Tedford Love
If you watched the Armed Forces Bowl, you probably saw that DeSean Jackson, Robert Jordan, and Thomas DeCoud were all notably absent from the starting lineups (though you may not have, given how poorly Jason Kidd read through them before the game). You certainly saw their impact when they finally got on the field in the second quarter. Jackson and Jordan both had touchdown catches (Jackson’s being particularly acrobatic), and DeCoud was flying around the secondary, hitting Air Force ball carriers with authority.
Why the absence? Well, as many of you know, all three were suspended for the first quarter of the game for violating unspecified team rules. As first reported by Jonathan Okanes on December 30th, the infractions were not major, but nothing more was elaborated on. I know I assumed they missed a team meeting or a practice or something — given the timing of the announcement, it wasn’t unreasonable to assume they might have gotten into a bit of trouble in Ft. Worth (is that even possible?).
Today, however, I heard through the grapevine (a source I consider reliable, if rather indirect) that the suspensions were decided on weeks ago, and related not to missing a single meeting, but rather because all 3 players were missing team meetings all the time. If true, it’s another clear indicator that discipline on this team had been breaking down for a while, and it was about time Tedford starting kicking some ass (or, as the ESPN sideline correspondent called it, "handing out a bit of ‘Tedford Love’").
Why did it take so long for something like this to happen? These three weren’t some freshman punks who still thought they were BMOC like they were back in high school. Jackson is the highest-profile player on the team, a flashy receiver/punt returner who has his own Heisman website, DeCoud is the team’s leading tackler and was a team captain for every game this season (except, understandably, the bowl game), and Jordan is a four-year starter and a standout receiver in his own right. Even if these players aren’t specifically the types of leaders mentioned by HydroTech last month, they are in prominent positions on the team; I can’t imagine other players seeing that they were skipping meetings and not start letting things slide themselves.
Well, when you’re a star player, you do get special treatment, but it seems it was long past time for Tedford to step in and send a message, essentially saying that no player is so good that the team can’t do without them. Judging by their performance in the bowl game, the players clearly responded to Tedford shaking things up; not only did all three suspended players make a big difference in the Bears’ victory, but team in general came out fired up and excited.
Of course, much of that shot in the arm seemed to come from Kevin Riley’s performance, another of Tedford’s shakeups. Honestly, given Longshore’s struggles this year, I think it was long past time Riley at least got a chance to show what he could do. It’s one thing to be loyal to your players, protecting them and building them up during adversity; it’s quite another to ignore obvious problems, hoping they’ll fix themselves. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20, but it’s pretty obvious from the post-game celebration that this team is ready to follow Riley, and I’m glad that Tedford finally gave the team what they wanted.
Clearly, this year was Tedford’s toughest as a coach at Cal. The Bears have had two 3-game losing streaks under Tedford, and both have occured since October 13. More than losing games, however, Tedford appeared to lose the team. The team we saw defeat Air Force on Monday would have destroyed Stanford and would have beaten Washington handily. What happened to these guys? Why did Tedford take so long to make the changes that he did? I applaud the changes, but wonder what might have been if they had come sooner.
It is often when facing adversity that people learn and grow. I can, of course, only speculate, but I would hope that in dealing with his team’s freefall, Tedford has grown as a football coach and as a leader. If so, I’m confident Cal will be in good hands in the future.
As for my part, I’m excited about Cal football again. August 30 can’t come soon enough!
lol on your Kidd comments. I kept thinking to myself, “Come on Jason! You’re not that dumb!” Then I remembered a quote I saw in the media by him, something to the effect of “We’re going to turn this team around 360 degrees.”
Comment by Brian A — January 3, 2008 @ 12:16 am
Perhaps the biggest reason Riley was not playing earlier is because Tedford hates mental errors. The OSU game at the end was a really bad mental error by Riley. I believe it solidified Tedfords belief that NL was the best chance of winning this season until Riley had the time in December practices to prove otherwise.
Riley is THE ONE though. Riley will lead Cal to the next level.
