Longshore Has Chipped Ankle & Riley Isn’t Ready
Here’s the article from the Daily Cal.
A few facts to point out before I begin: (1) Tedford knew of the true injury when it happened, (2) Tedford admitted that he realized that Longshore’s injury affected his ability to move around in the pocket, (3) Tedford asked Longshore many times if the injury affected his 4th quarter performance and Longshore said that it didn’t, and (4) Tedford still started Longshore despite Tedford acknowledging that Longshore’s injury affected his immobility.
Alright, what does this all mean?
Let’s start with #1. JT knew of the injury when it first happened but lied. Okay, so what? Coaches lie all the time. Why’d he lie? So that if Longshore played, then other teams wouldn’t realize the extent of the injury. Yup. It’s that simple. That’s why they also tape up both ankles, so the defense (if they can’t remember) can’t tell which ankle is messed up. So when Longshore is in a pile, the defensive players have a 50/50 chance of choosing the right ankle to twist and contort in a purposeful effort to further injure Longshore. I know it sounds malicious and mean, but it happens. All types of crazy stuff goes on in piles. Remember in 2003 when we played U$C? Remember Echemandu saying to the refs and the media after the game that the $C players were grabbing his balls and stuff in the pile? On one particular play you can see Ech coming out of the pile holding his crotch in pain and going to the refs to complain. Don’t remember that? Trust me, it happened. So the point to take away here: JT lied to protect Longshore’s health should Longshore play again.
Okay, #2. JT acknowledged that the injury affected NL’s mobility. Well, at least we know that JT wasn’t blind. We all knew that Longshore was less mobile because of the injury. A few bold Cal fans began proposing that perhaps JT didn’t realize that. Well, if you thought that, you were mistaken. So the answer that JT knew it affected NL’s mobility yet NL still started begins the obvious question… which we’ll get to in #4.
But #3, Tedford asked Longshore if his 4th Quarter slump was a result of his injury, Longshore said no, Tedford concurred and that was that. This fact has multiple issues to discuss: (a) Was Longshore’s 4th Quarter slump the result of his injury and (b) shouldn’t Tedford make the decision himself and not just ask Longshore’s opinion (which might have been biased)?
So (a) - was NL’s 4th Quarter slump the result of his injury? Longshore said no. Tedford agreed. In fact, Tedford said “I think it’s more a case of a guy trying to be too perfect, a guy trying to get things done and maybe trying too hard.” I have to agree with JT. If you watched the games closely, you could sort of see that Longshore was taking bigger gambles by throwing to covered WRs. In games when we were down, and had to pass to score and win, the game was on Longshore’s shoulders. He knew this, and tried to come through when needed. The thing is, when you know that the game rests on your shoulders you begin to do too much. You begin to think the others can’t do it, and only you can. You have to take big chances to win. This is what Longshore seems to have felt. It’s very similar to Brett Favre. In fact, maybe they should call it Brett Favre syndrome. As good as that guy is, he throws wayyy too many INTs because he tries too hard. Same deal with Longshore. Obviously, the ankle affects his mobility but I think if you carefully watch the 4th quarter of the past few games, you’ll see the Longshore mistakes are more a product of him trying too hard against tough circumstances (QB pressure and blitzing) than Longshore merely throwing a bad ball because he can’t push off his right ankle.
This sort leads me another subtle point. A lot of people have immediate concluded that Longshore’s injury has affected his performance because the two have coincided with each other. Coincidence doesn’t always mean causation. And in this case I don’t think the injury was the majority of the cause.
Okay, and (b) - shouldn’t Tedford make the decision regardless of Longshore’s opinion? Yes. But just because Tedford asked Longshore for his opinion, doesn’t mean Tedford used that information to make his decision. If you think that he did you’re making assumptions. Maybe did Tedford did ask Longshore, but Tedford already knew the answer. But asking your QB is picking their mind. You want to see how they feel about things. It’s about respect. Giving him the chance to see the truth. And if he doesn’t, then you can come in and set them straight. In this instance, Longshore’s statements matched what Tedford thought so no biggie. No big deal that Tedford asked Longshore if his slump was a result of the injury because Tedford could have (and more than likely) already knew the reason.
EDIT: Okay, I missed a point in the Daily Cal article. Tedford DID let Longshore make the decision on whether he should start or not. Okay. This I will admit, in my opinion is a mistake. Surely you can ask your QB his opinion, but as many other writers have pointed out, most guys would say anything to continue starting because it hurts to ride pine, and they think they can do better and succeed. Tedford should have made the decision on who to start himself, and not have left it up to Longshore. I think Jon Wilner wrote that this shows JT’s loyalty to his players. Which is his greatest asset and maybe also his worst. I would more or less agree with that statement. But let’s also get another thing straight. While Tedford did allow Longshore to make the decision, Tedford was okay with having Longshore start. If Tedford truly thought that Longshore wasn’t capable of starting, then he wouldn’t have asked Longshore and would have started Riley. Right? So what does this mean? We’ll get to it below.
Finally, the biggie, #4 - Tedford still started Longshore despite knowing that Longshore’s injury affected his mobility. Most fans are really upset about this one. It’s understandable, but I think most fans are sort of overlooking a big possibility.
Most Cal fans who wanted Riley would say: "it’s obvious that Longshore’s injury is the result of his 4th Quarter slump (not entirely true), and Riley gives us a better chance to win." Hmm… really? Riley gives us a better chance to win?
Okane has a big time gold nugget on his blog, here’s what he conveyed: "Tedford went on to reiterate what he has said all year, that although the injury may have an effect on Longshore’s mobility, it’s not enough to knock him out of the lineup because of his intangibles and grasp of the offense."
What does this mean? It means this: Longshore with bum ankle > healthy Riley.
So for all the Riley lovers out there… sorry, gonna have to wait another year unless Longshore leaves.
As we all know, or should know, "grasp of the offense" = experience. Tedford loves having experienced QBs in his system. The playbook is huge, the defenses are complex, defenses mask coverages, experience slows the game down. Longshore has much more experience, a better grasp of the offense, and calmer nerves because of his experience. That’s why Longshore still played instead of Riley.
And about Riley. I’m about to say some stuff, and don’t get me wrong, I like Riley and I think he has big time potential to be as good as Aaron Rodgers but let’s get a few things straight. As a friend of mine once pointed out, our opinion on Riley is based off of essentially two escaped sacks, one short TD throw, and four deep throws (which included the long TD pass to Hawk). Period. People remember this deep huge clutch throws against Oregon State but forget that Riley wasn’t quite "in the zone" for everything prior to that. He was very hit and miss. More miss than hit to start the game. So my point here is this: we’ve only seen Riley for 1 game, and he only had one good quarter. We all love him. We all think he’s the next Aaron Rodgers. BUT, our opinions of him are very much biased and overly focused on that last drive. So let’s come back down to Earth a little bit on Riley.
And a lot of people have been criticizing Tedford for saying he doesn’t have the foresight to see that Longshore isn’t the QB to lead us to an undisputed Pac-10 Championship or a BCS game. Maybe Longshore isn’t the guy, but do you really want to criticize Tedford? Face it. We’re all couch QBs and coaches. Even me. We don’t know horse manure compared to Tedford. And do we really want to say that Tedford is mistaken? Maybe Tedford realizes that Longshore isn’t the guy, but realizes Longshore still gives us a better chance than Riley. I think most people fail to make that realization.
Remember what Tedford’s quote means? Here’s the quote again: "Tedford went on to reiterate what he has said all year, that although the injury may have an effect on Longshore’s mobility, it’s not enough to knock him out of the lineup because of his intangibles and grasp of the offense."
It means: Longshore with bum ankle > healthy Riley. It means although Riley beats Longshore in the physical attributes department, Longshore beats Riley in the mental attributes department and does so by a bigger margin than he loses to Riley in the physical attributes. Longshore with bum ankle > healthy Riley
Learn to live with it. Let’s not question Tedford. As much as he’s a God, he can also make mistakes, but I don’t think this is one of his mistakes. A friend of mine reminded me that Tedford is a guy who has put multiple college QBs into the NFL (how they perform in the NFL is another matter and hardly any fault of Tedford’s). Tedford KNOWS what he’s doing when it comes to QBs. He knows who has it and who doesn’t. He knows who gives us the best chances at winning. We’re just fans. We only see the QBs in games. We don’t see the QBs in practice 4 times a week. Let’s stop thinking we know more than Tedford. Trust the man. In Tedford we trust. If Tedford thinks Longshore with bum ankle gives us a better chance to win than Riley, then let’s go with it.
Capiche?
sorry, but Tedford has lost a lot of the leeway he earned the previous 5 years. he let his blind loyalty for his “4 years in the program” guy cloud his judgment. we as cal fans have a right to question our $2 million per year coach because we buy tickets and support the program.
bottom line is that tedford messed up - he should have at least given riley a few series the past 3 or 4 games to see what he had with him, and to see if riley can beat nate in ‘08. and losing 6 of 7 games ABSOLUTELY gives us a right to be critical of a guy who, despite his accomplishments, has gotten us exactly ONE pac-10 co-title and zero bcs bowls. hey, I didnt create these high expectations, he did.
Comment by forza — December 5, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
As for criticizing Tedford, I suppose my point didn’t quite come across as I would have liked it to. Let me try again. We DO have the right to criticize Tedford. But my point is, we’re doing it when we know so little compared to Tedford. Certainly Tedford makes mistakes, and even mistakes that we can see and would have avoided. But I don’t think we can truly say that Riley should have started. We know nothing compared to Tedford. Assuming Tedford is trying to win games, and the decisions he makes are to maximize the possibility of winning, then the fact that Longshore started over Riley suggests Tedford thinks Longshore is still better and Riley isn’t ready.
Comment by HydroTech — December 5, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
I just don’t buy the experience argument at all. If you’ll recall in the 2003 season, Aaron Rodgers was a sophomore JC transfer with no experience in the system. He started his first game the fifth week of the season. The next week he led us to a triple OT victory over the #3 ranked USC Trojans. I’ll take Riley over an injured Longshore any day. I might even take Riley over a healthy Longshore, especially in the fourth quarter. For me it all comes down the “it” factor. It may turn out that Riley doesn’t have “it,” but we know that Longshore doesn’t.
Comment by Ted — December 5, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Actually, Ted, a oft-forgotten fact about the ‘03 USC game is that Rodgers was injured in that game, and Reggie Robertson, a backup with a couple starts and a good deal more experience as a backup, actually finished off the game.
Comment by ragnarok — December 5, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
Also, Rodgers was a Tedford guy while, I believe, Robertson was a hold-over from the Holmoe era. So, Tedford is gonna go with *his* guy over one of Holmoe’s dude.
And Rags is right.
Comment by TwistNHook — December 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Rodgers went 18 for 25 with 2 TDs, 1 rushing TD and 2INTS. So are you suggesting he gets no credit because he got injured?
Comment by Ted — December 5, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Well, Ted, I certainly don’t want to suggest Rodgers gets no credit for the victory. However, you must agree that ‘he led us to a triple OT victory’ also overstates the facts a bit, considering he didn’t even finish the game. Great player, loved watching him play, but Robertson (and many others) deserve plenty of credit for that landmark victory.
Comment by ragnarok — December 5, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
I don’t think any of us said he should get no credit. Just that many people forget that he got injured and Robertson had to take over. I think he was injured in the early 4th quarter, but I am not quite sure.
I again reiterate that I think the fact that Rodgers was a Tedford recruit made Tedford more likely to play him all other factors equal. Here, both players are Tedford recruits. So, that seems like one factor making a Rodgers-Riley comparison slightly less palatable.
Comment by TwistNHook — December 5, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Ragnarok,
It was misleading because I forgot that Rodgers got injured. Luckily the stats partially redeemed me.
Comment by Ted — December 5, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
I’m not exactly a Riley advocate, but I would have preferred seeing a platoon. Marshawn’s Bills go back and forth between Edwards and Losman, game-to-game. Assess your performance.
This flexibility heightens awareness and puts pressure on the quarterback to succeed. USC has done this a lot–despite the great talent, their greatest strength is judging performance and adjusting to the best performers, as OskiTalk has noted.
Loyalty is honorable, but it’s not the way to build a great football team. It constructs a lazy one that opts out of its commitments. There’s been a little experimenting the last two weeks with this concept. Let’s expand it into the bowl game and start it up next year.
