<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Riley Is Ready</title>
	<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/</link>
	<description>Tell The Whole Damn World, This Is Blog Territory!</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 06:19:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: abercrombie deutschland</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-3361</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 May 2011 01:01:13 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-3361</guid>
					<description>What are some good blog about writing sites!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>What are some good blog about writing sites!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Air Jordan shoes</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-2649</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2010 00:45:28 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-2649</guid>
					<description>This is a very good blog. I appreciate very much this text, thank you, let me know so I have moved the article.
By &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.airjordans.cc/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; Air Jordan shoes &lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This is a very good blog. I appreciate very much this text, thank you, let me know so I have moved the article.<br />
By <a href="http://www.airjordans.cc/" rel="nofollow"> Air Jordan shoes </a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: CalChemist</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1462</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 00:06:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1462</guid>
					<description>I would place this post and subsequent comments (to which HydroTech replies with class) in the 2nd or 3rd stage of grief, over the Season That Could Have Been.  A lot of anger at Tedford, and maybe some bargaining over how each QB could be used effectively.  Personally, I got over stage 4, my depression, when I stood in the rain watching USC beat Cal (the loss was rough, but it was a great football atmosphere), and I now accept that Cal is playing in a crappy bowl, which I will watch nonetheless. 

Given how the rest of the team mailed it in after USC, I'm still amazed at how much people want to hold Longshore responsible for the team's performance against Washington and Stanford.  I only use the last two games because I think a reasonable fan would be happy with a record of 8-4, given that three of those losses came right after the ankle sprain.  There's no question that Longshore wasn't as effective after his ankle sprain, but it's impossible to separate his subpar performances from that of a team that gave up.  The Cal team that lost to USC played with pride and went toe-to-toe with the winner of the second toughest football conference.  The Cal team that lost to Washington ...  what else can be said?  Longshore was hurting for a few weeks, during which the team suffered several ugly losses.  Not having a good quarterback will do that.  And all of a sudden, we went from national championship contenders to Pac-10 also-rans, a bigtime let down for a program unaccustomed to national championship talk.  Longshore was good enough to win those last two games; Tedford just couldn't motivate the entire team to play as hard as they had earlier in the season.  

I hope the team can get over their stages of grief also, so that Cal will have a respectable showing in the bowl game.  Otherwise, I may be quite drunk quite early on Saturday morning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I would place this post and subsequent comments (to which HydroTech replies with class) in the 2nd or 3rd stage of grief, over the Season That Could Have Been.  A lot of anger at Tedford, and maybe some bargaining over how each QB could be used effectively.  Personally, I got over stage 4, my depression, when I stood in the rain watching USC beat Cal (the loss was rough, but it was a great football atmosphere), and I now accept that Cal is playing in a crappy bowl, which I will watch nonetheless. </p>
	<p>Given how the rest of the team mailed it in after USC, I&#8217;m still amazed at how much people want to hold Longshore responsible for the team&#8217;s performance against Washington and Stanford.  I only use the last two games because I think a reasonable fan would be happy with a record of 8-4, given that three of those losses came right after the ankle sprain.  There&#8217;s no question that Longshore wasn&#8217;t as effective after his ankle sprain, but it&#8217;s impossible to separate his subpar performances from that of a team that gave up.  The Cal team that lost to USC played with pride and went toe-to-toe with the winner of the second toughest football conference.  The Cal team that lost to Washington &#8230;  what else can be said?  Longshore was hurting for a few weeks, during which the team suffered several ugly losses.  Not having a good quarterback will do that.  And all of a sudden, we went from national championship contenders to Pac-10 also-rans, a bigtime let down for a program unaccustomed to national championship talk.  Longshore was good enough to win those last two games; Tedford just couldn&#8217;t motivate the entire team to play as hard as they had earlier in the season.  </p>
	<p>I hope the team can get over their stages of grief also, so that Cal will have a respectable showing in the bowl game.  Otherwise, I may be quite drunk quite early on Saturday morning.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Bowbasaur</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1459</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:51:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1459</guid>
					<description>why didn't they at least do a 2 QB system?

when its obvious that longshore isn't getting it done why not at least see what riley gives ya?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>why didn&#8217;t they at least do a 2 QB system?</p>
	<p>when its obvious that longshore isn&#8217;t getting it done why not at least see what riley gives ya?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Scrooge</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1458</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1458</guid>
					<description>Ba-humbug to all of you! :-) 

