Quarterback Controversy
Like it or not, there is a quarterback controversy. Longshore is probably coming back next year, and Riley’s great performance in the bowl game isn’t going to automatically win him the starting job next year. Like it or not, we’re going to see Riley, Mansion, and Longshore battle it out in in a few months for the 2008 starting QB spot.
I know it probably comes as a shock to many Cal fans that there is actually a QB competition and controversy for next year following Riley’s All-American performance in the Bell Helicopter Bowl but there will be one.
Tedford has already publicly announced that all positions will have open competitions in the spring. And furthermore, Tedford himself has already acknowledged that there will probably be a QB controversy in the spring.
I’m sure many readers are thinking: "why is there a QB controversy? Kevin Riley just won himself the starting QB spot for next year!"
Well, it sure would seem like it. Afterall, most fans have written off Nasty Nate Longshore. You know, the guy that has thrown 1 touchdown in the fourth quarter compared to like a bagillion-squared interceptions in the fourth quarter. Certainly Nasty Nate doesn’t stand a chance against Riley in winning back his QB spot for 2008. But that Nasty Nate dude for some reason, still started every regular season game after the 2007 loss to Oregon State.
How could someone so completely horrible, start so many games? Simple. He’s not horrible. And definitely not as horrible as many Cal fans probably think. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying he’s Peyton Manning (aside from the fact that they both move at the speed of the continental drift), but he’s somewhere from a serviceable to an above average QB.
And what about Riley? Well, against OSU he had a shaky 1st quarter, okay 2nd and 3rd quarters, and an impressive 4th quarter. And against Air Force’s defense, he looked like Tom Brady.
So who’s better?
After seeing the bowl game, it’s hard not to think that Riley is better than Longshore. The notion that Riley is better than Longshore begs the question, why did Tedford start Longshore for so long instead of Riley? Why? Why? Why???
Well, below are a few of the possible reasons as for why. These are the ones that I’ve heard thrown around on this blog and other places. Also included below are my thoughts on each of these theories.
(1) To punish Riley for his OSU mistake. Well, I can’t believe this one. Players make game mistakes and Tedford realizes that. Furthermore, evidence suggests that he no longer punishes players for their game brain-farts. Remember the days when JT would bench the RBs for fumbles? That never happens any more. Lynch had a few fumbles in his day, and stayed in the games. Forsett has had a few fumbles and stayed in the game. Longshore throws INTs and stays in the game. So I really don’t think JT was punishing Riley for his costly brain fart at the end of the OSU game. Furthermore, JT just doesn’t strike me as that kind of person any more. I think as his time as a HC has increased, he’s put more faith in the players and will let them continue to play despite an occassional error.
(2) Tedford’s loyalty to Longshore. So, JT didn’t start KR because he’s loyal to Longshore. Loyalty is essentially playing favorites, right? So JT likes NL more for some reason. I’ve heard people say it’s because Longshore was JT’s first Elite 11 QB. Eh, not very convincing of a theory. Well, why does JT like NL more than KR? Well, I’ll get to that in a moment but I certainly don’t think it’s because Tedford is more loyal to Longshore. I really don’t like this theory because it’s premised on nothing. Absolutely nothing. We have no evidence to really conclude that Tedford is more loyal/playing-favorites with Longshore. This theory started out somewhere on BearInsider and because Tedford hasn’t really blatantly explained why he has started Longshore over Riley (although careful reading of his quotes do reveal why he started NL over KR - which I have tried to point out in previous posts here and here), people start thinking up random theories. While this theory is certainly plausible, I’d say it’s just more or less just a bunch of bat guano.
(3) Riley’s inexperience. So, JT didn’t start Riley because of Riley’s inexperience. Or at least the inexperience part played a factor in the decision to start NL over KR. I think this is extremely plausible and likely. Riley had only 1 game of experience under his belt while Longshore had a full season and a half. And experience is invaluable. Whether it’s reading masked defenses, or just the speed of the game, something has to be said for experience. I definitely think part of the reason why KR didn’t start in the latter part of the season was because of experience, especially compared to all the experience that Longshore has in comparison. Which sort of brings me back to theory (2), the theory that Tedford was being overly loyal to NL. I think what is mistaken as "loyalty" in theory (2) is really "experience." I don’t think JT was being "loyal" to Longshore, but I do think JT continued to start Longshore over Riley because of experience. I suppose someone might try and argue that JT was being loyal to NL because of NL’s experience. But the idea that JT chose Longshore to start over Riley for so long for the reason of experience is hardly a "loyalty" thing or playing-favorites act. It’s a calculated decision premised on sound reasoning that the more experienced guy gives Cal a better chance to win than the less experienced guy in the experience department.
(4) JT started Longshore over Riley because Longshore gives Cal a better chance at winning. I know most readers probably are going to say this theory is a bunch of bat guano. And I can understand why. But I actually think it’s much more plausible than people would like to think and admit. If Riley really gave Cal a better chance to win than Longshore, and JT knew this, then why didn’t Riley start for the latter half of the season? If Riley really gave Cal a better chance at winning than Longshore prior to the bowl game, then why didn’t Riley start the bowl game? Assuming Tedford acts rationally and starts the QB that gives Cal a better chance to win, based on Tedford’s actions, we are more or less led to the conclusion that in fact Longshore is better than Riley.
