggressive defenses requires personnel too. I actually think USC’s defense this last year would not be considered very aggressive. The Tampa 2 isn’t exactly known for all out blitzing. I didn’t pay attention to their season too closely, but I thought their failures last year were largely because of their inability to find linebackers that could handle the demands of that defense (deep-ish coverage and run support).
they essentially had/have the same goals on defense
Stop the other team from scoring? ;)
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2011 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
I do agree that Tedford worked heavily with Cignetti and Ludwig leading up to kickoff, but during the game he was pretty much hands-off (something he really wasn’t in the previous years).
I didn’t know about the fleaflicker though, thanks for clarifying that..
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 25, 2011 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
I do not think he is as hands off during the game as it appears. Just because he is not calling the plays does not mean he is not paying attention to what plays are being called, how things are being executed on the field, and speaking with assistants over the headsets.
Of course he’s paying attention. But I doubt he would actually intervene until after the game was well out of hand.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 25, 2011 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
bq.I know you are referring to the blowouts in 2009 by the hands of Sarkisian and Kelly but in the matter of a year, the "gap" so to speak has closed significantly
While it is true the “gap” closed significantly on the score board, it wasn’t due to our offensive performance. The “gap” closed due to two great defensive performances, however, our offense was just as bad this year against Oregon and Washington as it was last season.
I agree that your offense is going to struggle with a backup QB
but our offense fell off a cliff once Brock Mansion entered the lineup. The Oregon game is understandable because the Ducks had a good, fast, and athletic defense. However, Washington did not have a very good defense at all and by Mansions 5th game you would have hoped to have seen some improvement from him. Yet Washington was able to shut our passing game down.
Yes, the offense was pretty bad but my original post was to point out that things in college football are circular. Cal is due for an upswing sooner or later. I really hope.
I completely agree that things in CFB are circular
I really hope Cal is due for an upswing sooner than later. The success on the recruiting trail has me optimistic for the future. I believe with the new coaching staff in place and the strong recruiting classes are going to pay big dividends in 2013. This will be a rebuilding year and a lot of young guys are going to get a lot of PT, they will probably struggle and make rookie mistakes but it will pay off next season when we come home to Memorial.
With Fifty years of being down in that cycle, you’d think the Bears would be three-peat national champions. I think circularity exists as a general trend but you can’t make the assumption it applies to Cal specifically. One needs to make things happen in order to take advantage of trends (as Kelly is doing right now at Oregon and Hairball started doing at Furd).
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Jan 25, 2011 6:38 PM PST up reply actions
I like it. I think a lot of the “intangible” garbage sports media constantly spews at us is mostly BS, and that seemed to be a big factor in why he stepped back some from the offense a few years ago. People were quick to conclude locker room woes were a big cause of the collapse…..it’s 5 freaking games. Random variation happens. Deal with it. Figuring out cause and effect is a lot harder than that. I like seeing Tedford go back to what he’s good ati, what he had success with.
I agree with this. Say we start the season 3-2 and finish it 6-6. Is there as much uproar? Of course not. The only reason people made a big deal about it is because we went from #2 in the country to ashes. Variance is variance, but it just happened to be the worst type for Tedford.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 25, 2011 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
Also, we don’t have any Desean Jackson’s at the moment.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Classy.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Jan 25, 2011 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
Some people hate touchdowns and excitement. That’s their right.
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2011 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
WHAT!?!?! That is like hating America and Freedom!!!
I don’t want to live in a world where people hate touchdowns and excitement.
While I was at the Cal / $C bball game last weekend, I realized how much I missed the “take off that red _” chant (I was overcome with an urge to yell it at everyone around me though managed to restrain myself). I gotta get myself back in the student section next football season somehow. You don’t hear much of that in the other sections unfortunately.
