There have been plenty of coaches who's background was supposedly on the opposite side of the football for which they were hired only to produce better than expected results on either the offensive or defensive side.
I choose to remember what coaches and scouts have been saying about Tedford over the past 10 years, back when nobody was trying to hire him.
Please elaborate. I'm not too familiar.
There have been plenty of coaches who's background was supposedly on the opposite side of the football for which they were hired only to produce better than expected results on either the offensive or defensive side.
Like, you know, Dungy.
Like I've said - no longer drinking the kool aid - also not interested in talking others out of drinking their preferred brand of "true believer juice".You can deny these issues if you want. You can pretend hiring Lovie was what you all thought would happen - I get it - you've made the leap the owners knew you would. You don't have a choice in the matter, you want to enjoy football, you accept the forced conclusion. Been there a lot of times, just not there now...maybe I will be prior to the draft, maybe I will prior to TC, maybe before the season...or maybe not.Shouldn't be any skin off your nose either way - but lets not get nasty just to shut up the folks you disagree with - becuse in reality, t this point, you're only holding on to what others have said (recently).I choose to remember what coaches and scouts have been saying about Tedford over the past 10 years, back when nobody was trying to hire him.Like that guy from Rutgers they hired and foisted on you last time.Drink up, is all I'm saying, since everyone's cup is empty anyway...
Tiger,glad to see you posting again.Any room on that bus of yours?. We are almost seeing exactly eye to eye. (Suspect it may have to a train to fit everyone!)This year will be an " I'm from Missouri year". My faith in the direction they are going now is back to the zero Morris level and then when I found out Lovie will have final say on personnel, it went minus. Why another defensive person who historically does squat with offense and OC's? Successful DC are a almost a dime a dozen.Lovie also better be careful about posting training schedules suitable to PR, or PR will start another series of coach damning articles and ruin any chance Lovie might have of doing well..
I choose to remember what coaches and scouts have been saying about Tedford over the past 10 years, back when nobody was trying to hire him.
Please elaborate. I'm not too familiar.
Tedford's methods failing QB's in NFLQuote from Len Pasquarelli's April 2005 article:"...if you were the dean of a college and everyone enrolled in a certain class received an F, you'd scrutinize the professor even harder than you might the students. Sometimes it's the syllabus, or the curriculum, that's at fault. They might be in the minority, but there are a few NFL personnel chiefs who questions Tedford's methods and how they translate, or perhaps don't transfer, to the pro game."
If that's the issue, I'm not troubled at all White Tiger (and welcome back, I might add). I just don't find the logic compelling - sure, if you were planning on drafting a Tedford QB, you might be wary. Lenny P comes close to predicting failure for Aaron Rogers I might add.
I choose to remember what coaches and scouts have been saying about Tedford over the past 10 years, back when nobody was trying to hire him.
Please elaborate. I'm not too familiar.
Tedford's methods failing QB's in NFLQuote from Len Pasquarelli's April 2005 article:"...if you were the dean of a college and everyone enrolled in a certain class received an F, you'd scrutinize the professor even harder than you might the students. Sometimes it's the syllabus, or the curriculum, that's at fault. They might be in the minority, but there are a few NFL personnel chiefs who questions Tedford's methods and how they translate, or perhaps don't transfer, to the pro game."
Just posted in the other thread that Len's analogy is slightly off. Tedford's "pupils" got As in college, that is why they were drafted high. I think Len was trying to say they were ill-prepared despite the As, and I get that, but doesn't that mean his coaching and his offense worked? We are hiring him as an OC, right?
Like I've said - no longer drinking the kool aid - also not interested in talking others out of drinking their preferred brand of "true believer juice".You can deny these issues if you want. You can pretend hiring Lovie was what you all thought would happen - I get it - you've made the leap the owners knew you would. You don't have a choice in the matter, you want to enjoy football, you accept the forced conclusion. Been there a lot of times, just not there now...maybe I will be prior to the draft, maybe I will prior to TC, maybe before the season...or maybe not.Shouldn't be any skin off your nose either way - but lets not get nasty just to shut up the folks you disagree with - becuse in reality, t this point, you're only holding on to what others have said (recently).I choose to remember what coaches and scouts have been saying about Tedford over the past 10 years, back when nobody was trying to hire him.Like that guy from Rutgers they hired and foisted on you last time.Drink up, is all I'm saying, since everyone's cup is empty anyway...
Tiger,glad to see you posting again.Any room on that bus of yours?. We are almost seeing exactly eye to eye. (Suspect it may have to a train to fit everyone!)This year will be an " I'm from Missouri year". My faith in the direction they are going now is back to the zero Morris level and then when I found out Lovie will have final say on personnel, it went minus. Why another defensive person who historically does squat with offense and OC's? Successful DC are a almost a dime a dozen.Lovie also better be careful about posting training schedules suitable to PR, or PR will start another series of coach damning articles and ruin any chance Lovie might have of doing well..
Thanks Unc - good to hear from you too!I don't know how anyone that has followed this team for any length of time - doesn't start filtering what we're told through a large screen of skepticism?!There is absolutely no track record - either from the owners or from Lovie's coaching record - that says he's earned the job of head coach and GM.Nothing. This is the deal you make for a coach that HAS demonstrated it before - several times before - in fact, so many times that you don't question it when your franchise is in disarray. Should be like handing over the keys to your brand new Cadillac should nor evoke the slightest bit of concern or skepticism.But, it's because so much has been handed to Lovie - WITHOUT that track record - that causes my comcern. Lovie may have proven he deserves another shot - but certainly not all we've thrown at a man who was recently fired in Chicago because he could NOT demonstrate it THERE - the last time he had the opportunity.
Not to mention that, even if you accept Pasquarelli's argument (I don't, Vin's criticism is spot on not to mention it's impressive that he's developed that many QBs that have BECOME 1st rounders), that doesn't mean he'll be a bad OC. Preparing QBs for the NFL does not equal running an offence.
I choose to remember what coaches and scouts have been saying about Tedford over the past 10 years, back when nobody was trying to hire him.
Please elaborate. I'm not too familiar.
Tedford's methods failing QB's in NFLQuote from Len Pasquarelli's April 2005 article:"...if you were the dean of a college and everyone enrolled in a certain class received an F, you'd scrutinize the professor even harder than you might the students. Sometimes it's the syllabus, or the curriculum, that's at fault. They might be in the minority, but there are a few NFL personnel chiefs who questions Tedford's methods and how they translate, or perhaps don't transfer, to the pro game."
Just posted in the other thread that Len's analogy is slightly off. Tedford's "pupils" got As in college, that is why they were drafted high. I think Len was trying to say they were ill-prepared despite the As, and I get that, but doesn't that mean his coaching and his offense worked? We are hiring him as an OC, right?
Len's anaology is spot on - he did not evaluate college QB's. He evaluated the Tedford 5 - all FIVE were drafted in the 1st round - ALL FIVE were BUSTS.How do you excuse that? It's HOW he got his reputation!?It's also likely the reason why he spent 10 years at Cal - due to NFL teams trusting Jeff Tedford's methods - they drafted 5 of his QB's and found they were NOT up to NFL standards for 1st round QB's. FIVE times teams drafted QB's in the 1st round, and FIVE times they failed - miserably.Eventually - Tedford's QB training methods began to be questioned - and he was discredited. As a matter of fact, it is said that the only thing that saved Aaron Rodgers was that he was not immediately needed and had time to be DEPROGRAMMED from Tedfords methods.Not sure what bubble you guys have been in regarding this guy?
Not to mention that, even if you accept Pasquarelli's argument (I don't, Vin's criticism is spot on not to mention it's impressive that he's developed that many QBs that have BECOME 1st rounders), that doesn't mean he'll be a bad OC. Preparing QBs for the NFL does not equal running an offence.
OK, lets review one of the reasons why Gruden was fired "he never developed a quarterback"...the head coach was held accountable for developing the QB THEN...but you don't expect an alleged QB guru and an alleged offensive guru...to develop a QB?Now think about what you just said - suppose the Bucs picked those 5 players every year they came out - and suppose that every one of those 5 BUSTS played for your team, consecutively......what would you say about the coach's system that produced QB's that could win in college - but failed miserably in the pro's - and the only successful prospect this "guru" ever produced - was one that spent two years sitting behind Brett Favre?You'd demand the GM that was drafting crap QB's from that crap school - be fired.
I choose to remember what coaches and scouts have been saying about Tedford over the past 10 years, back when nobody was trying to hire him.
Please elaborate. I'm not too familiar.
Tedford's methods failing QB's in NFLQuote from Len Pasquarelli's April 2005 article:"...if you were the dean of a college and everyone enrolled in a certain class received an F, you'd scrutinize the professor even harder than you might the students. Sometimes it's the syllabus, or the curriculum, that's at fault. They might be in the minority, but there are a few NFL personnel chiefs who questions Tedford's methods and how they translate, or perhaps don't transfer, to the pro game."
Just posted in the other thread that Len's analogy is slightly off. Tedford's "pupils" got As in college, that is why they were drafted high. I think Len was trying to say they were ill-prepared despite the As, and I get that, but doesn't that mean his coaching and his offense worked? We are hiring him as an OC, right?
Len's anaology is spot on - he did not evaluate college QB's. He evaluated the Tedford 5 - all FIVE were drafted in the 1st round - ALL FIVE were BUSTS.How do you excuse that? It's HOW he got his reputation!?It's also likely the reason why he spent 10 years at Cal - due to NFL teams trusting Jeff Tedford's methods - they drafted 5 of his QB's and found they were NOT up to NFL standards for 1st round QB's. FIVE times teams drafted QB's in the 1st round, and FIVE times they failed - miserably.Eventually - Tedford's QB training methods began to be questioned - and he was discredited. As a matter of fact, it is said that the only thing that saved Aaron Rodgers was that he was not immediately needed and had time to be DEPROGRAMMED from Tedfords methods.Not sure what bubble you guys have been in regarding this guy?
Maybe I am missing something because this is confusing -- "It's also likely the reason why he spent 10 years at Cal - due to NFL teams trusting Jeff Tedford's methods" -- the article is about Tedford turning down McKay twice, right? There's also the Bears: http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Cal-his-favorite-Bear-Tedford-declines-shot-at-2813105.php Also, we are not hiring him as a QB coach, right? For goodness sakes he has RBs who have succeeded, what does that mean if we are hiring him as a QB coach? lol. Again, maybe I am missing something because the analogy is off. Your argument is different
So David Carr, who threw all of 11 passes when Tedford was at Fresno State is somehow responsible how David Carr performed as a pro? He had a lot more impact on Billy Volek (an undrafted QB who turned out to be a pretty solid backup) than Carr. Look, I'm always a bit skeptical about college guys making the leap to the pros, but the fact that some of his pupils didn't pan out is more of an indictment on the scouts than it is on him. As for the Rodgers claims:Aaron Rodgers Credits Jeff Tedford With His Quarterback Development, Part IIBy Avinash Kunnath ? @avinashkunnath on Feb 3 2011, 4:25a 1?TWEET ?SHARE ? SHARE 1 COMMENT"The relationship between Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and California Golden Bears head coach Jeff Tedford has been much scrutinized. It appears much of the trouble has come with his quarterback development, and that Rodgers had to shed Tedford's "outdated techniques" to become the type of NFL star he's been.Much of that has to deal with the way Rodgers held the ball in college. Rodgers held the ball high up above his shoulders, and it always looked a little off compared to the way most quarterbacks held the ball. It was commonly thought that Rodgers held the ball in this unorthodox manner because his college quarterback guru instructed him to throw that way. Steve Young called the technique "goofball" and plenty of others have stepped up their criticism of the method, which would appear to gravely discredit Tedford's acumen as a quarterback coach.But it's looking like Tedford and Rodgers are starting to clear up those misperceptions. In an interview with Razor and Mr. T after the announcement of Cal's successful recruiting class, Tedford mentioned that Rodgers always held the ball high. Tedford never wanted to tinker with it because of how good he was in spite of the eccentric grip. So this seems to be a tendency that Rodgers had even before he came to Cal. He just ended up being so wildly successful with it as a Golden Bear that the head coach didn't bother to mess with it, which seems perfectly fair.It makes sense when you think about it; if you compare Rodgers's quarterback mechanics to other of Tedford's pupils, almost none of them held the ball as high as Aaron did (considering how well Rodgers succeeded to the others, perhaps they should have held it higher). So obviously.And of course, it's good to hear what Rodgers has to say on the subject."I got the best of the best from Jeff Tedford." He also gives credit to Tedford for his perfect throwing motion. Perhaps analysts need to stop worrying about the outside appearance and focus on the technique and delivery of quarterbacks. Therein lies the excellence of a quarterback coach like Tedford, and his ability to mold a pupil like Rodgers."
I don't know what you don't get?It is NOT impressive that he produced 5 QB's that different NFL execs drafted with their precious number one picks - all FIVE were busts.ALL FIVE.I'm betting that if you bought 5 TV's at a premium price all from the same retailer - and each of the FIVE TV sets blew up the MOMENT you brought it home - you wouldn't be impressed with the guy who made those TV sets.NOT getting THAT analogy - means you have made up your mind.Cool, just don't tell m you don't understand. Tell me you disagree, don't tell me you don't get what I'm saying.It's been there for the last 10 years.
I don't know what you don't get?It is NOT impressive that he produced 5 QB's that different NFL execs drafted with their precious number one picks - all FIVE were busts.ALL FIVE.I'm betting that if you bought 5 TV's at a premium price all from the same retailer - and each of the FIVE TV sets blew up the MOMENT you brought it home - you wouldn't be impressed with the guy who made those TV sets.NOT getting THAT analogy - means you have made up your mind.Cool, just don't tell m you don't understand. Tell me you disagree, don't tell me you don't get what I'm saying.It's been there for the last 10 years.
I honestly think you didn't read the article. You just suggested that skepticism over tedford was why no NFL team wanted him . . . .and the article is about the Bucs trying to hire him TWICE . . lol. The Bears tried to hire him as a HC. The Raider interviewed him etc. Oh and the Bucs are not hiring the guy to make TV sets . . . lol, the Bucs are hiring a guy to produce a television show (to play on your stretch). lol WT, you're using an inapt analogy to defend an inapt analogy.