Comment by Patrick — January 3, 2008 @ 12:59 am
So he hates mental errors, but when does physical ineptitude come into play? Why do you keep starting a QB that can’t step into his throws? What message do you send when you tell the media your starting QB is only about 65%? Is a 65% NL better than a 100% percent Riley? After the Armed Forces Bowl I don’t even know if a 100% NL is better than Riley. Tedford has a lot to think about this off-season.
Comment by JC — January 3, 2008 @ 10:47 am
Very well said Ragnarok.
Comment by Ken Crawford — January 3, 2008 @ 11:15 am
I have to agree with JC. I think you’re being too nice to NL and Tedford for going along with him. Not only was NL at 65%, but also one of the arguments made for him by Hydrotech was that he was the leader for the team. I think this bowl clearly showed that the team was stronger behind Riley and that he was taking responsibility for plays (and not making bonehead moves). Also, from the rumor mill, we heard that the team isn’t actually so fond of NL, because he’s too much of a goody-goody — they don’t feel that he’s one of them… So, is Tedford so out of touch with his boys that he can’t see the people’s leader from the teacher’s pets?
Comment by AndBears — January 3, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
I have a hard time believing that the players were missing meetings all the time. That’s huge. Being that those players were from two different positions (WRs and DBs), that means two positions coaches were also negligent in their duties as a coach along with Tedford. Highly doubtful. Plus, if the players were merely late for the meeting, I’m pretty sure they get punishment. Why they would not get punishment for not showing up is beyond fathomable in my opinion (since I don’t believe Tedford & Co. would allow a player to go unpunished for consistently missing meetings). I do think it’s plausible that some players were getting preferential treatment over others, but it wouldn’t be on something like missing meetings because that’s plainly too visible and playing-favorites.
Comment by HydroTech — January 3, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Hydro,
You would know better than I how these things work, but could it be possible that the suspensions were only the latest of several (increasing) punishments, and the first to leak to the public? Pure speculation on my part.
Nevertheless, it appears from the bowl game performances that the players responded well to Tedford’s discipline, which was my main point in bringing up the rumor.
Comment by ragnarok — January 3, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
AndBears,
Yeah, I admit I rather glossed over the mistakes Tedford made, particularly with respect to the quarterback controversy. While Riley rode the bench all we could do was speculate, but after the bowl game, it’s pretty apparent that Tedford screwed up. I *think* Tedford knows he screwed up, in which case he’ll hopefully have a better handle on the team next year, but if he hasn’t learned anything from his mistakes, we’ll probably be having this conversation next year, and I can assure you I won’t be so nice then.
Did Tedford take too long to make a change? Absolutely. Why? We still can only speculate. We’ve all heard theories tossed about (see our poll to the right for some of them), but given both quarterback’s recent performance, none of them seem like ‘good’ reasons, only petty reasons, or unimportant reasons, or just plain ignorant oversights. I suppose if I’m praising Tedford for making the right moves, I should also berate him for making them 2 months too late.
Now, of course, while it seems that the team likes Riley as the starting quarterback, in making a switch, Tedford has to maintain that he, not his players, has control over who gets to play. I’m reminded of last year’s quarterback controversy at ASU, where coach Dirk Koetter chose senior Sam Keller to be the starting QB before the start of the season. The team disagreed, preferring sophomore Rudy Carpenter, and they had a meeting where they told Koetter so. Koetter flip-flopped, anointed Carpenter the starter, whereupon Keller transferred to Nebraska, Carpenter struggled in Pac-10 play, and Koetter was out of a job by season’s end. Obviously, Tedford must remain in control AND in touch with his team, a potentially difficult balancing act, but then I suppose thats why he gets paid the big bucks.
Wow, that turned into a post all by itself…
Comment by ragnarok — January 3, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Hydro, I think your instincts are right. I have my own source, and while I don’t want to put any more rumors out there, I’m pretty sure it had nothing to do with missing team meetings, and that some non-star players were involved as well.
Comment by CalChemist — January 4, 2008 @ 12:00 pm