The Bench has gone silent this season, as they did last season for a good portion of the season. Even when we were contending for the conference championship we could not get much of a rise from the student section. Depressing. This year its just even worse. The section never fills, Rally Comm is not as enthused as in past years and people just sit down on the bleachers or allow visitors to sit in the section without reproach. As for the Student section, demoted to the endzone for the San Francisco campaign, I will find it a miracle that it will ever fill, let alone during our nationally televised game against SC on a THURSDAY NIGHT! Thursday night+ not withing walking distance=bad student turn out. The only reason students go down to LA is for the experience of piling into Winnebago’s and shooting down I-5. For that matter the student section this year was rarely full after the first few games.
by Joe Bandsmen on Jan 25, 2011 11:27 PM PST up reply actions
carp wrote that with a top hat and monocle on!
The author, who has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at University of California Berkeley, where he was able to observe the culture and the way the senior management operates.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
For the record, as we’ve seen in several blowouts in 2008-2010, Cal football can look unprepared, unfocused, and exhibit team play that appears to be devoid of leadership either with or without Desean. It would be unfair and unjust to put The Blame on Desean, although I do speculate that he played a significant role in the 2007 collapse.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I do speculate
Yes, yes you do. Seems like a lot of speculation to me, unless you know something I don’t….
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
I also suspect most football teams look unprepared, unfocused, and exhibit team play that appears to be devoid of leadership when they’re losing games….
Not sure the “cause and effect” direction necessarily runs the way you imply it does (or I infer you’re saying if I’m intepretting you wrongly)….
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2011 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
Great post but...
… what is your proof that JT will take over the offense again? I’d be thrilled if he did but right now there’s no inkling that he will do so. This all seems like a fan wish more than anything real.
Hell we haven’t even announced Mizalchik yet…
In other words, Go Bears!
by royrules22 on Jan 25, 2011 10:37 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I agree that it is all speculation at this point
Tedford could just as easily give co-OC duties to Coach M and Coach K and maintain his current role with the team or just take over QB coaching duties.
In my opinion, Tedford will not be bringing in an outside OC to replace Ludwig. Tedford will take over at OC or promote from within.
Not sure if want...
But I don’t see this as a bad thing. Hopefully he hangs in there.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
Even though I was not enamored with the former OC, I see this change as a negative because of the process. What I mean is that this feels as though its happening late in the game of the coaching carousel. It would have been better for Tedford to be more decisive in making this change earlier in the off-season. Doesn’t it seem like the good national candidates have been hired already. Even just locally, or actually maybe he is a national candidate too, I would have loved to see CAL make a run at Norm Chow for OC. Imagine the synergy with CAL having an Asian OC who happens to be uber qualified (and stealing him from our little cousins to the south wouldn’t hurt either).
I guess I’m seeing this as negative in decision making for the team at this time.
It will be a positive when we have the three-headed offensive monster of Tedford, Coach M and Kiseau running that side of the ball.
I doubt we’ll be going after an OC, instead we’ll be having co-OCs with Kiseau leading passing and Coach M leading running, with Tedford calling the plays
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
The Chow opportunity was discussed somewhere before recently (either here or on BearTalk). Although I’m all for diversity on our coaching staff, I don’t think it’s a strategic fit to have two strong/assertive offensive minded coaches between HC and OC. It’s the reason Kiffin did not give serious thought to bringing Chow onboard at U$C and it’s why he wouldn’t be on Cal’s short-list (with Tedford at the helm) either.
Pleased
If this is indeed happening, I think it’s the right move. Generally speaking our decline in offensive execution and QB play seemed to begin right around the time Tedford gave up the reins and dedicated himself to being more of an overseer “CEO” type of coach. I do think there have been incremental improvements in the team’s emotional state and in defense and special teams, but not enough to counteract the massive offensive dropoff; Cal’s W-L record has suffered.
So JT may as well just go back to making his team an offensive powerhouse, even if he has to leave some other stuff up to the other coaches. Work with the QBs, make sure the offense executes to precision. It’s our best shot.
