Chat Room
Go Back   The Bear Insider - Covering Cal Sports 24 x 7 > The Public Place where "CyberBears" Growl > Football
Reload this Page The sad realization: This is who we are
Notices
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#91) Old
BTUR BTUR is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 744
Join Date: Aug 2011
09-26-2011, 07:26 PM

Many replies to many comments to get to. Let's start it off with this:

Quote:
Would be National Champion teams do not look foolishly underpreparred in the Holiday Bowl against Texas Tech.


Next....
Apparently you didn't watch this game, did you? Yes, had Cal beat USC, which they came very close to doing, they would have been one of the 3 undefeated teams that would have been in the running to play in that National Championship game. I don't know what else to tell you. That same Sooners team beat TTech 28-13, by the way. Random variation - it's a thing.

Quote:
You also do realize it has been FIVE seasons since we finished in the top 25? After this year, make it six cause I think you have at least four more losses on the schedule. It is...as they say...what it is
Well, not exactly true, but I'm not arguing against the general point. The last few years we've been very average. I expect this year to be very average. However, when we're talking Tedford's ceiling as a coach and using historical evidence to support what we're saying, it's fairly ridiculous to talk like Tedford hasn't shown himself capable of competing for a conference title/running a national relevant program, no? We're not that team right now, but we have been under Tedford in the past.

Quote:
And even with the new facilities we're never going to out-talent the likes of USC and other national programs. If the goal is a nationally relevant program, we're going to need some truly inspired coaching along with improved talent.
Well, is that your expectation? To be on the level of the LSU's, USC's, Ohio St's, etc? Aside from the correlation there seems to be between the very top programs and rules violations...do you really think Cal can turn its football program into a program of that level? I don't. The money isn't there. The fanbase isn't there. The general program support (from the local community, the campus, the administration, etc.) isn't there. A coach capable of taking Cal to that level should leave for one of the few destination jobs out there first chance he gets. That said, I think Cal is capable of being a tier down from that - a team capable of being near the top of the conference often and winning it every once in a while. I think that should be the goal. Tedford had a run where he had Cal at that level. I believe it can be done again. The evidence indicates the talent is improving. Coach M is back, Tedford is making changes to try to improve the staff (Alamar!), Tedford is continually learning (see: taking back offensive playcalling)...it's been done before in his tenure. I see good signs for the future.

Quote:
Compare that to Kelly, who OC'ed the ducks almost to the NC with Dixon, then took them to the rose bowl with Masoli, then loses Masoli unexpectedly and takes them to the NC with Thomas, and now again this year looks like they will return to the bcs. Or Carroll with his multiple bcs teams with multiple qb's. Or Stoops with bcs bids with Huepel, White, Bradford, and Jones. etc. etc.
Well, I don't think multiple BCS championship bids should necessarily be the standard, but I agree to some extent. Yes, a great QB makes a coach look good. That said, the 2005 team had a pretty good season at 8-4 with a truly terrible QB, the only other one that rivals Mansion in ineffectiveness under Tedford, and that 2006 team with Longshore was very good and right in the mix for the conference title. Having success on that level is what I think the program should be striving for. If you can put out teams of that quality often enough, you will take home some conference championships. So no, I don't think Aaron Rodgers is a pre-req for a successful season. I agree with another poster on the importance of the oline, actually.

Quote:
Tedford is just not a very good coach when it comes to play calling or game management
I find the play-calling criticism....interesting. Tedford's rise to Pac-12 head coach has basically been completely about two things - QB coaching and playcalling. Amazing how much flak he's taken over the years for both those things. I think he is very good at both of them, and have never understood the criticism. I'm happy to see him back at the reigns of the offense, let's all remember he hasn't been as involved in offensive playcalling in recent years.

Quote:
I always see the "6 points from a 8-4 season" excuse. I'm really not sure what that means and it really doesn't matter.
With that, it's partial garbage excuse, partial reality. Of course a team looks better when you take out bad things that happened to them. Looking at a team through that lens isn't valid analysis. That said, last years team was on the wrong side of SOS and point differential, which suggests (with the backing of research into the topics) that they were somewhat unlucky and we would expect better results in another sample. Probably not 8-4 good, but better than 5-7.

Quote:
So many times, the other team seems to know what is coming before we hike the ball. Crumps quoted Husky players saying so. That cannot be laid at the players' feet.

Maybe I am being a bit harsh, but the play calling certainly could get a bit more varied. and better tailored to the personnel on the field at the time.
Honestly, I just chalk that up to human biases. It's natural for people to think they knew what was coming ahead of time with the benefit of hindsight. We all do that. Maybe Tedford is too predictable, I dunno, but at the very least I think it's exaggerated quite a bit.

As for the second point, why don't you think the play calling is varied and isn't tailored to our personnel? I'll acknowledge that it's reasonable to have wanted CJ instead of Isi carrying it at the end, but other than that, what issues do you have with what we do?