P.S.  Hydro, Ayoob couldn't redshirt.  He was a JC trxf.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Ba-humbug to all of you! <img src='http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/wp-images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />  </p>
	<p>P.S.  Hydro, Ayoob couldn&#8217;t redshirt.  He was a JC trxf.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: HydroTech</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1457</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:19:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1457</guid>
					<description>Eugene, well first of all, let me just say that you bring up a big time valid point that I did not think of.  Not only that, you are much more clear, concise, and articulate than I am.  Anyways, back to your point.  While I'm not sure if I am ready to jump to your side of the argument, I must admit that your point is extremely plausible.  Your point sort of reminded me of Axeless' comment that maybe Tedford is punishing Riley.  But of course, not starting Riley as punishment for his mistake is much different from your point that Tedford no longer thinks that Riley is game-ready.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Eugene, well first of all, let me just say that you bring up a big time valid point that I did not think of.  Not only that, you are much more clear, concise, and articulate than I am.  Anyways, back to your point.  While I&#8217;m not sure if I am ready to jump to your side of the argument, I must admit that your point is extremely plausible.  Your point sort of reminded me of Axeless&#8217; comment that maybe Tedford is punishing Riley.  But of course, not starting Riley as punishment for his mistake is much different from your point that Tedford no longer thinks that Riley is game-ready.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Eugene</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1456</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1456</guid>
					<description>One thing that I forgot to mention: Of course, Tedford knows much more than any of us and we're just talking about things without full knowledge of what's going on in the locker room and in practice. But if I may be critical of him (which is hard for me, since I have a huge man-crush on the guy), I'm just saying that his evaluation of Riley after the OSU game is unfair. I think mistakes of the sort that Riley made stick with the coach; in the same way that first impressions may forever dictate the way you interact with someone, Tedford may be letting these harsh &quot;first impressions&quot; of Riley affect his better judgment.

But seriously, what do I know. I'm just saying what I think with my limited knowledge.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>One thing that I forgot to mention: Of course, Tedford knows much more than any of us and we&#8217;re just talking about things without full knowledge of what&#8217;s going on in the locker room and in practice. But if I may be critical of him (which is hard for me, since I have a huge man-crush on the guy), I&#8217;m just saying that his evaluation of Riley after the OSU game is unfair. I think mistakes of the sort that Riley made stick with the coach; in the same way that first impressions may forever dictate the way you interact with someone, Tedford may be letting these harsh &#8220;first impressions&#8221; of Riley affect his better judgment.</p>
	<p>But seriously, what do I know. I&#8217;m just saying what I think with my limited knowledge.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Eugene</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1455</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1455</guid>
					<description>I like the analysis, but you forget the fact that Riley's score in Tedford's mind (if we adopt your scoring system) might have dropped below 6 after the OSU game. In other words, Tedford may have thought that Riley was game ready (maybe a 6 or 7) before and during the OSU game, but then evaluated him as either not game ready or less than an injured Longshore for subsequent weeks (perhaps a 3 or 4). We have to remember that Riley's mistake at the end of the game was huge, and although I'll be the first to admit that it's a mistake that a freshman QB could very well make, if I were in Tedford's position, my opinion of Riley would no doubt be lower than before the game. 

Anyways, the point is, while you suggest that Tedford's choice of starting QB was based on scenario (a) - Longshore is better than a game-ready Riley, you have reached this conclusion by assuming that Tedford's opinion of Riley did not change at all following the OSU game. True, Tedford did come out and say on TV that it wasn't Riley's fault, but to be honest, I'd have to say that the main purpose of that statement was to discourage a huge backlash against Riley by Cal fans. You have to remember that the end of this game was the first time we saw Tedford lose his cool, and to me this is an indication of his gut reaction and thus the most accurate interpretation of what he actually thought at the moment.

I'd argue that Tedford has been thinking that an injured Longshore is better than Riley, who he thinks is not game ready. In terms of your scoring explanation, I think Tedford is scoring Riley as a 2 or 3 and Longshore as a 4 or 5. I don't think Tedford could honestly rank Longshore higher than 5 after the UCLA or ASU games, at least the way he played in the fourth quarter. So to me, it seems that Tedford thought an injured Longshore was better than Riley, who he thought was not game ready. And I'd continue to say that the reason he thought Riley was not game ready was due to his mistake in the last play of the OSU game. 

