Comments on: New Commitment: Bridgford http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/ Tell The Whole Damn World, This Is Blog Territory! Mon, 21 May 2012 08:09:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: RR http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2481 Tue, 13 May 2008 14:28:34 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2481 moveon.org? moveon.org?

]]> by: HydroTech http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2480 Tue, 13 May 2008 13:24:28 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2480 FedUp, as I have explained many times. I am not against reasonable criticism against Longshore. Some Cal fans made many generalized statements against Longshore that were misguided and misplaced. But this is not to say that some blame cannot be placed on Longshore. Some blame certainty does fall on his shoulders but I've merely just been trying to open people's eyes to the fact that less blame falls on his shoulders than most people think and how other factors lead to his INTs and poor 4th Quarter TD/INT ratio such as other personnel mistakes, and game situations (3rd and longs, 4th and longs, must-pass situations, etc.). I will admit it does seem to appear that Tedford made a mistake not playing Riley early. I am merely trying to *explain why* Tedford justified his decision since so many Cal fans seem to have not heard/read his quote explaining his reasoning. Now about that 1 TD/14 INT stat - surely if there is no hope for me, then if you truly want to base your claim that Longshore is the root of all problems on that stat then there is no hope for you. Such a stat is somewhat revealing but largely ignores what else happens in a game which can lead to those INTs. Now, FedUp, I assume you went to Cal. So I figure you're smart and can do better than this. I'm just asking you open up your mind a bit to try and see/consider what else can lead to Longshore's problems. Longshore isn't responsible for *all* of his problems or even the team's problems. Maybe some, but not all, and certainty less than what most might think. This is my final comment on this issue. It's time to move on, FedUp. Time to move on. Go Bears! FedUp, as I have explained many times. I am not against reasonable criticism against Longshore. Some Cal fans made many generalized statements against Longshore that were misguided and misplaced. But this is not to say that some blame cannot be placed on Longshore. Some blame certainty does fall on his shoulders but I’ve merely just been trying to open people’s eyes to the fact that less blame falls on his shoulders than most people think and how other factors lead to his INTs and poor 4th Quarter TD/INT ratio such as other personnel mistakes, and game situations (3rd and longs, 4th and longs, must-pass situations, etc.). I will admit it does seem to appear that Tedford made a mistake not playing Riley early. I am merely trying to *explain why* Tedford justified his decision since so many Cal fans seem to have not heard/read his quote explaining his reasoning.

Now about that 1 TD/14 INT stat - surely if there is no hope for me, then if you truly want to base your claim that Longshore is the root of all problems on that stat then there is no hope for you. Such a stat is somewhat revealing but largely ignores what else happens in a game which can lead to those INTs. Now, FedUp, I assume you went to Cal. So I figure you’re smart and can do better than this. I’m just asking you open up your mind a bit to try and see/consider what else can lead to Longshore’s problems. Longshore isn’t responsible for *all* of his problems or even the team’s problems. Maybe some, but not all, and certainty less than what most might think.

This is my final comment on this issue. It’s time to move on, FedUp. Time to move on.

Go Bears!

]]> by: Fed Up! http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2479 Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:01 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2479 Just to hit home the point: YOU DO NOT WIN FOOTBALL GAMES WHEN YOU GIVE UP 17+ turnovers in the 4th quarter. YOU DON'T! I would like you to do some research on any football team, collegiate or professional, who had as many 4th Q turnovers and fared well. Save your time, you won't find any. Devastating QB errors in 4th quarter + uninspired, winded defense (due to so many turnovers) = 7-6. Just to hit home the point: YOU DO NOT WIN FOOTBALL GAMES WHEN YOU GIVE UP 17+ turnovers in the 4th quarter. YOU DON’T!

I would like you to do some research on any football team, collegiate or professional, who had as many 4th Q turnovers and fared well. Save your time, you won’t find any.

Devastating QB errors in 4th quarter + uninspired, winded defense (due to so many turnovers) = 7-6.

