Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 84

Thread: The QB Issue is a LOT Simpler than Most of You are Making it Out to be

  1. #61
    CalReason
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by atticus View Post
    Which is what leads me to the conclusion that the next guy up probably ain't all that good (whether it's their fault or not), no matter how high his star ratings were.
    But as I've said before, this should have very little to do with AB, in principle. It is more about seeing ZM as the atrociously embarrassing QB he shows he is, week in and week out. From what I saw of Bridge against OU, I'm not confident he is any good either. He throws the football like he's a pitcher, and threw it into double/triple coverage incessantly, at least so it seemed. But he is able to hit a 5 yard crossing route over the middle. But I digress...it's not about whether AB is good or whether he can salvage the season (though I think he could by simply not throwing the ball to the other team ala Whatever Maynard); it's about knowing what you have in ZM (which is nothing), and sending a message of accountability to your QBs and the rest of the team. It's a statement about what this program will accept. It's also about having the most elementary football sense and seeing that ZM is one of the worst QBs in the Pac conference in recent memory.

    I am willing to concede that a switch at QB might not make all that much a difference (though I think it will, despite what I've seen from AB for the simple reason I've seen ZM), but it's the first step to doing so -- and the most obvious one.

  2. #62
    You may be right, but after his committment to 'bama were we in the running for Keenan Allen? Things happen and we are not privy to what Tosh and Tedford are thinking or doing regarding recruiting. It is the mother's milk of college football. Without good recruiting you might as well sell the farm. Every free moment the staff has they are on the road trying to see and evaluate future recruits.

    I don't think Bullard would be listed on our recruiting board unless he expressed some interest in Cal. Isn't that the way it works? Even if Bullard does not commit to us, I hope that we can get some more kids from that part of the country. From what I've learned, they are humble, courteous and fire-breathing dragons about football. That's my kind of guy.

  3. #63
    Man Hands
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by FingeroftheBear View Post
    I keep reading here that ZM was given the job, etc. Where's the proof that Bridgford is actually better then ZM?
    Where's the proof that Maynard is better?

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Man Hands View Post
    Where's the proof that Maynard is better?
    An excellent point! If only the burden of proof did not lie with those who make the assertion...

  5. #65
    Man Hands
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by atticus View Post
    An excellent point! If only the burden of proof did not lie with those who make the assertion...
    Atticus, you should know this is not a criminal proceeding. This is not a case of innocent until proven guilty.

  6. #66

    Now you know why Alabama didn not want Maynard

    even if it meant getting Keenan Allen.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by atticus View Post
    An excellent point! If only the burden of proof did not lie with those who make the assertion...
    After reading this thread, the funny thing is that your above statement can be thrown right back at you. From what I can gather, the majority of people who want Bridgford to start simply want to see what a different QB can do under game circumstances. We already know that our current QB, Maynard, is prone to poor play against elite (Oregon), good (USC), and bad (UCLA) teams both at home and on the road. You then popped in with the following statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by atticus View Post
    Bottom line: Maynard is playing because everyone behind him sucks even worse.
    So really, going by your logic, the burden of proof in fact lies with you to show that everyone behind Maynard on the depth chart does indeed suck even worse.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Man Hands View Post
    Atticus, you should know this is not a criminal proceeding. This is not a case of innocent until proven guilty.
    It doesn't have to be a criminal proceeding for someone to expect that the person making an assertion is the one charged with proving it.

    Let's say a friend calls you up:

    Friend: Immigrants are taking all our jobs. We should deport all immigrants.
    You: Well actually, I don't agree with you
    Friend: PROVE ME WRONG! You can't? Ha, then I'm right!
    You: WTF?