I agree that the 2007 collapse was overblown and too often blamed on “poor morale” or other such ephemeral concepts. It happened because our QB got hurt and our offense could no longer compensate for the team’s other issues (which were present from the start). It’s worth noting that that team still performed better after Longshore’s injury than the 2010 version did after Riley’s.
if all these changes in coordinators and play callers lead to a return to mid-00’s excitement, i’ll be one happy alum.
by j.lee on Jan 25, 2011 2:09 PM PST via mobile reply actions
And if they result in an 8th or 9th place finish in the 12-Pac?…..I only see WSU, UCLA, and Colorado behind us next year. I’m hoping we nip a game from someone in the middle of the pac to raise us to eighth. But with factors like new QB, new RB, new OC (ok maybe its our old OC head coach) I’m feeling concerned.
Eek, when did I become such a Debbie Downer!
Just as it’s easy to become overconfident with a team returning lots of veterans (e.g., the 2010 Bears returning both Riley and Vereen), it’s easy to become overpessimistic with a team facing a lot of turnover.
Cal had a big tailback hole to fill in 2004, and that worked out OK. Cal had a big QB hole to fill in 2006, and that worked out OK, too. True enough, in both these examples Cal was set at the other position, and this 2011 team has an especially large number of holes to fill. Thus, I don’t think anybody can reasonably expect a 10-win, championship-caliber season ahead, and a second straight losing season is certainly not out of the question.
But ever the optimist, I think this team can and will pleasantly surprise. I believe, and most certainly hope, that the offense will be much improved across the board, with only the tailback position suffering a step back. The defense won’t have any dominating performances, but I also think it will be more consistent. We’ll see what develops in Spring and Summer, but I’m cautiously expecting 8 wins in 2011 and the emergence of the next great Tedford QB.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jan 25, 2011 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Pump that sunshine!!
I took am hopeful, but realistic…I would love 8 wins. But won’t be disappointed with 4.
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Jan 26, 2011 8:12 AM PST up reply actions
I took too am hopeful
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Jan 26, 2011 8:13 AM PST up reply actions
I think you should be disappointed with 4. Tedford’s better than that. Something is very wrong with the program if it only wins 4 games. 5 was a worst case scenario, down year with against an absolutely loaded Pac-10 and a very tough OOC game (resulting in probably the toughest overall schedule Cal will play in years – Sagarin had it as the 6th hardest schedule in the country), in addition to underplaying their point differential. That’s a lot of bad luck there. Any worse should be unacceptable.
by Missing Barry on Jan 26, 2011 8:30 AM PST up reply actions
I think a lot of teams have many similar concerns. OSU, ASU, possibly Arizona, who knows about Utah, Washington…..
by Missing Barry on Jan 25, 2011 5:07 PM PST up reply actions
Nice write-up, Avi
I hope this is what is happening. I didn’t read everything in depth, but my only quibble with Tedford’s decision-making was putting Longshore back in 1, maybe 2, games too early. He needed just a little more time to get that ankle right, and it never happened…
Any danger coach M does not come to Cal?
Bear Insider is posting this update as of today:
UPDATE
Cal’s football department sent a message saying the following, “no confirmation on any other coaching hires at this point.”
That seems really vague. What could it mean?
The author, who has 35 years’ consulting experience, has taught at University of California Berkeley, where he was able to observe the culture and the way the senior management operates.
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
it means nothing is confirmed, and they’re allowing us to stew
by Joe Bandsmen on Jan 25, 2011 11:28 PM PST up reply actions
Given that budgetary D-day is fast approaching for the condemned varsity sports, I suspect money issues are the complications here. Hopefully, Tedford, Barbour, and Co. and get whatever money they need out of Nike et al. to lock down the hires.
The other possibility, of course, is that the prospective offensive coaches are still discussing with Tedford how best to organize their efforts. How can they re-capture the magic of 2004 without Cortez at OC…or Aaron Rodgers at QB?
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Jan 26, 2011 7:17 AM PST up reply actions
No worries…per Okanes, it is just a formality…Coach M is already coaching and recruiting..
http://www.ibabuzz.com/beartalk/2011/01/26/football-michalczik-just-a-formality/
Slight worry.
Though I think Coach M is a pretty valuable commodity in the OL business, so I think if he was going elsewhere that’ve been announced by now.

by 



























