]]> by: Fed Up! http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2478 Tue, 13 May 2008 13:02:17 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2478 Given Longshore's performance over the course of the season, one would have to conclude that Riley was downright atrocious if Tedford felt Longshore gave the Bears the better chance to win. We know this simply IS NOT TRUE given his performances during limited playing time. We need to look more at on field performance than just what a coach says. If you think Longshore should have played the entire Stanford game, I am afraid there is little if any hope for you Hydro. Your insistence on defending Longshore and the coaches decision to stick with him, despite mounting losses, a clearly demoralized team, and grumblings from the receivers, defies all logic. Statistically there is no defending Longshore. 1 td pass to 17 int's in the 4th quarter is a glaring stat that simply cannot be ignored under the auspices of "Tedford knows best." Clearly there were many issues with last years team, but the root cause always leads back to Longshore. Given Longshore’s performance over the course of the season, one would have to conclude that Riley was downright atrocious if Tedford felt Longshore gave the Bears the better chance to win. We know this simply IS NOT TRUE given his performances during limited playing time. We need to look more at on field performance than just what a coach says. If you think Longshore should have played the entire Stanford game, I am afraid there is little if any hope for you Hydro. Your insistence on defending Longshore and the coaches decision to stick with him, despite mounting losses, a clearly demoralized team, and grumblings from the receivers, defies all logic. Statistically there is no defending Longshore. 1 td pass to 17 int’s in the 4th quarter is a glaring stat that simply cannot be ignored under the auspices of “Tedford knows best.”

Clearly there were many issues with last years team, but the root cause always leads back to Longshore.

]]> by: ragnarok http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2475 Mon, 12 May 2008 14:46:44 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2475 Lest this blog be accused once again of hosting a Longshore love-in, I'd like to step in with a counter-point, that being that while we can certainly understand the reasons behind Tedford's decision, and that such reasons can certainly be valid ones, I can't help but look at the results on the field and conclude that Tedford made the wrong decision. Riley should have played more, and played a lot earlier than the Air Force game. Of course, I was not invited to practices last fall, and can't speak to how each QB may have performed leading up to each Saturday. My guess is that Longshore continued to play well enough that, despite his injury, Tedford still felt more comfortable with Nate starting. For whatever reason, Monday thru Friday did not translate to 4th quarter on Saturday. I can't blame Tedford for trusting his instincts (he's been right often enough before), but I think he should have seen this pattern developing sooner. Personally, I think Riley would have made a great relief pitcher last season, giving Nate a rest in the second or third quarter, with Tedford maybe going with the hot hand for the 4th, as he did vs. Air Force. Lest this blog be accused once again of hosting a Longshore love-in, I’d like to step in with a counter-point, that being that while we can certainly understand the reasons behind Tedford’s decision, and that such reasons can certainly be valid ones, I can’t help but look at the results on the field and conclude that Tedford made the wrong decision. Riley should have played more, and played a lot earlier than the Air Force game.

Of course, I was not invited to practices last fall, and can’t speak to how each QB may have performed leading up to each Saturday. My guess is that Longshore continued to play well enough that, despite his injury, Tedford still felt more comfortable with Nate starting. For whatever reason, Monday thru Friday did not translate to 4th quarter on Saturday. I can’t blame Tedford for trusting his instincts (he’s been right often enough before), but I think he should have seen this pattern developing sooner. Personally, I think Riley would have made a great relief pitcher last season, giving Nate a rest in the second or third quarter, with Tedford maybe going with the hot hand for the 4th, as he did vs. Air Force.