    Not suggesting you're coming down on this one way or the other - you post was ambiguous enough - but I don't know what else the point of the post would be.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by JeffBear07 View Post
    After reading this thread, the funny thing is that your above statement can be thrown right back at you. From what I can gather, the majority of people who want Bridgford to start simply want to see what a different QB can do under game circumstances. We already know that our current QB, Maynard, is prone to poor play against elite (Oregon), good (USC), and bad (UCLA) teams both at home and on the road. You then popped in with the following statement:



    So really, going by your logic, the burden of proof in fact lies with you to show that everyone behind Maynard on the depth chart does indeed suck even worse.
    Well, I suppose you're right. That idea does operate on a few assumptions, mainly that coaches start the best player at each position. I think we can all agree there is a knowledge problem in sports (as in life) and we cannot know all that we would like to know. But let's look at the history: this is not the first time we have called for the starter's head, and not the first time its been assumed that Tedford is starting the wrong guy for reasons totally tangential to football itself. Each and every time the back up has (eventually) made his way to the field only to suck even harder than the guy before him.

    And you are right that a majority of people who want Bridgford to start just want to see what will happen. Count me among them.

    I'll concede I can't prove to you that Bridgford or Maynard is better or worse than any other QB - largely because that's been my point all along. But utilize your inductive reasoning: there is no evidence Tedford can maintain even ONE competent QB, let alone several that for totally outlandish reasons languish on the bench, because time and time again as board members speculate as to WHY Tedford would let these studs rot while he plays his favorites, those studs have been revealed to be total crap (and eventually, they become the favorites, and we all conveniently forget that Tedford had been plotting against that player just a few seasons ago).
    Last edited by atticus; 11-02-2011 at 04:55 PM.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by CalReason View Post
    Longshore almost got us to the promise land...

    ...and maybe its not luck. Maybe Tedford doesn't know how to adapt when confronted with the reality that most QBs aren't super skilled/bright to perform well in his offense. I don't know. With Maynard, it seems like putting him an a pro style offense that doesn't utilize the option and rollouts almost exclusively is asking the kid to fail.
    Longshore was the weak link on that 2006 team and his play against Arizona and SC cost us the Rose Bowl--but in his defense it was his first season as a starter and Dunbar's "spread" was exactly the wrong offense for him and for that team.

    Power running with Lynch behind that line and Madarino at FB with Longshore throwing long to Jackson, Hawkins, Stevens et al off play action would have built up such big leads that we wouldn't have had a first year starter trying to make plays in the clutch (much like the way Harbaugh took the pressure off Luck in his first year by emphasizing Gerhardt and having Luck throw mostly off play-action).

    It makes no sense that we had Longshore throwing out of the shotgun and throwing 20% more than Rodgers did in 2004 (though it made even less sense to run Marshawn Lynch out of the shotgun).

    But you are right, Longshore was easily good enough, when combined with all those future NFL players, to get us to the promised land. Unfortunately, the coaching wasn't, which is why Dunbar was gone after that (his only) season.
    Last edited by calumnus; 11-02-2011 at 05:06 PM.

  11. #71
    Nobody is complaining about giving Allen playing time. They're complaining about giving Zach playing time after 4 interceptions and 1 fumble.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by atticus View Post
    Well, I suppose you're right. That idea does operate on a few assumptions, mainly that coaches start the best player at each position. I think we can all agree there is a knowledge problem in sports (as in life) and we cannot know all that we would like to know. But let's look at the history: this is not the first time we have called for the starter's head, and not the first time its been assumed that Tedford is starting the wrong guy for reasons totally tangential to football itself. Each and every time the back up has (eventually) made his way to the field only to suck even harder than the guy before him.

    And you are right that a majority of people who want Bridgford to start just want to see what will happen. Count me among them.

    I'll concede I can't prove to you that Bridgford or Maynard is better or worse than any other QB - largely because that's been my point all along. But utilize your inductive reasoning: there is no evidence Tedford can maintain even ONE competent QB, let alone several that for totally outlandish reasons languish on the bench, because time and time again as board members speculate as to WHY Tedford would let these studs rot while he plays his favorites, those studs have been revealed to be total crap (and eventually, they become the favorites, and we all conveniently forget that Tedford had been plotting against that player just a few seasons ago).
    I do see where you're coming from insofar as there is no guarantee or even an adequate amount of evidence supporting the idea that Bridgford would be a better quarterback option. Given, though, that you count yourself among the growing crowd of people who want to see what Bridgford can do, I struggle to see why you still don't think Maynard should be benched except that you think Maynard is Cal's best chance, net of all risks, of winning the next two games and becoming bowl eligible.