So a quick review before I jump into more thoughts.
JT was punishing Riley for his OSU mistake? I personally can’t buy this argument. There is really no evidence to suggest this. No quotes. Nothing. Just speculation.
JT was being loyal to Longshore? Again, I personally can’t buy this argument. And again, there is really no evidence to suggest this. No quotes. Nothing. Just speculation.
JT didn’t start Riley because of his inexperience? Possible and likely, especially when compared to Longshore’s experience. This theory wasn’t probably the only reason in Tedford’s mind, but at least a significant component.
JT didn’t start Riley because Longshore gave Cal a better chance at winning? Possible and likely. Especially considering the significance of Tedford’s quotes which I analyzed here, then re-analyzed and slightly modified here.
Actually, I’ll put the quotes into this post since they’re so important. This is text taken straight from Okane’s Blog dated December 4th, on why Longshore started over Riley "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."
And even more recently, Glenn Dickey wrote this on his latest column dated January 2, 2008: "Since Longshore came back from what was called a high ankle sprain, though it apparently was a fracture of a small bone in his foot, Cal head coach Jeff Tedford had stuck with him because he felt Longshore had a more complete understanding of the offense than Riley."
Two huge quotes from reputable media sources relaying what Tedford said to them. Longshore started while injured because he has a better understanding of the offense than Riley. Nothing about loyalty or punishment. Nothing about experience either but I’m sure that is a factor. But Longshore started because he has a better understanding of the offense than Riley.
Does the bowl game prove that Riley has a better understanding of the offense than Longshore? No. Certainly, it’s possible that Riley might. Although Tedford would seem to disagree. But Riley’s All-American performance against Air Force doesn’t necessarily mean he has a better grasp of the offense. Now don’t get me wrong. I didn’t say Riley’s grasp of the offense is inadequate. But that it’s just not as good as Longshore’s. Afterall, one can have an adequate grasp of the offense but not just as good as someone else.
But the results of the bowl game are hard to ignore. When Longshore was the quarterback, the Cal offense sputtered. When Riley came into the game, the Cal offense changed dramatically and started scoring. What gives? Well, it certainly wasn’t Longshore. Longshore was 5/8 with one incompletion being a drop by Desa. So Longshore was really like 6/8. Another one of Longshore’s incompletions (the overthrow to Stevens) was overthrown because of QB pressure - which is the OL’s fault and not Longshore’s. Consider that pass a throw-away pass which doesn’t really count. Longshore is now 6/7. The other incompletion was the jump-ball to Cunningham in the end zone. I can’t remember if there was a blocking breakdown that play so I won’t comment on whether the incompletion was Longshore’s fault or not. Either way, Longshore was 6/7 or 7/7 for the bowl game which is really good. Let’s not forget that Longshore didn’t have Jackson and Jordan to draw Air Force’s defensive attention away from Forsett. So Cal’s offensive woes in the bowl game when Longshore was the QB were hardly any fault of Longshore’s.
So why did Riley’s entrance into the bowl game produce such quick offensive scores? Well, I’m sure most readers would say it’s his mobility. And yes, Riley is more mobile than Longshore. Riley has faster acceleration and top speed. Riley’s mobility definitely helped him escape coverage sacks, as well as producing a first down by foot, and a touchdown throw. Physically, Riley is superior than Longshore not only in the legs, but probably in the arm too. Riley probably has the stronger arm. He might even be more accurate. Physically, Riley is superior than Longshore. I think the bowl game really showed the difference between the physical attributes of Riley compared to Longshore.
If Riley was so physically superior to Longshore, then of course, that begs the question of why didn’t Riley start over Longshore in the latter part of the season? And why didn’t Riley start the bowl game?
Well, as we all know, or should know, quarterbacking isn’t all physical. It’s mental too. And as we’ve already been told by Okane and Dickey, Tedford started Longshore throughout the latter part of the season because Longshore has the better grasp of the offense. And Longshore was chosen as the starter by Tedford despite the fact that Riley was superior in the physical attributes department. The fact that Longshore was chosen as starter for the latter part of the season and the bowl game suggest that the difference between NL’s grasp of the offense compared to KR’s grasp of the offense is greater than KR’s superior physicalness compared to NL’s phyiscalness. Let’s use numbers to illustrate this idea just to make sure I’m getting my theory across. Let’s say NL’s grasp of the offense is 9 out of 10. KR’s is 6 out of 10. There is a difference of 3 between the grasps of the offense. Now let’s also say KR’s physical abilities are 7 out of 10, and NL’s are 5 out of 10. There is a difference of 2 between the physical abilities. So even though KR has a better rating in physical department than NL, NL brings more to the table in the mental department than KR, and does so by more than KR beats out NL in the physical department. Adding up the two players’ mental and physical ratings, Longshore has a score of 14/20 and Riley has a score of 13/20. Longshore gives Cal the better overall chance at winning.