Quote:
I guess I would just like to see improvement in play calling. As other posters have mentioned, the play calling at the goal line was terrible. Our defensive secondary got shredded again. It seemed like we've been in a prevent defense the past two games - of course, the prevent prevents nothing.
Eh, it was one sequence, and I actually think it's pretty tough to argue it was a bad sequence. Maybe one or two bad calls, but the whole thing? Seems most people are less angry about the playcalling and more angry about the personnel used, no? As for the defensive side of things, I thought I saw us bringing extra pass rushers fairly often. Do others agree with me, or does everyone think we were just hanging back in a really conservative D all game? That's definitely not what I saw. I saw our pass rush not do much to pressure the QB, but I never had the impression it was from a lack of trying to get there...

Quote:
I love Isi's heart and he is great on the toss and the option, but on first down and short yardage we should play CJA, plus I'd like to see us frequently use play-action on first down to take advantage of our prior tendency to always run, that should open things up for CJ when he does get the ball.
I dunno. It's hard because it seems like we just don't have the talent for an effective running game. Neither the line nor the RB's are dominant enough, and neither are good enough to make up for the other. Isi is the better back in the passing game, I think, so that helps. We were throwing on 1st down fairly often in the game. Right around 50/50. It's just tough when one aspect of the game isn't effective enough.

Quote:
What we are is an average football team. Not just this year, but for the last several.

Since Rodgers left, Cal's conference record is 28-26.
Since Lynch left, it is 17-20.

During the post-Lynch era, the best season was 6-3, and the worst was 3-6.

It is becoming harder to believe that the last X seasons are a temporary blip and that the 04 results more accurately represent Cal's expected performance in years to come.
Agree, we've been an average team lately, and still are. However, I don't think it's that hard to believe we're about to be on an upswing. Check out the recruiting rankings for the classes 5, 4 and 3 years ago (in other words, the classes that produced our juniors and seniors). They weren't strong classes (5 years ago was pretty good but the best players from that class are all in the NFL). We're seeing the effects of that right now. However, recruiting has significantly picked up. If we have another big recruiting year this year, it looks like Cal will be well positioned. I think that and the new facilities are good reasons to think the team will be good in the future. Coaching changes have been positive, too. That said, I think it's foolish to think 2004 is what we should expect (at least on a very consistent basis) - that's the low probability tail kinda outcome that tends to fall victim to regression towards the mean. That said, getting back to 2005-2006 levels on a consistent basis will earn Cal a trip to the Rose Bowl in peak years. I think that's a worthy goal, and an achievable one.

Quote:
ISI should not be on the field in short yardage situations nor on passing plays where he is a potential receiver. He cannot hang on to the ball when he gets clobbered. Those situations are CJ's.
Has he had any other drops besides the one Saturday? We also remember the nice play he made on the tipped ball, right? He's also the best blocking back of the bunch, so I think Isi is the best option in passing situations. I have yet to hear anything about Anderson being a viable threat in the passing game. Maybe more Covaugh?
Reply With Quote
  (#92) Old
BTUR BTUR is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 744
Join Date: Aug 2011
09-26-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:
We must learn how to stop a mobile QB.
Well, if you ever figure it out, I think there would be a lot of d-coordinators out there willing to pay for your secret.

Double post, went 16 characters over the limit. Then had to wait 3 seconds for the 30 second time limit.
Reply With Quote
  (#93) Old
OneKeg OneKeg is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 1,453
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Francisco
09-26-2011, 08:57 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sycasey View Post
Actually there is something to attribute to it: JT changing his coaching structure/strategy after 2007 and returning to the old way in 2011. You'll notice this roughly coincides with the timing of the mediocre stretch. There was also some below-par recruiting that happened in 2007-2008; this is attributable to the stadium lawsuits and tree-sitter protests. We are still feeling the downstream effects of that.

I agree that if the mediocrity continues into the next couple of seasons, then JT should be on the hot seat. This season I expect us to be fairly average, but if we are still mediocre after the better recruiting classes of 2009/2010 have matured and we are back in our home stadium, then it becomes very likely that the problem with Tedford is unfixable.
I actually pretty much agree with all this. I think the difference between fans like us is what we think acutally will happen and that colors our take on things - i.e. whether we believe JT's very recent improvements to be relatively minor or major.

To set a concrete goal, with what I've seen of Tedford, good and bad, I think it's unlikely we'll reach 25 total wins against FBS opponents (i.e. 23 more) over the next three years: including this year, 2011-13, including bowl wins, including any conference championship win, add +1 to the total for each BCS bowl appearance. I think this would be a reasonable measuring stick given that our strong recruiting classes started in 2009 per your explanation, the SAHPC is coming on line, and we'll have the new stadium next year.

