Here's a nice article on Tedford............. http://www.bucsnation.com/2014/1/4/5273132/scouting-jeff-tedford-part-i-teaching-the-quarterback-position
Most Cal fans could see this question coming: is there any temptation to run a handful of plays to perfection, similar to what Oregon does (especially with a mobile QB like Maynard)? Tedford says "yes and no." Tedford emphasizes that Oregon's tempo guides their plays and that is what allows them to run a relatively small number of plays. He did admit that he needs to change some aspects of his own offense: "we do need to cut back: less volume, more creativity." He has to take the size of the playbook and "cut it back so everyone understands what they're doing." Of course, he has to understand the team's offensive identity before making modifications to the playbook. Despite knowing the team's identity at QB, WR, and O-line, Tedford says the team cannot have an offensive identity until we know who will be the starting RB. Once they have that, Tedford says it is much easier to determine which plays are run.From here, Tedford opened up to talk at much greater depth than he usually does at these events. It was a rare opportunity to see Tedford talk off his media hat and put on his philosopher hat. He described his ideal offense as "diverse and efficient." Modifying the playbook is a challenge for Tedford, as he is the primary play caller this season. For every play he adds into the book, he has to take something out. His goal is to keep it around 100 plays. Though it may sound like a large number, this accounts for all downs and distances: everything from 1st and 10 to 3rd and inches to 4th and 3. It also includes location-specific plays such as red zone plays. In addition to situations playing a role in determining which parts of the playbook will be used, the availability of personnel also plays a big role. Tedford can only use plays for which he has enough healthy players (i.e. multiple-TE plays may not be called as often due to lack of healthy bodies). Ultimately, Tedford wants to create a system that allows for diversity in multiple situations.
This is from a few years ago during Cal's media day, where Tedfford opens up about his offensive philosophy. I bolded the parts that are most interesting to me. One is because it sounds as though his offense is predicated on the types of running backs he has at his disposal and the second one is because he is looking to have a diverse attack in various situations but wants it to run efficiently no matter the down and distance or the defensive situation.
In Tedfords own words about his offensive philosophy: “We are installing a multiple, diverse offense that will utilize many formations. We want to stay balanced in the run and pass, and we want to be an attacking offense that will dictate to the defense. It’s key that we don’t turn over the football. That means we will practice and focus on ball security, playing smart and limiting our mistakes and penalties so we won’t get into negative situations. We’re going to spread the ball around and try to create mismatches. We will have diversity in our offense which will produce situations where we can maximize the potential of every player.”
Interesting and excellent philosophy then and quite possibly now more than ever. Why? I hear multiple plays and play selection is predicated on available personnel. To me this says he is looking to play to the strengths of his players and not remain rigid/unwavering despite what the game situation is. Additionally, wanting to dictate to an opponent's defense says if we have a lead we still will be looking to stay aggressive for all four quarters (killer instinct). That was missing in games where our leads were squandered. Theoretically Tedford sounds like a refreshing change. But, he has to condition his players to play at his desired level. Will be interesting to watch it all unfold. Go Bucs!!!
It's a complicated system that demands alot of the Q.B.. Glennon will have the playbook for months before we can draft someone. I don't see anyone we draft this year being able to catch Glennon in time to start the season.
I agree with surferdudes - he's going to have a huge advantage over a draft pick.
He's going to have a lot on his plate to learn and execute. I wonder if he can get some players to work out with him in the off season. A lot of them should since there will be a lot of new stuff to learn and perfect.
I like hear the word efficient. Hopefully it means to him what it means to me. The problem with the "take shots" deep approach is that the offense was so all or nothing. Basically, sort of like Cincy, if those long bombs aren't falling then you can't go anywhere. You need to be able to and want to mount long drives. The focus should be efficiently moving the ball with the ability to add quick strikes. Our previous offense was so much more about the quick strikes and not about moving the chains.
I like the hire generally, but I wince a bit when I hear how complicated the playbook is. I remember when Al Saunders was in Washington, he used to brag about how big the playbook was - turned out that the only guy who could handle it was Todd Collins, a guy who spent 8 years following Saunders with a clipboard. The playbook is a means to an end, not the end.
Here's an interesting article from 2005 on Tedford by Len Pasquerrelli, who comes close to predicting that Aaron Rogers is going to suck. Apparently McKay tried to hire him twice for the Bucs: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft05/columns/story?id=2039797
Well lets hope the third time is the charm...
btw, I also learned that the Cal AD had leaned on Lovie Smith for advice when he hired Tedford back in 2002.
Here's an interesting article from 2005 on Tedford by Len Pasquerrelli, who comes close to predicting that Aaron Rogers is going to suck. Apparently McKay tried to hire him twice for the Bucs: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft05/columns/story?id=2039797
Thanks for posting. That article is interesting on several levels. The thing that is strange to me is that the article is written as if the job of a college HC is to prepare players for the NFL, when I presume the job is to win. Take the professor analogy as an example, Len says his pupils (i.e., QBs) got Fs, but they got As in college when Tedford was the "professor", that is presumably why they were drafted in the first round. How is that a knock on the professor, particularly when we don't know much about where the students started? I thought Rodgers was a JuCo guy before Tedford and wasn't Dilfer actually a two-way high school player? I am pretty sure Difler was good high school QB but he wasn't some prodigy shipped of to a high school powerhouse, right? I think Boller was a big time HS QB, so maybe there Len's analogy has a bit more steam.It seems to me that Tedford is a very good "professor" and he taught a pro-style offense. I can see concern over no NFL play calling experience, but I don't get the "his QBs never succeeded" criticism as falling squarely on Tedford as an OC?