If this is indeed the case (which I believe it is), then while I definitely think Tedford is still the coach for Cal, I think that his assessment of Riley after the OSU game is way too harsh and that it cost us the season. Of course, Tedford is a very loyal person, and this combined with the aforementioned probably sealed the deal. 

Anyways, hopefully the Bears will get some sort of motivation and team chemistry going into the bowl game, since while Longshore has sucked the past two months, it's clear that the whole team, especially the defense, stopped caring a while ago.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I like the analysis, but you forget the fact that Riley&#8217;s score in Tedford&#8217;s mind (if we adopt your scoring system) might have dropped below 6 after the OSU game. In other words, Tedford may have thought that Riley was game ready (maybe a 6 or 7) before and during the OSU game, but then evaluated him as either not game ready or less than an injured Longshore for subsequent weeks (perhaps a 3 or 4). We have to remember that Riley&#8217;s mistake at the end of the game was huge, and although I&#8217;ll be the first to admit that it&#8217;s a mistake that a freshman QB could very well make, if I were in Tedford&#8217;s position, my opinion of Riley would no doubt be lower than before the game. </p>
	<p>Anyways, the point is, while you suggest that Tedford&#8217;s choice of starting QB was based on scenario (a) - Longshore is better than a game-ready Riley, you have reached this conclusion by assuming that Tedford&#8217;s opinion of Riley did not change at all following the OSU game. True, Tedford did come out and say on TV that it wasn&#8217;t Riley&#8217;s fault, but to be honest, I&#8217;d have to say that the main purpose of that statement was to discourage a huge backlash against Riley by Cal fans. You have to remember that the end of this game was the first time we saw Tedford lose his cool, and to me this is an indication of his gut reaction and thus the most accurate interpretation of what he actually thought at the moment.</p>
	<p>I&#8217;d argue that Tedford has been thinking that an injured Longshore is better than Riley, who he thinks is not game ready. In terms of your scoring explanation, I think Tedford is scoring Riley as a 2 or 3 and Longshore as a 4 or 5. I don&#8217;t think Tedford could honestly rank Longshore higher than 5 after the UCLA or ASU games, at least the way he played in the fourth quarter. So to me, it seems that Tedford thought an injured Longshore was better than Riley, who he thought was not game ready. And I&#8217;d continue to say that the reason he thought Riley was not game ready was due to his mistake in the last play of the OSU game. </p>
	<p>If this is indeed the case (which I believe it is), then while I definitely think Tedford is still the coach for Cal, I think that his assessment of Riley after the OSU game is way too harsh and that it cost us the season. Of course, Tedford is a very loyal person, and this combined with the aforementioned probably sealed the deal. </p>
	<p>Anyways, hopefully the Bears will get some sort of motivation and team chemistry going into the bowl game, since while Longshore has sucked the past two months, it&#8217;s clear that the whole team, especially the defense, stopped caring a while ago.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: MysteryFriend</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1454</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 17:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1454</guid>
					<description>CA Pete - I agree Wazzu should have been Riley starting, but at that point, we had $C the next week and Longshore needed the reps.  The 2 goals this year were NC and beat USC.  It's no coincidence that our team never gave a full 60 min effort after the UCLA lost (which completely dashed our NC hopes) with the exception of the USC game (which effectively ended our season in most of the players and fans minds).  Post-USC, the team just went through the motions.  They didn't even give a shit about the Big Game.  

Aside from CA Pete's post, there's some pretty stupid comments here.  Where do you ladies come up with this stuff?  It's pure comedy.  Judging by the stubbornness and irrational comments (you guys complain that the blogger is not backing up his reasoning, yet you guys back your claims up with nothing), I would have to say some of you guys must be a part of the Bear Insider community - where EVERY poster is a &quot;smart and intelligent Cal football fan&quot; .... *BARF*.  

Levy &amp;gt; Longshore?  Yeah right.  If any of you guys watched those 2 games Levy started and actually knew something about football, you would realize that Stevie Wonder would have been able to execute 05 QB game plans vs BYU and Stanford.  Quick hitches for YAC, handing the ball off to your future 1st round RB, and occasionally throwing a wobbly pass off line down the field that your future 1st round NFL WR pick makes great plays on is not grounds for a &quot;Levy &amp;gt; Longshore&quot; statement.  Levy is fortunate we played 2 of the crappiest teams in his starts.  Put in that same Levy game plan vs USC, and Carroll could have setup a recliner and put his feet up on the visitor's sideline.  