I am surmising that you believe we will reach that total with Tedford. I would be very happy if you were proven right. But it's more than our happiness that's at stake, since I'm guessing that we are both Cal lifers that would go to the games regardless. It is the 20-30k extra fans that winning will attract to the program in comparison to a consistently mediocre team. We (Cal Athletics) need those fans to buy tickets, buy ESP seats, buy other stuff etc. to pay off our recently accelerated expenditures and keep afloat in the current climate. Unfortunately, we're already seeing the effects of the last few years' mediocrity at the turnstiles and ESP participation.
Reply With Quote
  (#94) Old
Blueblood Blueblood is offline
no bear
 
Posts: 10,620
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Up BI moderator A$$hole
09-26-2011, 09:15 PM

I agree....it appeasr that the dollar bill will decide Tedford's fate rather than the facilities.....Cal fans are fickle....if the Program isn't looking like a winner, then the stands will be empty....but hey those Cal lifers that go to the games in the renovated Memorial Stadium won't have to worry about earthquakes!
Reply With Quote
  (#95) Old
sycasey sycasey is offline
True Blue Golden Bear
 
sycasey's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,492
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oakland
09-26-2011, 09:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneKeg View Post
To set a concrete goal, with what I've seen of Tedford, good and bad, I think it's unlikely we'll reach 25 total wins against FBS opponents (i.e. 23 more) over the next three years: including this year, 2011-13, including bowl wins, including any conference championship win, add +1 to the total for each BCS bowl appearance. I think this would be a reasonable measuring stick given that our strong recruiting classes started in 2009 per your explanation, the SAHPC is coming on line, and we'll have the new stadium next year.

I am surmising that you believe we will reach that total with Tedford.
I think there's a good chance, yes. If we don't get there (or at least come close), then I will have no problem with letting him go.
Reply With Quote
  (#96) Old
OneKeg OneKeg is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 1,453
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Francisco
09-26-2011, 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sycasey View Post
I think there's a good chance, yes. If we don't get there (or at least come close), then I will have no problem with letting him go.
Ok - but close doesn't count in my book because the target is not that ambitious to start with. Tedford could hit the target I just set by winning 6, then 9, then 8 regular season FBS games + 2 bowl victories in the next three years with no championship or BCS bowl. That is not far removed from mediocre, but I would agree we would need to keep him even if he were to just barely hit that target.

But if he doesn't... well, we're not the decision-makers, but if we were to agree on our little hypothetical, I would be bummed to hear more excuses down the road. Oh he only got to 23, but we were young at a key position like OT or MLB or whatever, or we had to play Ohio State, or a dog ate my homework. Time is past for that.
Reply With Quote
  (#97) Old
Oski87 Oski87 is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 1,661
Join Date: Jul 2008
09-26-2011, 10:34 PM

Maynard
Reply With Quote
  (#98) Old
KoreAmBear KoreAmBear is offline
True Blue Golden Bear
 
KoreAmBear's Avatar
 
Posts: 22,101
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Somewhere along the Ko`olau Summit Trail
09-27-2011, 12:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by philly1121 View Post
lol. its amazing how some people are defined. Poor Denny Green with this rant. Jim Mora with his "Playoffs?!" rant. Howard Dean with his "Rahrgh!" speech.

It defines these poor guys. lol
Poor Denny Green? His Furd teams used to kick our ass.
Reply With Quote
  (#99) Old
Sonofafurd Sonofafurd is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 1,757
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alameda, CA
09-27-2011, 04:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by philly1121 View Post
Arizona wasn't ranked when we played them. In fact, the only ranked team we beat that year was Stanford. We were never in the Oregon State game and every loss that year was a blowout. And the score in the Utah game was really not that close. I think 10 of those points came in garbage time.
Yes they were.

http://espn.go.com/ncf/recap?gameId=293180025
Reply With Quote
  (#100) Old
sycasey sycasey is offline
True Blue Golden Bear
 
sycasey's Avatar
 
Posts: 11,492
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Oakland
09-27-2011, 06:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneKeg View Post
Ok - but close doesn't count in my book because the target is not that ambitious to start with. Tedford could hit the target I just set by winning 6, then 9, then 8 regular season FBS games + 2 bowl victories in the next three years with no championship or BCS bowl. That is not far removed from mediocre, but I would agree we would need to keep him even if he were to just barely hit that target.

But if he doesn't... well, we're not the decision-makers, but if we were to agree on our little hypothetical, I would be bummed to hear more excuses down the road. Oh he only got to 23, but we were young at a key position like OT or MLB or whatever, or we had to play Ohio State, or a dog ate my homework. Time is past for that.
That's nice for you. I'm not going to set a hard line like that and agree right now that JT should be fired if he falls one win short of it or something; to some extent it does depend on circumstances.

However, I do think as a basic measuring stick what you've set is fair.
Reply With Quote
  (#101) Old
philly1121 philly1121 is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 1,453
Join Date: Oct 2008
09-27-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonofafurd View Post
You're late to the dance sonofafurd. Several posts later, I said that they were.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Ad Management by RedTyger