The CardBoard
/
C-House!
/
The CardBoard
/
Stewart Mandel: "There's a joke to be made in this picture..."
Stewart Mandel: "There's a joke to be made in this picture..."
08-15-2013, 12:46 PM
USC doesn't have an offensive coordinator, Tedford will probable join the staff next season
USC doesn't have an offensive coordinator, Tedford will probable join the staff next season
08-15-2013, 01:27 PM
If John Robinson had his fingers in his years, the caption could easily be "Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil" except that as they're at a US.C practice, "Hear Evil, See Evil, Speak Evil" is much more apt.
08-15-2013, 07:22 PM
If Trojan fans thought last year was bad, wait til they get a load of Jeff Tedford's offensive scheming.
08-15-2013, 08:24 PM
(08-15-2013, 07:22 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:If Trojan fans thought last year was bad, wait til they get a load of Jeff Tedford's offensive scheming.
I've read that he was actually a pretty good OC, but that was before my time. He was clearly in over his head as HC, but that doesn't mean he can't be an OC.
(08-15-2013, 07:22 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:If Trojan fans thought last year was bad, wait til they get a load of Jeff Tedford's offensive scheming.
I've read that he was actually a pretty good OC, but that was before my time. He was clearly in over his head as HC, but that doesn't mean he can't be an OC.
08-16-2013, 07:16 AM
Yup, Tedford was a very good OC at Oregon. In fact, I knew several Stanford fans who, at the time, felt that "Cal got the guy we should have hired" when both schools had to hire new coaches for the 2002 season (although Willingham probably left too late for us to have a shot at Tedford).
Yup, Tedford was a very good OC at Oregon. In fact, I knew several Stanford fans who, at the time, felt that "Cal got the guy we should have hired" when both schools had to hire new coaches for the 2002 season (although Willingham probably left too late for us to have a shot at Tedford).
08-16-2013, 07:20 AM
Dodged a bullet there, didn't we
 8)
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
08-16-2013, 07:29 AM
(08-16-2013, 07:20 AM)Kathy link Wrote:Dodged a bullet there, didn't we  8)
we absorbed two self-inflicted wounds with Buddy and Wlat with Mamlet on standby as Nurse Ratched
08-16-2013, 07:32 AM
For all the crap that Tedford gets for the last 4-5 years of his reign, he was actually a damned good coach for the first 5-6. Maybe the conference quality was down (although that sounds a bit like wishful thinking about the present more than objective analysis), but he had a run from 2002-2008 that was quite good, especially by Ca.l standards. The Tedford narrative I buy into is that he worked his butt off those first years and the product on the field showed it. THen he got his big contract and prioritized his life towards family and he couldn't sustain it. Basically, he's an average talent who succeeded through great effort and dedication but in the end he couldn't sustain the effort and his natural ability never compensated once he took his foot of the gas.
When I look at our two programs over 2002-present, on balance I will take the wild extremes that Stanford has faced over that period to the more moderated successes and failures of Ca.l. But that's easy to say now that we're at a peak and not a trough. Back in 2004-2008, I was pretty darned envious of what was happening across the Bay.
As a wise man once said, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
When I look at our two programs over 2002-present, on balance I will take the wild extremes that Stanford has faced over that period to the more moderated successes and failures of Ca.l. But that's easy to say now that we're at a peak and not a trough. Back in 2004-2008, I was pretty darned envious of what was happening across the Bay.
As a wise man once said, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
For all the crap that Tedford gets for the last 4-5 years of his reign, he was actually a damned good coach for the first 5-6. Maybe the conference quality was down (although that sounds a bit like wishful thinking about the present more than objective analysis), but he had a run from 2002-2008 that was quite good, especially by Ca.l standards. The Tedford narrative I buy into is that he worked his butt off those first years and the product on the field showed it. THen he got his big contract and prioritized his life towards family and he couldn't sustain it. Basically, he's an average talent who succeeded through great effort and dedication but in the end he couldn't sustain the effort and his natural ability never compensated once he took his foot of the gas.
When I look at our two programs over 2002-present, on balance I will take the wild extremes that Stanford has faced over that period to the more moderated successes and failures of Ca.l. But that's easy to say now that we're at a peak and not a trough. Back in 2004-2008, I was pretty darned envious of what was happening across the Bay.
As a wise man once said, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
When I look at our two programs over 2002-present, on balance I will take the wild extremes that Stanford has faced over that period to the more moderated successes and failures of Ca.l. But that's easy to say now that we're at a peak and not a trough. Back in 2004-2008, I was pretty darned envious of what was happening across the Bay.
As a wise man once said, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
08-16-2013, 07:36 AM
(08-16-2013, 07:16 AM)somnambule link Wrote:Yup, Tedford was a very good OC at Oregon. In fact, I knew several Stanford fans who, at the time, felt that "Low APR U got the guy we should have hired" when both schools had to hire new coaches for the 2002 season (although His Royal Ungratefulness probably left too late for us to have a shot at Tedford).
Also coached Trent Dilfer and Billy Volek at Fresno State
(08-16-2013, 07:16 AM)somnambule link Wrote:Yup, Tedford was a very good OC at Oregon. In fact, I knew several Stanford fans who, at the time, felt that "Low APR U got the guy we should have hired" when both schools had to hire new coaches for the 2002 season (although His Royal Ungratefulness probably left too late for us to have a shot at Tedford).
Also coached Trent Dilfer and Billy Volek at Fresno State
08-16-2013, 08:02 AM
Okay, those are all very interesting points. I can't fault a guy for prioritizing his family--yet would I be so understanding if, say, Shaw or Harbaugh had done the same and let the results on the field suffer? That's rough.
I was hoping U$C wasn't getting an upgrade at the OC position.
I was hoping U$C wasn't getting an upgrade at the OC position.
Okay, those are all very interesting points. I can't fault a guy for prioritizing his family--yet would I be so understanding if, say, Shaw or Harbaugh had done the same and let the results on the field suffer? That's rough.
I was hoping U$C wasn't getting an upgrade at the OC position.
I was hoping U$C wasn't getting an upgrade at the OC position.
(08-16-2013, 07:32 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:For all the crap that Tedford gets for the last 4-5 years of his reign, he was actually a damned good coach for the first 5-6. Maybe the conference quality was down (although that sounds a bit like wishful thinking about the present more than objective analysis), but he had a run from 2002-2008 that was quite good, especially by Ca.l standards. The Tedford narrative I buy into is that he worked his butt off those first years and the product on the field showed it. THen he got his big contract and prioritized his life towards family and he couldn't sustain it. Basically, he's an average talent who succeeded through great effort and dedication but in the end he couldn't sustain the effort and his natural ability never compensated once he took his foot of the gas.
When I look at our two programs over 2002-present, on balance I will take the wild extremes that Stanford has faced over that period to the more moderated successes and failures of Ca.l. But that's easy to say now that we're at a peak and not a trough. Back in 2004-2008, I was pretty darned envious of what was happening across the Bay.
As a wise man once said, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
I doubt Tedford would have had the same success as a head coach at Stanford that he had at Cal. He built the weenies program with marginal students posing as athletes. The minimal admissions qualifications for athletes, poor graduation rates and low APR standings in that program would be unacceptable at Stanford.
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
(08-16-2013, 07:32 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:For all the crap that Tedford gets for the last 4-5 years of his reign, he was actually a damned good coach for the first 5-6. Maybe the conference quality was down (although that sounds a bit like wishful thinking about the present more than objective analysis), but he had a run from 2002-2008 that was quite good, especially by Ca.l standards. The Tedford narrative I buy into is that he worked his butt off those first years and the product on the field showed it. THen he got his big contract and prioritized his life towards family and he couldn't sustain it. Basically, he's an average talent who succeeded through great effort and dedication but in the end he couldn't sustain the effort and his natural ability never compensated once he took his foot of the gas.
When I look at our two programs over 2002-present, on balance I will take the wild extremes that Stanford has faced over that period to the more moderated successes and failures of Ca.l. But that's easy to say now that we're at a peak and not a trough. Back in 2004-2008, I was pretty darned envious of what was happening across the Bay.
As a wise man once said, you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain
I doubt Tedford would have had the same success as a head coach at Stanford that he had at Cal. He built the weenies program with marginal students posing as athletes. The minimal admissions qualifications for athletes, poor graduation rates and low APR standings in that program would be unacceptable at Stanford.
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
08-16-2013, 09:04 AM
I remember when Tedford's name was being thrown around in the AD, but Cal was in need of a replacement before we were and they made the move. He was a very good coach for Cal and I think most would have preferred him to Walt and Buddy (me included).  Recruiting would have been the question mark, but the administration (Leland and Casper) would not have allowed him to bring in the weaker "student" athletes that he admitted to UCB.  I tend to think he would have been a good coach for us, and then he would have likely moved onto the pro ranks, just like Harbs. Stanford was a stepping stone to the pros (Ralston, Walsh, Denny, Harbs) for if you could win here, clearly you could win in the NFL.