]]> by: HydroTech http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2473 Mon, 12 May 2008 11:18:54 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2473 Fed Up, the issue of who to start isn't always clear cut. It isn't always merely an analysis of who is injured and who is not. Talent has to come into consideration too. As discussed many times on this blog, Tedford stated that Longshore had a greater understanding of the offense than Riley. Meaning despite Longshore's injury, Tedford felt Longshore put the team in a better chance to win than Riley due to Longshore's superior grasp of the offense. Whether you like it or not, that seems like a very reasonable reason for Tedford's decision. I think it's something we're just going to have to accept as fact since he does know more about football than all of us combined and knows his QBs better than we do. Fed Up, the issue of who to start isn’t always clear cut. It isn’t always merely an analysis of who is injured and who is not. Talent has to come into consideration too. As discussed many times on this blog, Tedford stated that Longshore had a greater understanding of the offense than Riley. Meaning despite Longshore’s injury, Tedford felt Longshore put the team in a better chance to win than Riley due to Longshore’s superior grasp of the offense. Whether you like it or not, that seems like a very reasonable reason for Tedford’s decision. I think it’s something we’re just going to have to accept as fact since he does know more about football than all of us combined and knows his QBs better than we do.

]]> by: Fed up! http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2472 Sun, 11 May 2008 21:57:59 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2472 Again, you all speak of injuries as a justification for having numerous "scholie" QB's, but Nate was clearly injured last year. Despite having the "scholie" Riley ready and willing to fill in, Mr. Tedford knew better still! No, until the coach can prove he is willing to use underclassmen, (like a Pete Carrol or Urban Meyer) there is no use in having them! So there... Again, you all speak of injuries as a justification for having numerous “scholie” QB’s, but Nate was clearly injured last year. Despite having the “scholie” Riley ready and willing to fill in, Mr. Tedford knew better still! No, until the coach can prove he is willing to use underclassmen, (like a Pete Carrol or Urban Meyer) there is no use in having them! So there…

]]> by: danzig http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2471 Sun, 11 May 2008 17:53:29 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2471 whoops, i meant 5 scholarship QBs by 09. whoops, i meant 5 scholarship QBs by 09.

]]> by: danzig http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2470 Sun, 11 May 2008 17:41:50 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2470 Brian is the one that went to Rugby? That's disappointing; between the two I felt he was better. Thanks for the correction Hydro. The problem I have with the 3scholie/2walk-on system is the same problem UCLA has with it. You'll have 2 ready scholie players and a third scholie that is a freshman. So your 3rd/4th strings are usually a junior/senior walkons (or dual threat WRs). Two QBs going down in the same year is not unthinkable and I don't feel comfortable playing a ‘law firm’ to salvage my season if my #1&2 get hurt. I’ll bet my liver that Neuheisel/Chow will have at least 4 scholarship QBs on the roster by 2009. Brian is the one that went to Rugby? That’s disappointing; between the two I felt he was better. Thanks for the correction Hydro.

The problem I have with the 3scholie/2walk-on system is the same problem UCLA has with it. You’ll have 2 ready scholie players and a third scholie that is a freshman. So your 3rd/4th strings are usually a junior/senior walkons (or dual threat WRs). Two QBs going down in the same year is not unthinkable and I don’t feel comfortable playing a ‘law firm’ to salvage my season if my #1&2 get hurt. I’ll bet my liver that Neuheisel/Chow will have at least 4 scholarship QBs on the roster by 2009.

]]> by: HydroTech http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2469 Sun, 11 May 2008 16:57:41 +0100 http://goldenblogs.blogsome.com/2008/05/11/new-commitment-bridgford/#comment-2469 Danzig, I'd prefer to have 5 scholarship-worthy QBs on roster. As we all know injuries can reduce the number of game-ready QBs, and for those of us that follow recruiting we also know that less than 50% of Elite 11 QBs actually pan out. And slight correction, Van Meter joined the rugby team. I believe Smits is still on roster. Danzig, I’d prefer to have 5 scholarship-worthy QBs on roster. As we all know injuries can reduce the number of game-ready QBs, and for those of us that follow recruiting we also know that less than 50% of Elite 11 QBs actually pan out. And slight correction, Van Meter joined the rugby team. I believe Smits is still on roster.

]]>