Comment by Avinash — December 5, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Here’s what Oskitalk was talking about: http://oskitalk.blogspot.com/2007/12/now-what.html
Comment by Avinash — December 5, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
There came a point during Big Game when I realized that I didn’t want Riley to come into the game because I thought he was a better option–just that Riley would be DIFFERENT. Hydro, what you say makes X’s and O’s sense, but it totally ignores the effect of the situation on team morale. I know there’s a lot of rumors flying around about it, and we don’t know detailed info about player attitudes, so I can’t go into any reliable detail. But I do know that to us watching the game at the NewFarm it was obvious that the team didn’t have a mental edge. Replacing Longshore–with anybody else–could have provided a spark, or at least shaken things up, or provided a rallying cry (a la Levy 2005). Thus my criticism of Tedford: he did not have a sense of team morale, or a sense of the ramifications of his decision beyond the X’s and O’s. Or he did, and he thought sticking with Nate would overcome the challenge. Either way, he was mistaken.
Comment by Ben — December 5, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Hate to say it, but I don’t have rock-solid confidence in Tedford’s QB judgment. Remember ‘05? Longshore goes out, Ayoob comes in…and completes no passes. Levy replaced him and did a better job. But then Ayoob starts the rest of the season and we all know how that went. Things only started to look up when Tedford did what he did not do this season: he replaced Ayoob with Levy and then we won our two remaining games in a reasonably solid fashion. Makes you wonder about the rest of the season.
When it comes down to it, how could Riley have done worse? Why didn’t Tedford even TRY to find out?
Comment by A Bear — December 5, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
Ben, you’re right. My explanation bypasses the topic of team morale. I didn’t talk about team moral because I don’t know anything. All I hear is rumor and speculation. Nothing really solid. It’s possible that going with Riley might have helped team morale, but what about the confidence of your QB? As soon as you take your QB out for poor performance, you hurt his confidence. While the rest of the team might have wanted Riley, even the players themselves aren’t vulnerable to the Riley bias that plagues many Cal fans. Like you said, Riley might have provided a spark, or he might have been even worse than Longshore. I think over on BearInsider they had some stats which showed that Longshore was actually pretty decent in the first three quarters but obviously did poorly in the 4th quarter. Imagine if Riley was in though. He might have put on a poor showing in the first three quarters, and by the 4th quarter the game might have been out of reach. I just don’t think we Cal fans have enough information to go off of to reasonably criticize Tedford.
Comment by HydroTech — December 5, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
A Bear, you do bring a good point that Riley probably couldn’t have done worse. But I also fear that he actually could have. Longshore certainly has choked in the 4th Quarters recently, but he has also been decent in the first three quarters. There is no guarantee that Riley would have performed just as well as Longshore. As immobile as Longshore is, I think he’s a more sure than Riley when it comes to performing in the first three quarters. And we did see Riley for a full game. Maybe JT saw enough that game to determine that Riley wasn’t ready. The fact that JT decided to stick with an injured Longshore over Riley really really suggests that (1) Longshore is still a lot better than Riley even if Longshore can’t run, (2) Riley isn’t ready, and (3) a mixture of 1 & 2. And I’m not sure the whole “JT was being loyal to Longshore” argument even works any more. Afterall, JT completely justified his decision by saying Longshore has a much better grasp of the offense. We can’t really challenge that statement. We have to accept it as truth because we have nothing else to go on. Longshore still started while injured, thus it promotes the inference that and injured Longshore is still better than Riley.
Comment by HydroTech — December 5, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
I appreciate the fact that you won’t get into the morale issue, though sometimes it’s tough for me not to–one of the cardinal sins of football is not giving maximum effort. I don’t want to drag any players into it by rumor alone.
And I agree that Riley might have been worse. In fact, I actually agreed with Tedford all the way up until Big Game. By that point, however, it wasn’t about Riley anymore, just about shaking things up. I think I posted in the Big Game thread how I even felt ashamed that I was pumped that Riley was warming up. Just a lot of bad emotions. Losing sucks!
Do you think Longshore will be ready for the Armed Forces Bowl (mentally, we obviously don’t know how the injury will react), sort of like how he tore it up in last year’s Holiday Bowl?
Comment by Ben — December 5, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
Waiting another year for a different QB is GARBAGE! WTF, man!
Comment by Seth — December 5, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
As I’ve commented on this blog before, Tedford’s plan, like communism, works well…
…in theory.
But the results tell a different tale, a tale which starts with 1, has a - in the middle and ends with a 6. I’d rather have had Riley start and go 0-7 than watch NL stagger around around like an injured Wildebeest heaving elephant patties over the Serengeti for just one game.
Comment by Bay Area Bear — December 6, 2007 @ 1:36 am
If Riley went 0-7, we’d be taking five steps backward, and we’d be right back where we started in 2001.
You guys have been pampered by the immediacy of success. Although I hate how this year ended, it could be a lot worse for us.
Comment by Avinash — December 6, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Three comments. First, I agree that Tedford is afraid of playing Riley. He think KR is a dangerous, risky type player, which was borne out on his last drive during the Oregon State game. And not just the silly decision to go for it on the last play, but the near safety was also a highly risky play that turned out well, but would not get a gold star in the film room. He should have thrown that ball away earlier, but went to his third progression after almost getting sacked in the end zone. In other words, he does not have a sense of the time, down and distance of the game. Add to that his other poor play at the end of the game, and the mediocre play during the first three quarters, and it is a recipe for the coach not to want to play you again. I think if everyone remembers back, Riley was kind of a national joke after that game.
Second, Reggie Roberson was a great, experienced guy who was able to come in and back up Aaron Rogers in the USC game because he had played most of that season, as well as extensive backing up for Boller during his many injuries. Even so, Tedford went with Rogers. He thought it OK because he had the quality experienced backup. And Reggie did play most of the second half of that USC game (Rogers played one series after half-time, and played poorly). Rogers was hurting, and came out. But Reggie Roberson was never in the league of a Nate Longshore or Kevin Riley or Kyle Boller, or even a Joe Ayoob. Those were all highly recruited guys or guys who had exemplary skills, who were supposed to go to the next level. Aaron Rodgers was recruited to start right away as a rebuilding project as JTs first QB (actually, Levy was, but who is counting). Neither Levy nor Roberson were going to cut it for JT, and as he was rebuilding, he needed to get Rodgers experience by playing right away. As it was, Rogers came into school a semester early, and still did not start until the 5th game or so. And looked terrible at the USC game (some portions) and the Oregon State game. But he obviously benefit greatly from the experience, and so did Cal. So that is why Rogers was substituted. Roberson was playing better than Rogers when Rogers got the start. But we went with Rogers for the future.
That is a similar situation with Ayoob. Joe came in to be a quick fix when Rogers left, because Nate was clearly not ready for the starting Job. However, Nate won out because Joe was not as good as advertised. In any event, by the end of that season, we went down to our third string, who was a QB who played part time fullback.
The point is, Longshore is the only guy that Tedford has said has beaten out Kyle Reed, Kevin Riley, Joe Ayoob, and Brock Mansion (so far). And even Steve Levy. Longshore had only lost three games as a starter, and had won 16, going into the Oregon State game. Even now, he is 17 and 8 as a starter. And we have been close in most of those loses. So I would say that there is a lot for him to make up for, but he will get every chance to do so by this coach. And, by virture of the fact that we were in each game so close, there was no opportunity for Riley to get in. So the Riley watchers are hard up for the KR fix, but it just isn’t coming soon.
Comment by Oski88 — December 7, 2007 @ 2:49 am
During the OSU game this year, my friends and I were all wondering just how badly NL was hurt. Our “wondering” got more pissed as the game progressed (”How hurt can he be??” “He’d better be really freakin hurt.” “Why isn’t he in this game yet??”)
So at the start of the meltdown (the OSU game), it felt like all the problems with our offense would be solved if NL came back to replace Riley. Yeah, its hard to remember that 5-0 start now… seems so long ago.
Comment by Dave — December 9, 2007 @ 1:26 am
Good point. I don’t know what more to say except that it’d be great if Tedford gave Riley first-team reps in practice.
I honestly like the two-quarterback system. It’s worked well for Urban Meyer, Les Miles, and Frank Beamer, who rescued Virginia Tech’s season with such a system. I don’t see the harm in at least trying it out during practice.
Comment by Rishi — December 11, 2007 @ 12:48 am