Now, the above example with numbers comes to the conclusion that Longshore gives Cal the better overall chance at winning. That conclusion assumes that the grasp of the offense is just as important as the physical abilities of the players. But that assumption might not be true. In fact, I believe that Tedford believes it’s not true. I believe Tedford thinks the mental aspect of quarterbacking is more important than the physical abilities of the player. I can’t find the article, but in an article on Tedford, Tedford says that he teaches his QBs the coverages and schemes first (mental aspect) and only when the Quarterback has mastered the mental aspect of the offense do they move on to proper throwing/dropback technique (physical aspect). That statement by Tedford clearly suggests that he believes the mental aspect of quarterbacking is more critical than the physical aspects. Meaning that a player’s grasp of the offense is more important than a player’s mobility, and mechanics. Thus, Longshore’s superior mental grasp of the offense was even more influential and determinative in Tedford’s decision to start Longshore over Riley.
So to recap. JT started Longshore instead of Riley throughout the latter half of the season because he felt Longshore has a better grasp of the offense (as well as more experience). JT values a QB’s mental attributes more than a QB’s physicaly attributes. Thus, Longshore > Riley in JT’s mind. Thus JT thinks Longshore gives Cal a better chance at winning than Riley.
That being said. It is possible that Tedford was wrong. It’s possible that Tedford was wrong in evaluating who gave Cal a better chance to win. It’s very possible. Afterall, he’s not god (as much as we refer to him as one on this blog), and he’s only human. It’s also very possible that Tedford was right, that Longshore gave Cal a better chance to win and Riley just performed much better in the bowl than Tedford imagined and anticipated.
So why did Tedford finally allow Riley to play in the bowl game as opposed to in the latter part of the season?
Well, I think it’s because of a multitude of factors. (a) After Longshore’s slump, he has no choice but to open up the QB competition next year and needs Riley to get experience for the QB competition. (b) Riley had a whole month to prepare for Air Force’s 3-4 defense. (c) Tedford wanted to see if Riley could spark the offense.
(a) After Longshore’s slump, he has no choice but to open up the QB competition and needs Riley to get experience for the QB competition next year. This is pretty straightforward. Longshore was in a 4th quarter slump. Cal needs a QB that can play 4 consistent quarters of football. If Longshore can’t, then Riley is the next option. But Riley needs experience. So let Riley play to get experience.
(b) Riley had a whole month to prepare for Air Force’s defense. The bowl game, unlike the other games throughout the season, gave the Cal QBs four weeks of preparation. With all that time to prepare, Riley proved to Tedford that he understands the gameplan and Air Force’s 3-4 defense and is ready to play.
(c) Tedford wanted to see if Riley could spark the offense. Here are my thoughts on this reason which I had originally posted as a comment in our Armed Forces Bowl Live-Blog: There is a time when you may be starting the guy who gives you a better chance at winning, but he’s in a slump or things just aren’t working out and a change is needed. Maybe the guy’s in a slump, or maybe he just has a limitation. Maybe it’s both. Maybe it’s his arm strength, or accuracy, or experience, or maybe his lack of mobility. And there can sometimes come a time when a change, or a “spark”, as the commentators call it, is needed - even if the change doesn’t provide you with a better chance at winning. There comes a time when you have to go with that “spark” guy instead of the better guy. I think we saw that with Ayoob/Levy. And I think we saw that today. If Riley really was better, or gave Cal a better chance at winning, then why didn’t Riley start the bowl game? Longshore starting makes me believe that JT thinks Longshore still gives Cal a better chance to win. Without superior knowledge of Cal’s QBs, I defer to JT’s opinion. But the fact that JT was willing to play Riley (in the first half nonetheless!) despite starting Longshore suggests to me that JT realized it was time for that “spark” even though the guy who gives Cal a better chance at winning was starting.
So did Tedford make a mistake in not playing Riley earlier in the season?
Yeah, probably. Tedford might have errored in evaluating when Riley should come in for an injured Longshore when Longshore was still starting. For example, there were some instances in games when Longshore started but had later taken a few hits and clearly looked to be in pain and very shaky on his bum ankle. In those situations when Longshore looked to be in a lot of pain and even more immobilized, Riley, despite his inferior grasp of the offense when compared to Longshore, probably would have made up for it with his mobility. Probably. We’ll never know. We can only speculate.
Likewise, Tedford might have also erred on evaluating Longshore’s ankle and Longshore’s ability to start games in the first place. The prime example might be the game against UCLA. Maybe Longshore really was ready to play against UCLA. But then again, maybe Tedford incorrectly assessed Longshore’s game-readiness and should have started Riley.
But let’s not forget what Tedford has told us through quotes: Longshore has a better grasp of the offense. In fact, Longshore is like a second coach on the field. A friend reminded me of a quote that Tedford dropped regarding Longshore. I found it on the internet. In this Oakland Tribune article dated August 14th, 2007, Tedford states: "He’s [Longshore] way more advanced [this year compared to last year] because he understands the speed of the game, he’s like another coach on the field… he just understands the whole thing with regard to timing and all. He’s just a great field general."
So Tedford started Longshore because (1) Longshore has a better grasp of the offense than Riley; (2) Longshore has "intangibles"; (3) Longshore has more experience; (4) Longshore is like another "coach on the field"; (5) Longshore has great timing; and (6) Longshore is a "great field general."
Very high praise from one of college football’s premiere QB-gurus. Longshore is obviously held in high esteem by Tedford. Tedford isn’t the only one with such an opinion. Longshore was thought by some ESPN analysts to be a possible 1st or 2nd Round NFL Draft pick prior to his slump. Obviously, both could be wrong in their evaluations of Longshore. ESPN’s analysts are mostly idiots anyways. And Tedford could have gotten caught up in all of Longshore’s great "grasp of the offense". Tedford could have over-estimated Longshore’s abilities and under-estimated Riley’s. And the majority opinion among Cal Fans that Riley was the answer, could have been right all along. Afterall, fans are unbiased, rational, and don’t need to see the quarterbacks in practice multiple times a week. Thus it wasn’t any coincidence that Riley put on such a dominant performance against Air Force and that seemingly every Riley supporter knew he would. And it’s very hard to claim that the 2nd string guy gives you a better chance at winning when the 1st string guy isn’t doing so well.
So I feel foolish, so very foolish, for not jumping on the Riley bandwagon earlier. I feel foolish for sticking my neck out for Longshore, and defending his incompletions and INTs just like Tedford supposedly did in a meeting with big donors. Because incompletions and INTs are bad. And regardless of the duress that Longshore is under from premature defensive pressure, those incompletions and INTs should have been TDs. Grasp of offense, experience, and intangibles be damned. They don’t mean a thing when you can’t win. Just like the labels "coach on the field" and "great field general" - they’re superfluous and meaningless. Especially coming from a man whose every pupil has been an NFL bust - because we all know Tedford is 100% responsible for their NFL performances.
I should have seen the light. For not seeing the light, I am sorry. I was weak. I was lead astray by an idol - by Jeff Tedford.
In "God" I no longer trust.
Nate Longshore supposedly has a better grasp of the offense. So why were there so many throws where he threw long and the receiver ran short or he threw left when the receiver ran to the right. There seemed to be a large number of mix-ups this year between the QB and WRs.
Comment by Greg — January 9, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
Might explain why the WR coach “moved on with his career.”
Comment by TwistNHook — January 9, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
OK, my brain is a little scattered after taking that all in. It gets me riled up so my response isn’t very succinct, but I have some things to get off my chest.
That was a very nice article, Hydro, thanks. Still, I really have to scratch my head with a bewildered look when I hear some of this. There is nothing to date that suggests Longshore has a better grasp of the offense, NOTHING. Joe Ayoob probably had a better grasp of the offense going into 2006 for the simple fact he had played the previous season and Longshore hadn’t. That experience didn’t mean jack though, because the kid just didn’t have it in him.
There is also nothing to date that suggests Longshore EVER gave Cal a better chance of winning, other than Tedford’s opinion, which when you look at the results of the season clearly must be scrutinized.
I understand there needs to be a competition. Tedford had a competition for Ayoob and Longshore at the beginning of last season. Longshore won the job because at that time, he did in fact give us the best chance to win. That simply was never the case this year following his injury.
By not playing Riley - even sparingly - during our slide into oblivion, Tedford missed a real opportunity to build up Riley. His potential gain both in terms of game experience and psychological confidence are now lost, and his development could suffer as a result.
All this talk of Longshore being more experienced is really infuriating. Of course HE HAS MORE EXPERIENCE! How is Riley supposed to get this ‘experience’ if he is never played?!? Should he try and get it from playing NCAA Football on Xbox? Perhaps neighborhood pick up games? I mean what is he supposed to do?
Lastly, I have recently heard some people proposing Tedford switch to the platoon system and play both Riley and Longshore. Why exactly would you want to do that? Be honest, during that rough slide how many of you were just waiting for Nate to make the next HUGE mistake, especially during the fourth quarter!?!
I suggest people read the entire Glenn Dickey article. In it he correctly states that the notion that Longshore was somehow more equipped to lead this team was a load of bs, exposed by Riley’s divine performance. I believe him to be one million percent correct.
Thanks again for the great read, Hydro. All news regarding the Bears (football team) is starting to dry up. This could be a long off season, unless brave folks like yourself and this blog step up!
Comment by Seth — January 9, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
OK, so I kinda goofed, AGAIN!
You got me so worked up I replied before I saw the last two paragraphs! Damn you Hydro! You always do that to me! I am so relieved that arguably the most influential Cal blogger of our time has come to his senses!
Now, can we get an article that pays proper homage to Riley’s performance? And also maybe some background on the guy? I don’t know, Riley-mania is the best thing we have going right now. That and the possibility that the new OC is trying to persuade D-Jax to come back! Which D-Jax said was possible if Riley was playing!!!