And for the poster hinting that Tedford is purposely holding his QBs back from being all stars, that is a seriously disturbing thought to read.  Yeah, Tedford is keeping Nate in there to spite all of the unhappy Cal fans for not thinking he is God and because he hated Levy and wanted to crush and destroy Levy's dream of being an NFL first rounder.  Tedford is a complete idiot.  He's so stupid that he must have lucked out putting those 5 QBs into the first round.  haha yeup

Because of you, I will be lucky to hold my Xmas Eve dinner down tonight knowing that I sit in the same stadium with such an irrational fan.  What's next?  I bet one of you guys will say that Tedford doesn't want to abandon Longshore like Tedford's father abandoned him, and then you'll reason that is why Tedford won't switch to Levy.  Oh wait, a brilliant blogger on another blog already made that assumption. 

Happy Holidays.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>CA Pete - I agree Wazzu should have been Riley starting, but at that point, we had $C the next week and Longshore needed the reps.  The 2 goals this year were NC and beat USC.  It&#8217;s no coincidence that our team never gave a full 60 min effort after the UCLA lost (which completely dashed our NC hopes) with the exception of the USC game (which effectively ended our season in most of the players and fans minds).  Post-USC, the team just went through the motions.  They didn&#8217;t even give a shit about the Big Game.  </p>
	<p>Aside from CA Pete&#8217;s post, there&#8217;s some pretty stupid comments here.  Where do you ladies come up with this stuff?  It&#8217;s pure comedy.  Judging by the stubbornness and irrational comments (you guys complain that the blogger is not backing up his reasoning, yet you guys back your claims up with nothing), I would have to say some of you guys must be a part of the Bear Insider community - where EVERY poster is a &#8220;smart and intelligent Cal football fan&#8221; &#8230;. *BARF*.  </p>
	<p>Levy &gt; Longshore?  Yeah right.  If any of you guys watched those 2 games Levy started and actually knew something about football, you would realize that Stevie Wonder would have been able to execute 05 QB game plans vs BYU and Stanford.  Quick hitches for YAC, handing the ball off to your future 1st round RB, and occasionally throwing a wobbly pass off line down the field that your future 1st round NFL WR pick makes great plays on is not grounds for a &#8220;Levy &gt; Longshore&#8221; statement.  Levy is fortunate we played 2 of the crappiest teams in his starts.  Put in that same Levy game plan vs USC, and Carroll could have setup a recliner and put his feet up on the visitor&#8217;s sideline.  </p>
	<p>And for the poster hinting that Tedford is purposely holding his QBs back from being all stars, that is a seriously disturbing thought to read.  Yeah, Tedford is keeping Nate in there to spite all of the unhappy Cal fans for not thinking he is God and because he hated Levy and wanted to crush and destroy Levy&#8217;s dream of being an NFL first rounder.  Tedford is a complete idiot.  He&#8217;s so stupid that he must have lucked out putting those 5 QBs into the first round.  haha yeup</p>
	<p>Because of you, I will be lucky to hold my Xmas Eve dinner down tonight knowing that I sit in the same stadium with such an irrational fan.  What&#8217;s next?  I bet one of you guys will say that Tedford doesn&#8217;t want to abandon Longshore like Tedford&#8217;s father abandoned him, and then you&#8217;ll reason that is why Tedford won&#8217;t switch to Levy.  Oh wait, a brilliant blogger on another blog already made that assumption. </p>
	<p>Happy Holidays.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: HydroTech</title>
		<link>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1452</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:34:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2007/12/24/riley-is-ready/#comment-1452</guid>
					<description>Joe Mama, your statement is a perfect example of the classic &quot;the QB gets more praise for wins and more blame for loss&quot; train of thought.  The blanket statement that &quot;the Nate Longshore-led offense put up 13 points against Stanfurd&quot; hides blocking breakdowns, penalties, and WR drops which Longshore can have no control over.  Also to conclude that the Longshore-led offense is inferior to the 119th ranked Notre Dame offense is also using the flawed transitive property theory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Joe Mama, your statement is a perfect example of the classic &#8220;the QB gets more praise for wins and more blame for loss&#8221; train of thought.  The blanket statement that &#8220;the Nate Longshore-led offense put up 13 points against Stanfurd&#8221; hides blocking breakdowns, penalties, and WR drops which Longshore can have no control over.  Also to conclude that the Longshore-led offense is inferior to the 119th ranked Notre Dame offense is also using the flawed transitive property theory.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