What I love about Shaw is that he's a Stanford man who has spent his time in the NFL (on his own and with his Dad). He knows that life and the caliber of people he would be coaching in the NFL. I think he truly enjoys coaching, mentoring and leading great student athletes to greatness. He gets Stanford and knows that it is a special place for him, for his family and for the legacy that I think he will build here.Â
What I love about Shaw is that he's a Stanford man who has spent his time in the NFL (on his own and with his Dad). He knows that life and the caliber of people he would be coaching in the NFL. I think he truly enjoys coaching, mentoring and leading great student athletes to greatness. He gets Stanford and knows that it is a special place for him, for his family and for the legacy that I think he will build here.Â
I remember when Tedford's name was being thrown around in the AD, but Cal was in need of a replacement before we were and they made the move. He was a very good coach for Cal and I think most would have preferred him to Walt and Buddy (me included).  Recruiting would have been the question mark, but the administration (Leland and Casper) would not have allowed him to bring in the weaker "student" athletes that he admitted to UCB.  I tend to think he would have been a good coach for us, and then he would have likely moved onto the pro ranks, just like Harbs. Stanford was a stepping stone to the pros (Ralston, Walsh, Denny, Harbs) for if you could win here, clearly you could win in the NFL.
What I love about Shaw is that he's a Stanford man who has spent his time in the NFL (on his own and with his Dad). He knows that life and the caliber of people he would be coaching in the NFL. I think he truly enjoys coaching, mentoring and leading great student athletes to greatness. He gets Stanford and knows that it is a special place for him, for his family and for the legacy that I think he will build here.Â
What I love about Shaw is that he's a Stanford man who has spent his time in the NFL (on his own and with his Dad). He knows that life and the caliber of people he would be coaching in the NFL. I think he truly enjoys coaching, mentoring and leading great student athletes to greatness. He gets Stanford and knows that it is a special place for him, for his family and for the legacy that I think he will build here.Â
08-16-2013, 09:07 AM
It's kind of funny in a dark way how many legitimate coaches we passed on hiring so we could bring Buddy freaking Teevens in.
It's kind of funny in a dark way how many legitimate coaches we passed on hiring so we could bring Buddy freaking Teevens in.
08-16-2013, 10:15 AM
Quote:I doubt Tedford would have had the same success as a head coach at Stanford that he had at Cal.
Maybe he did it with recruits we couldn't have gotten, but he took basically the same team that went 1-10 under Holmoe and achieved a 7-5 record in the next year. The guy could coach back then.
Sure, if we had been able to hire him, we would have been the recipients of his modest early success and then decline (unless he went to the NFL) and the sequence of events that led to us hiring Harbaugh and then Shaw likely would not have happened. But I have no doubt he would have achieved a better record that Teevens and Harris.
Quote: I doubt if Tedford would have considered Stanford for what we were prepared to pay back then, during the Ted Leland "no arms race" phase.
Was Cal paying significantly more than us back then? I don't think Tedford was highly paid during those first couple of years. He only scored a brobdingnagian contract after the NFL came calling, right?
Quote:I doubt Tedford would have had the same success as a head coach at Stanford that he had at Cal.
Maybe he did it with recruits we couldn't have gotten, but he took basically the same team that went 1-10 under Holmoe and achieved a 7-5 record in the next year. The guy could coach back then.
Sure, if we had been able to hire him, we would have been the recipients of his modest early success and then decline (unless he went to the NFL) and the sequence of events that led to us hiring Harbaugh and then Shaw likely would not have happened. But I have no doubt he would have achieved a better record that Teevens and Harris.
Quote: I doubt if Tedford would have considered Stanford for what we were prepared to pay back then, during the Ted Leland "no arms race" phase.
Was Cal paying significantly more than us back then? I don't think Tedford was highly paid during those first couple of years. He only scored a brobdingnagian contract after the NFL came calling, right?
08-17-2013, 06:41 AM
I remember Ted Leland making the comment when Teevens was hired that it wasn't really that important how much you paid your head coach.
The old saying "You get what you pay for" was certainly applicable in that case.
The old saying "You get what you pay for" was certainly applicable in that case.
I remember Ted Leland making the comment when Teevens was hired that it wasn't really that important how much you paid your head coach.
The old saying "You get what you pay for" was certainly applicable in that case.
The old saying "You get what you pay for" was certainly applicable in that case.
08-18-2013, 07:42 AM
(08-17-2013, 06:41 AM)JPRI link Wrote:I remember Ted Leland making the comment when Teevens was hired that it wasn't really that important how much you paid your head coach.
The old saying "You get what you pay for" was certainly applicable in that case.
I don't know why, but I love it when really smart people say really stupid things. Reaffirms my faith in humanity.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(08-17-2013, 06:41 AM)JPRI link Wrote:I remember Ted Leland making the comment when Teevens was hired that it wasn't really that important how much you paid your head coach.
The old saying "You get what you pay for" was certainly applicable in that case.
I don't know why, but I love it when really smart people say really stupid things. Reaffirms my faith in humanity.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »