Tedford Qb's

[Boik14]

This should probably start a pretty good debate from the people who want Aaron Rodgers.

I'm posting a summary from an article by Dan Pompei of The Sporting News regarding this; no link its in the March 25th issue of 2005 if you have a few mins in a doctoirs office like i did today or actually read that mag :)

Anyway, the article basically says that Tedford qb's seemingly regress in the pros because they miss Tedford reinforcing the fundamentals as well as simplifying the offense for them. This certainly was the case with Dilfer, Boller, Akili Smith, Harrington and every other Tedford produced Qb. The 2 exceptions, David Carr (who Tedford coached as a freshman at Fresno st when Carr threw all of 11 passes) and Billy Volek (undrafted from fresno) seemed to remember many of the Tedford trademarks; i.e. getting rid of the ball to easiest available target instead of forcing longer, more difficult throws and holding the ball up by your ear etc.

I guess what it boils down to is that Tedford turns lesser talented qbs into better players than they really are by reinforcing the fundamentals and being a very good qb coach. In short, I tend to agree with what the article by Pompei (who I usually do not agree with at all) concludes: That Jeff Tedford the coach is better than the products he produces as pro's because they do regress.

 

[GatorsFins23]

Hm...thats a good way to looking at it. Rodgers may well be a good pro QB, tho...he seems like he has the skills needed to be good. Between the 2 I'd prefer Alex Smith due to his size, accuracy and smarts, but thats just my opinion.

 

[Boik14]

Hm...thats a good way to looking at it. Rodgers may well be a good pro QB, tho...he seems like he has the skills needed to be good. Between the 2 I'd prefer Alex Smith due to his size, accuracy and smarts, but thats just my opinion.

The things scouts are saying about Rodgers are all the same things they said about Harrington, Dilfer etc. The article (i.e. Pompei's opinion) basically calls Rodgers a 2nd rd pick based on talent that Tedford makes look better than he appears.

There seems to be at least some truth to that though because Boller had his best year under Tedford and promptly regressed. He had concerns about accuracy, pocket presence and just about everything else prior to Tedford's arrival in Cal and all of a sudden he became a 1st round pick.

 

[testtubetimmy]

So lets hire this guy as our QB coach. Pay him a large sum of money and make him turn Feeley into Dan Marino, God of Quarterbacks.

 

[Boik14]

So lets hire this guy as our QB coach. Pay him a large sum of money and make him turn Feeley into Dan Marino, God of Quarterbacks.

Id love to see it. I bet he could even get that slag named feeley to be a good qb :roflmao:

 

[sports24/7]

Id love to see it. I bet he could even get that slag named feeley to be a good qb :roflmao:

The funny thing is he did coach Feeley. This topic however has been beaten to death in another thread that I believe had the same article in it. I personally think it is rediculous to knock a QB for his coach. Under that theory no good QB could ever play for Tedford. To me Rogers seems like he will be a very good QB. He has every characteristic you look for except maybe for ideal size. I also think it is way too early to pass judgement on some of Tedford's QBs. Smith may have been a bust, but Tedford only coached him for his senior year. Carr IMO will develop into a very good QB. Harrington is another down year away from being a bust, but in all fairness hasn't had alot to work with. I know everyone loves to bash on Boller, but he was thrown into the fire early and has never had any kind of recievers. He also is still very young and IMO will turn into a good to very good QB.

 

[Boik14]

Smith actually played in his senior year and regressed as a pro. Carr barely played as a freshman and while i think he will be a solid qb I doubt the level of influence Tedford had on him. The things youre saying about rodgers are the things people said about Dilfer, Harrington and Smith.

In addition all the theory prescribes is that Tedford QB's are simply overhyped players who are good because of their coaching as well as the system they play in much like spurrier qbs except with some degree of talent.

Im not totally writing off harrington and boller yet; they are young and i agree with your point on boller,but they havent lived up to expectations like the other 5 qbs (i.e. not carr) who currently play in the nfl that tedford coached.

 

[outtawack311]

I can't believe people keep bring this argument up. Beating a dead horse isnt enough for you people? Must you skin it, chop it up limb by limb, then creamate whatever you didnt put through a tenderizer?

Let it die, Boller looked good at the end of last year, harrington its too early to tell, etc etc etc...blah blah blah....

 

[Boik14]

I can't believe people keep bring this argument up. Beating a dead horse isnt enough for you people? Must you skin it, chop it up limb by limb, then creamate whatever you didnt put through a tenderizer?

Let it die, Boller looked good at the end of last year, harrington its too early to tell, etc etc etc...blah blah blah....

Never saw the other thread. If you dont like it just read a different thread man. Chill the heck out.

 

[outtawack311]

I wouldn't mind if this thread was done once in the past 2 days...twice i can even let slip...but when people start mentioning the same thing in 20 different posts a week for months at a time it really does get old.

 

[Boik14]

I wouldn't mind if this thread was done once in the past 2 days...twice i can even let slip...but when people start mentioning the same thing in 20 different posts a week for months at a time it really does get old.

I understand your point but I really dont care bro. I didnt see the other thread or get a chance to participate in them. If the mods want to merge it fine. No use wasting time bashing it though if you already have an opinion. Either contribute to the thread or go away :shakeno:

 

[testtubetimmy]

I can't believe people keep bring this argument up. Beating a dead horse isnt enough for you people? Must you skin it, chop it up limb by limb, then creamate whatever you didnt put through a tenderizer?

i ate it too.







is that bad?

 

[outtawack311]

I did contribute...not only did i get to relieve frustration but i also said, "Boller looked good at the end of last year, harrington its too early to tell, etc etc etc"

That is my view...the tedford QB thing is unproven and a terrible theory.

 

[sports24/7]

Smith actually played in his senior year and regressed as a pro. Carr barely played as a freshman and while i think he will be a solid qb I doubt the level of influence Tedford had on him. The things youre saying about rodgers are the things people said about Dilfer, Harrington and Smith.

Saying that the guy has all the tools may be similar to what was said about those 3, but it is also said about all the great QB prospects. The difference between Rogers and Smith (who IMO is the only one you can call a bust of the group) is Smith's metal makeup was always a question mark and was the big knock on the guy. That turned out to be a big problem and ultimately what knocked him out of the NFL. Rogers doesnt have those same questions. He is known as much more of a cerebral QB than Smith was.

 

[Awsi Dooger]

Very basic reason; the short passing game is suicidal in the NFL

Tedford trademarks; i.e. getting rid of the ball to easiest available target instead of forcing longer, more difficult throws and holding the ball up by your ear etc.

Run the ball often, pass the ball well. It really doesn't matter how many yards per attempt you gain rushing the football in the NFL, just that you run often enough, in the 27-33 attempts per game range. Conversely, it doesn't matter how often you throw it, just that you gain the necessary 7+ yards per attempt. I work in sports statistics and have researched this since '87. It's not even close. If you don't want to believe me, check out the dean of NFL stats, Bud Goode. His stuff is avilable on the internet and the conclusions are similar to identical.

Tedord's theory of taking the available short pass is terrific for college football, especially since his motion influence usually allows that short pass to turn into something big. But in the NFL you die with that method. The LBs are too athletic, the overall team speed on defense too great and the yards after catch are minimized to nullified. The best QBs dart the ball 10+ yards downfield, absolutely essential on 3rd and long.

Whenever I hear an NFL coach imply he's going to rely on the short passing game, my friends and I salivate to bet against him. You end up with 6 yards per attempt and a dozen losses. An excellent example was the guy who took over for Joe Gibbs in the early '90s. He immediately announced an intention to throw short. That genius lasted all of one season.

I attended both USC/Cal games that Aaron Rodgers played. I mentioned here that he defaulted to the underneath pass so often it was pathetic. If it was more Tedford's system than Rodgers' shortcoming, perhaps he can be coached out of it. But the Aaron Rodgers I saw at the Coliseum last year will be shut down completely in the NFL if he insists on wimping to the short junk play after play.