Comment by Seth — January 9, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
“And against Air Force’s defense, he looked like Tom Brady.”
And against Air Force’s defense, Nate Longshore looked like…Nate Longshore.
Comment by Axeless — January 9, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Riley was just a plain old bad ass in that game. Remember the play on the goal line where he did the little side step and ran it in from the one? Now think back to the couple of times where Forsett ran it up the gut three times on the goal line and didn’t get in. One of those games may have actually been the OST game, but that’s besides the point.
This entire season defenses have known right away that Nate is arguably one of the most immobile quarterbacks in the history of DI football. As a result of that they attacked him. They showed him no respect because they knew he wasn’t going to scramble anywhere. With Riley defenses would have immediately recognized, “wow, this kid is freakin fast!”
Unless you have the accuracy of Dan Marino (another statue) you need at least some semblance of an ability to escape the rush. Even Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have become good at the side shuffle, avoiding rushes just long enough to get the ball off. Not only was Nate unable to do this, but had he tried it would have inevitably ended up another fourth quarter int for six - game over.
Comment by Seth — January 9, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Very interesting and insightful article. Also good to see a Brock shout out (yes, only two comments and already two Mansion shout outs). While I agree that Longshore likely has a better grasp of the offense, execution is an equal part of play and he clearly lacked in execution during several games. To make an analogy, Jordan probably understands the game of basketball as well as if not better than anyone who has played the game, however during his comeback he was out-executed by players with less knowledge, but more athletic prowess.
Comment by kappy — January 9, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
I remember what I thought before the 05 season.
I remember thinking we had the best offensive line in the history of college football, a young but very speedy and surehanded wide receiver corps, the future in lynch, an up and coming defense led by a future thorpe winner and nfl talent all over the place.
Who was I to not pick this team to win the pac 10?
A one handed monkey with his thumb up his ass could quarterback this team to the promise land.
When Longshore went down….
No worries.
We had the “White Mike Vick”
Then Joe Ayoob happened.
2005 = the most talented Cal Football team ever and yet the final record was 8-4.
That season taught me one very important thing about football.
Quarterback is the position that brings all the talent together. On both offense and defense. The quarterback acts as a hinge to keep everything in place and keep the machine rolling at a steady pace.
We had no hinge in 05.
And we most certainly were missing it last year as well.
The funny thing about Tedford sticking with Longshore because of his “mental grace” is that most of Longshore’s mistakes were mental.
Anyways, next year we have talent up and down the board on defense (if Gregory somehow finds a way to bend over and break a defense with 4 stars and rivals100 talent at all positions he needs to jump off the campanile) and I feel very good about offense as well.
08 = 05 all over again.
And I’m pretty sure Longshore spelled backwards doesn’t = BOOYA but I’m also pretty sure it doesn’t spell ROSEBOWL.
Comment by Nasty Nate — January 9, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
First off, let me say I’m hoping (and expecting) that the 2008 QB will emerge through honest competition this spring and summer; may the best man win. And let me also say that I think Riley should have started the Washington State game, both to begin building for 2008 and to give Nate a chance to fully heal.
I do believe that Tedford stuck with Longshore because of “loyalty”, but it was a coach’s loyalty based on an honest (if perhaps incorrect) assessment of the best interests of the player and the team, not some personal loyalty a la a father toward a son.
Remember that this was Nate’s fourth year in the program, and only Riley’s second. Also remember that Nate had already been through a number of ups and downs prior to that fateful ankle injury in Eugene. Game #1 in 2005, Nate breaks a leg, and watches “his” team suffer under horrific quarterback play all year long. Game #1 in 2006, Nate has apparently rebounded nicely from the injury, but then gets throttled in Knoxville. Rather than panic, Tedford sticks with Nate and he responds with some fantastic play. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Longshore was Pac-10 Player of the Week as many as THREE times during the first half of ‘06. Then Nate struggles down the stretch against Arizona, USC, and (in a winning effort) Stanford, only to rebound yet again with a very solid performance in the Holiday Bowl.
The point is, prior to this season, Longshore had repeatedly bounced back from adversity to perform well, and Tedford’s patience with him in the past had always been rewarded. Meanwhile, Kevin Riley remained an untested redshirt freshman. Be honest, given that choice, who would you have started?
In retrospect, where Tedford appears to have gone wrong was wishful thinking regarding this most recent of Longshore injuries and how quickly he’d be able to recover both physically and mentally. I admit I’m very excited about the prospect of seeing Kevin Riley behind center this fall, after his fantastic performance against Air Force, but let’s also soberly recognize that Riley’s still rather raw when it comes to Pac-10 play. If Tedford chooses to go with Longshore in the fall, I don’t think we can reasonably fault him. However, if Longshore then struggles, then I think we should all expect Riley to step in very quickly. If not, then I think we WOULD have a case that our “god” must be crazy. In Tedford We (still) Trust.
Comment by California Pete — January 9, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
Frankly, I’m excited for the QB situation next year, especially if Riley wins the job. If (god forbid, knock on wood) Riley were to get injured, we’d have a very healthy, very motivated Longshore to back him up, and as we all saw in the Pac 10 this year the chances we’d need to use a backup are about 200%.
And if Nate starts, well…then I trust Tedford that he’s really that good enough. And I’m sure there will be a shorter leash on Nate than this year.
Comment by Bay Area Bear — January 9, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
It’s disconcerting that Tedford didn’t learn from his mistake of sticking with Ayoob for all those games. He essentially did the same thing with Longshore, ignoring the evidence on the field and the mounting losses and the pleadings of the fans for a change.
Comment by JJ — January 10, 2008 @ 7:22 am
I’m all for giving Tedford the benefit of the doubt when he says that Longshore gave us the best chance to win, etc., etc., but I stopped buying that about halfway into our slide. If that were true, it might make sense to keep starting Longshore, but it certainly justify keeping Longshore in even after he struggled in each game–much less keeping him in for every snap of those six games? It just doesn’t make any sense. The only thing that makes sense is that Tedford didn’t want to telegraph a lack of faith in Nate. As bad as it sounds, I think Tedford was a little worried about what would happen if Riley ran away with our offense, and what NFL scouts would think of Nate’s ankle if Tedford didn’t show 100% faith in it. So yeah, I’ve come to believe that Tedford willingly took us out of our best chances to win solely out of loyalty to Nate. If it was anyone else, that would be really really bad. But Tedford has earned a lot of good will.
Comment by Tony — January 10, 2008 @ 9:20 am
JJ, the difference between Ayoob and Longshore is clear. At least Longshore could put up a good half in a game. Ayoob sucked the entire game. Longshore would put up a solid to great first half and we’d think he’s finally over the hump. Then, due either to stamina problems or hits taken through the game, Longshore would start to get progressively worse until his standard back-breaking 4th quarter interception.
Also, I hope Tedford ALWAYS ignores the pleading of fans. We are idiots. The lot of us!
Comment by TwistNHook — January 10, 2008 @ 9:28 am
While I applaud the performance of Kevin Riley against Air Force, people also need to stop to consider the level of the opponent. The lily-white Air Force team is not USC or Oregon and its secondary made almost no plays whatsoever during the game. Riley also absolutely benefited from pristine pass protection during the game. While he definitely created a couple of plays through scrambling or moving around in the pocket, it is a huge advantage for a QB to be able to stand back there unmolested by any 300-lb d-linemen. Our beasts on the O-line were able to shut down the undersized line of future Air Force officers. That doesnt happen in the Pac-10. Also, why are people not even considering that Riley also benefited from playing with Jordan and Jackson while Longshore did not. I am not discounting Riley’s performance, it was highly encouraging. But it wasnt enough to convince me that he is the front-runner against a healthy Nate Longshore. Let the best QB win the competition.
Comment by Greg — January 10, 2008 @ 10:01 am
Greg,
I would take Air Force to beat Washington, Stanford and Washington St. any day of the week. I have no doubt that had Longshore continued to play we would have lost to USAF.
Also, California Pete, you mentioned that Nate had been Pac 10 player of the week “like three times” over the course of the first half of the 2006 season. Well Pete Minnesota and Portland St. have never been juggernauts, so it is obvious why Nate did so well. Air Force would also smash those teams.
I am troubled to see that many of you still seem to be making excuses for Nate. Folks, excuses about the ability of Nate is what got us in the mess we are currently in. I implore you to embrace fact and reason, not emotion and -dare I say- personal loyalty. We saw how that worked out for Tedford this season.
If you still cannot see the clear and numerous differences between Longshore and Riley, you probably NEVER!!! will.
P.S. Hey Greg, I figured someone would bring up this misleading issue. Have you forgotten that Nate had Jackson, Jordan and Hawkins ALL FOCKING SEASON!!! And he did NOTHING, NOTHING WITH THEM! I guess I am the only one who noticed that the only game IN HISTORY in which all three of our stud receivers caught a TD pass was against Air Force. I guess I was also the only one who noticed that Riley spread the ball around, instead of picking one receiver at the line of scrimmage and staring him down, as Nate did. Riley can actually spread the ball around accurately.
Comment by Seth — January 10, 2008 @ 11:38 am
Greg, a lot of those mis-communication passes are because there is a mis-communication between the QB and WR. Two people. Longshore certainly can have a better grasp of the offense and still throw mis-communication passes because it could be the WRs who ran the wrong routes or read the defense incorrectly.
Comment by HydroTech — January 10, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
JJ, I do think the Ayoob/Levy and Longshore/Riley situations are different because of the talent level between Ayoob vs. Riley and Longshore vs. Riley. And just because your starter isn’t doing so well doesn’t mean the backup will do better - or even provide that “spark” a team might need. I know Riley’s performance against AF made it seem like our season would have gone differently, but that’s pure speculation. And as for fans pleading for a change… Tedford is head coach. He knows more than the fans. His job is to do everything within his legal power to give Cal the best chance at winning and not satisfying popular fan opinion.
Comment by HydroTech — January 10, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Tony, I personally can’t agree that Tedford’s decisions to start Longshore were to protect his NFL draft stock. I think Tedford’s first and foremost concern is winning and not his player’s draft stock. This is not to say that is player’s draft stock is not a concern. I do believe Tedford does think about his player’s draft stock, but will not let it have that much of an affect on his decisions.
Comment by HydroTech — January 10, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
Seth, to argue that Longshore had DJ and RJ to throw to the entire season and did nothing with them when compared to what Riley did with them against Air Force dismisses the fundamental difference in this comparison: the teams we played. As Greg pointed out in comment #14, Air Forces defense is much different from what we faced throughout the season. I mean, saying Longshore should have done just as well with DJ and RJ as Riley did in the bowl game is like not isolating the variables in an algebra equation. You’re making a conclusion about one variable without isolating the second variable.
Comment by HydroTech — January 10, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
HydroTech,
What you have to understand about sarcasm is that in writing, there’s no tone of voice, so it’s difficult to get across. The key is to make ridiculous, outlandish statements that can’t possibly be taken seriously, and thus have to be interpreted as sarcasm.
The problem here, however, is that when writing about sports, the bar for what is considered “ridiculous” or “outlandish” has been set very high. Some of your sarcastic statements could be read in a completely serious manner, which says more about irrational sports fans on the internet than it does about your writing.
p.s. Seth, when you do eventually lead the revolution, can you left us know first, so I can move my assets to secure, off-shore sites?
Comment by ragnarok — January 10, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Ragnarok, how tough is it to move your Tedford-signed Cal hat to a secure, off-shore site?
It’s not like you have anything else of value
Comment by TwistNHook — January 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
(Hydro, I will now once and for all end the QB debate, at least as far as it concerns Mr. Longshore.)
What you must learn to understand (as difficult as this may be for some) is that Longshore just isn’t very good, comparative to his Pac X counterparts. This is a statistical fact. You’re a fact man, (right?) so I figure you’ll understand this.
Go back to last season, Hydro, and watch through Longshore’s games. Check over his stats from week to week. Did he make decent throws? Sure. Did he make amazingly spectacular throws? No. Did he make game crippling throws? You betcha (see Arizona.) Did his averages and percentage ratings get better as time went on? No. Did he woo a few fans naively impressed after the trauma of Ayoob? The answer is unequivocally yes.
To make an analogy, you could basically elect a highly intelligent Orangutan as the next president of the United States, and that Orangutan would be seen as a vast improvement over their predecessor. So ultimately, I believe some of this irrational support for Longshore goes back to the emotional bond many fans (myself included) made with him immediately following the Ayoob ouster. Paradoxically, I expect many Americans to at first embrace whomever becomes the next President, only to tear them down later if they fail to deliver on their numerous promises.
So you see, Hydro, many people were sold on a bag of goods last year that were actually spoiled. We know this now because of the utter regression of the product, Mr. Longshore.
Now you could try (vainly) and make the argument that we were sold on Riley a little too quickly. This too would be different though in that we have only had the opportunity to see Riley play two times. On the other hand we have had two years with Longshore. That debate end right there.
It is time to move on and see what the future holds. Be that a future led by Kevin ‘the man’ Riley, or Brock ‘the hardcore jock’ Mansion. And I must say, I would be far more comfortable seeing a freshmen with zero game experience like Mansion before you let Longshore back on the field. I mean what is the worst that can happen? He under throws receivers? He over throws receivers? He reads the wrong defenses? Throws game changing interceptions? Oh wait! That sounds kind of familiar, now doesn’t it! So bam! I just smashed that counter argument as well!
Where am I going with this? And what does it all mean? Who the hell knows… Clearly though, Riley/Mansion offer Cal fans something Nate Longshore can no longer offer; genuine hope. Hope, Hyrdo. Are you familiar with hope, Hydro? Me says nope. J
P.S. Ragnarok, of which revolution do you speak of?
P.P.S. Since we are working on improving the site, how about you get some emicons? That would be great to add emotion and demonstrate intent and seriousness of words more clearly.
Comment by Seth — January 10, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
For some reason I see Longshore doing well in the NFL. He probably won’t be a top first round or even second round pick after this season but I see him holding tough.
Comment by RR — January 10, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Care to elaborate on that at all, Mr. RR? I mean, what makes you think he will be able to avoid the rush of the best of the best when it comes to defenses? Remember, he has faced very good, to decent, to terrible Pac X teams; in the NFL he will face the best of the best. Period.
Don’t get me wrong, I want only the best for Nate, much as I did for Ayoob. (Very pleased to see Mr. Ayoob made the squad of an Arena team, albeit Arena League 2) Yet something tells me that if he does go to the NFL, he just wouldn’t be able to hack it.
Traditionally NFL QB’s who have zero mobility must have excellent accuracy, perfect mechanics, and that uncanny ability to lead a team by example. Take Eli Manning for example. He has decent accuracy, sound mechanics, but has been much maligned for being too casual and not fired up enough when it comes to leadership.
As I see it Nate has neither decent accuracy, sound mechanics, or any semblance of serious leadership.
Look, I hate to pile on, but as long as there are members of the constituency who support Longshore, I will continue to campaign against him. Much like the prevailing theme amongst presidential candidates, the people (Cal fans) want change. That change is manifested in Riley or Mansion, not another year of Longshore.
Vote Riley - 2008
Comment by Seth — January 11, 2008 @ 1:06 am
I also remember reading about Tedford’s rankings for important QB attributes. It was an article about Aaron Rodgers, and I distinctly remember that “arm strength” was at the absolute bottom of Tedford’s list. This was really surprising given how awesome Rodgers’ arm is, so all his other attributes must’ve been off the charts.
Another theory for sticking with NL over KR: recruiting. I really have no idea what Tedford tells these recruits to get them to Cal, but its got to be pretty good. You don’t need “the value of a Cal degree” if you’re expecting to go to the NFL, and its tough to reach the NFL when most of your games aren’t on national TV (fuck SC). Facilities from the stone age don’t help either. One thing he could probably tell his top QB recruits: I’ll get you to the NFL. If switching to Riley keeps NL from being drafted, it might impact future recruiting. Just a theory.
Comment by Dave — January 11, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Seth pronounces that Nate Longshore is not very good. Contrary to what Jeff Tedford, who has tutored multiple NFL quarterbacks, would have us believe, NL has no accuracy and lacks proper mechanics. Seth displays his relative myopia and failure to see the bigger picture in making these assertions. Granted Longshore had a worse year this year than 2006. But the Bears of 2007 were unfortunately a flawed team. Blaming the QB or coach when not everything goes as planned is a typical knee-jerk reaction by the casual fan which fails to take into account that gridiron is the ultimate team game. So let’s consider other parts of the Cal football factory. The defense was undeniably worse than the previous year — and how could it not be with the loss of studs such as Hughes, Bishop, Pimentel and Mebane. These guys were elite players so naturally we take a step backward. Sure it was brutal to lose to Washington but consider the performance of their RBs against our defense. Would Darkside have ever permitted a back to go for 100 yds in the 1st qtr alone? The loss of talent on the defense was exacerbated by injuries to potential replacements Rulon Davis and Zach Follett. A QB’s mechanics and leadership look a lot better when his team gets the ball in good field position and he is able to wear out the opposing defense because the opposing offense cannot get a first down. The other weaknesses Cal experienced were on special teams and short yardage running. How could other teams neutralize DJ so effectively on punt returns? He is one of the best in history at punt returns and yet was incredibly quiet for the majority of the year. When it comes to running, simply put the combination of Lynch/Forsett was miles ahead of Forsett/Montgomery/Best. If anyone has access to stats, please post the average gain of the Cal offense on 3rd and short this year compared to the previous two years. So my argument is that Cal was realitvely weak in multiple areas this year compared to their Holiday Bowl season of 2006…and the quarterback play (and coaching) was worse as well. But it’s a mistake to pin it all on NL. The other thing to consider about 2008 is that Cal’s receiving corps will be relatively young and inexperienced. Would it be better to pair the equally inexperienced Riley or the veteran Longshore with this group.
Comment by Greg — January 11, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Thanks for responding Greg. I will address your post later tonight.
Vote Riley - 2008!
Comment by Seth — January 11, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Dave,
Regarding the recruiting theory, I might suggest that the opposite is true; namely, that by pulling the starter and letting Riley play, Tedford can say to recruits that he’ll always play the best players, no matter who’s the incumbent or who has seniority. USC does this very effectively, which is why as stacked as they are, they continue to get top recruits year after year.
Comment by ragnarok — January 11, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Fair enough. I guess it could cut both ways. Steve Spurrier is notorious for yanking his QBs after a single bad play. Has he recruited any top-ranked QBs since starting at South Carolina? (I seriously don’t know)
Part of my concern is that Cal not be one of /those/ programs. Like one where crazy parents (Nutt, Arkansas) or the players (Koetter, Arizona State) are basically running the team. Urban Meyer heard calls to completely replace Leak with Teabow, but he stuck to his own judgment instead of deferring to crazy fans. Just sayin’.
Comment by Dave — January 12, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Dave, I agree that Cal does not become a program where fans, boosters, parents, or players run the team. Tedford is the coach and the man in control. Nobody but him should make the decisions. That is why I get very disturbed when I hear people say that Tedford should have played Riley instead of Longshore because the fans wanted the change. Appeasing the fans is the least of Tedford’s concerns. If Tedford based his decisions on fan opinion, then he is merely a pawn and the fans are the coaches. Having fans as coaches scares me. There is a reason why fans are fans and coaches are coaches.
Comment by HydroTech — January 12, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Greg, I still need to answer your questions.
Hydro, you need to have more faith in the fans!
Comment by Seth — January 13, 2008 @ 8:06 pm