    The problem with that line of thinking is that by following that route, all Tedford is doing is pushing to next year the question of which quarterback is in fact better under game circumstances. Think of what happens if Bridgford is allowed to start a couple games this season. If he's successful relative to Maynard, then it becomes obvious that Bridgford gives Cal a better chance of winning. If he sucks relative to Maynard (and yes, that really is difficult to believe), then yeah, Cal is s**t out of luck for 2012 unless Hinder or Boehm makes some dramatic impression in spring ball. But if Bridgford is confined to the sidelines the rest of this 2011 season, and given that Maynard has shown little to no improvement after eight games, it's not at all unreasonable to expect Cal to be right back here in the same position a year from now.

    Long story short:
    - Start Maynard: arguably higher chance of making bowl game in 2011, rinse and repeat in 2012
    - Start Bridgford: discover Maynard really is our best option or be competitive for the conference championship

    Personally, I'd rather have a slightly lowered chance (and this is arguable to begin with) at reaching a bowl game this year for the possibility of great success next year than more or less guaranteed two straight years of mediocre bowls. And that is why to me and what I imagine is the majority of the Cal fanbase, Maynard very much is the one player on the team right now who should be benched.

  13. #73
    Holy sh*t, this is like Dante's Inferno, only it's JT's Inferno.

    We actually have levels of negabears (or how much I think JT sucks). You win, Atticus, you think JT is the most sucky.

    He is sooo inept that he actually destroys QBs. He will turn gold into lead or in this case, Bridgford into less than Maynard. I never thought I would see a day where DO is knida, sorta defending JT (e.g., at least giving JT the chance that Bridg is not yet destroyed by JT).

  14. #74
    CalReason
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    Longshore was the weak link on that 2006 team and his play against Arizona and SC cost us the Rose Bowl--but in his defense it was his first season as a starter and Dunbar's "spread" was exactly the wrong offense for him and for that team.

    Power running with Lynch behind that line and Madarino at FB with Longshore throwing long to Jackson, Hawkins, Stevens et al off play action would have built up such big leads that we wouldn't have had a first year starter trying to make plays in the clutch (much like the way Harbaugh took the pressure off Luck in his first year by emphasizing Gerhardt and having Luck throw mostly off play-action).

    It makes no sense that we had Longshore throwing out of the shotgun and throwing 20% more than Rodgers did in 2004 (though it made even less sense to run Marshawn Lynch out of the shotgun).

    But you are right, Longshore was easily good enough, when combined with all those future NFL players, to get us to the promised land. Unfortunately, the coaching wasn't, which is why Dunbar was gone after that (his only) season.
    I agree on almost all counts.

    That did seem odd with Dunbar's spread, particularly with Lynch at RB. (I thought Dunbar left for the same position with another school, though perhaps JT and him agreed to part ways because it wasn't what JT wanted going forward?...)

    Longshore had a tremendous season, but I do remember both the USC and Zona game, and he looked like a completely different QB. To what extent that is a reflection on Longshore, I don't know. Cal did cruise in a lot of those games, but my memory is not good enough, nor do I think I'd know anyways, to know just how Longshore sunk so fast, which continued into the next year (I believe?) I don't know if one can say that offense was "wrong" for him because he had a pretty successful season. He had a power O-Line that gave him time (since he was a statue in the pocket) and helped him move the chains. A healthy Longshore would have the 2011 Bears at 6-2 at worst IMO. But to my recollection there was less parity, or at least the middle-to-bottom of the conference was predominantly weak, therefore allowing Longshore to produce at a rate that was brought down to earth when faced with, say, a dominant USC defense that year. USC dominated our WR's, particularly Action Jackson.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimsonBear View Post
    Holy sh*t, this is like Dante's Inferno, only it's JT's Inferno.

    We actually have levels of negabears (or how much I think JT sucks). You win, Atticus, you think JT is the most sucky.

    He is sooo inept that he actually destroys QBs. He will turn gold into lead or in this case, Bridgford into less than Maynard. I never thought I would see a day where DO is knida, sorta defending JT (e.g., at least giving JT the chance that Bridg is not yet destroyed by JT).
    Aaron Rodgers is gold. AB is an undiscovered element.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •