Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 121

Thread: Ted Miller Breaks Down Cal's QB Situation

  1. #46
    Anyone else think Miller's enunciation is kinda creepy?

  2. #47
    I'm more creeped out by how much he looks like Gary Busey


  3. #48
    True Blue Golden Bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    12,401
    Quote Originally Posted by BearlyClad View Post
    Speaking generally, not as to any one player, the trick is to assess on any particular game day whether a bad performance will continue; one cannot fall victim to the thinking that, "What's going on, this guy was good last week and in practice all this week - so I should leave him in despite this poor play because maybe he'll revert to that previous good play." If he's bad, you really have to consider seriously pulling him, despite trouble to the psyche, ruining his confidence, or other constructed reasons to keep him in. Sure, confidence is to be fostered, but at some point in poor performance it is worse to his confidence to leave the sucker in. "Hey, not your day today, but I know you'll be back, you're better than that."
    The way you don't make subbing QBs a confidence killer is you don't make it a big deal. You don't have it be a competition. You treat it like any other position. When the starting linebacker sits and his back-up comes in, does it ruin the starter's psyche? No. He knows he is getting a breather and will be back in. You tell the QBs what their roles are (one is the starter, one is the back-up, tell them they are teammates) and then you follow through, you make the switch in a game, you don't chew out the guy but calmly coach him up, build up his confidence, point out what adjustment you want and then, depending on how your assessment of the guy and how the back-up is doing, decide whether to bring him back in.

  4. #49
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    701
    Quote Originally Posted by TorBear View Post
    How do you know he is not the most capable QB?
    My eyes.

  5. #50
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by paul916 View Post
    My eyes.
    What have your eyes seen of his competition?

  6. #51

    A close game is the best time to get the backup in

    Quote Originally Posted by TorBear View Post
    Actually, there are very good reasons not to do this in any game that is close. There's a reason why the starter is the starter and and backup is the backup.
    We have 4 Elite 11 QBs. Last year one of them was the backup because he wasn't as mobile as the starter. You're telling me that if he plays a couple of series in a close game we lose? That's Tedford's attitude and it is the reason why our backup QBs suck. The expectation should be that there is no drop-off when they get in. There is a decent chance they'll get into a close game anyway due to our starter getting dinged or injured. They have to be ready to go. Play them in games from the start of the season and you won't see such a drop-off.

  7. #52
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueblood View Post

    "Hey, who's riding who, here!"

    Oh horse nonsense! Given that many of Cal's games were given as going to be close even better to play the back up quarterback to get differing competitive game feel and/or give the marginal starter a breath to assess the game from the sidelines especially when not playing that well.....like throwing interceptions....Tedford will play maynard all next season, as he's not really prepared anyone else, so the following season Cal will be starting a dripping wet inexperienced quarterback.....Tedford just doesn't get it.......he's thinking Fresno State type football not supposedly Pac-12 big time football.....Cal ain't u$c yet where you can bring in a 4 or 5 star QB and play him like he is..........
    The "logic" behind your entire post is contained in it's first three words, though they are a far more apt description of your post than of mine. IF---and this is a big "if"---you have two QB's of relatively equal ability, it might make sense to alternate them. And, yes, you also might throw in your sub if your starter is having a really bad game---though only if you're reasonably confident that the sub can play at least as well. Otherwise, though, you go with your best guy and keep him in until the outcome of the game is no longer in doubt. This is the way most football teams, good and bad, handle the situation.
    Last edited by TorBear; 02-24-2012 at 08:17 AM.

  8. #53
    no bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Up BI moderator A$$hole
    Posts
    10,620

    "Someone's logic is too conventional!"

    You, bub, foul up my logic (you acknowledge that my post has some logic...well...that's a start for you) ....two QB's of "relatively equal ability" and "sub" are not the same when talking about Cal football. First, it doesn't appear that Cal from what little we've seen has two QBs of "relatively equal ability"....this is what Cal's continuous problem is at that position....comprende' yeto?.....the problem is.....now listen up....you, like Tedford apparently believes, say "if you're reasonably confident that the sub can play at least as well".....huh?...if so, then Cal would have two QBs of "relatively equal ability"....but this isn't the case at Cal and won't be the case if the "sub" gets next to nothing PT......anyway you're full of yourself, that is from your view, of your rigid impenetrable logic!......I've looked at the amount of games that other PAC 12 subs get into games.....and what you posit doesn't hold up......however your logic does appear to have some validity where a team has (or at least is trying to find out if it does have) two QBs of "relatively equal ability" or has a star QB.....

    Cal ain't recruiting, on a consistent basis, star QB's that can immmediately play Pac 12 ball.....and Cal appears that it isn't developing QB's to eventually play Pac 12 ball....thus regardless of that you think of my posts....it does appear that Tedford should try something else than what "most football teams, good or bad," do to handle the situation......this feels logical to me....and....and maybe to someone else too?
    Last edited by Blueblood; 02-24-2012 at 09:47 AM.

  9. #54
    Real Bear Masau80's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by TorBear View Post
    The "logic" behind your entire post is contained in it's first three words, though they are a far more apt description of your post than of mine. IF---and this is a big "if"---you have two QB's of relatively equal ability, it might make sense to alternate them. And, yes, you also might throw in your sub if your starter is having a really bad game---though only if you're reasonably confident that the sub can play at least as well. Otherwise, though, you go with your best guy and keep him in until the outcome of the game is no longer in doubt. This is the way most football teams, good and bad, handle the situation.
    Nobody wins in college football (pros either) by alternating/platooning QBs of "relatively equal ability"... when you see teams having two QBs play (Florida when Tebow was a freshman, Oklahoma last season, for example) it is because they are so dissimilar in style ability and talent -that the coach is simply taking advantage of the ability to expand his playbook effectively. Last time I looked, all the "Elite 11" QBs on the bench at Cal had essentially the same skillsets... Kline is no different... You can platoon a lot of positions, QB is definitely not one of them.

  10. #55
    no bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Up BI moderator A$$hole
    Posts
    10,620
    Hooray....for this post......you go Big82Daddy!

  11. #56
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Take a wild guess
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by 82gradDLSdad View Post
    We have 4 Elite 11 QBs. Last year one of them was the backup because he wasn't as mobile as the starter. You're telling me that if he plays a couple of series in a close game we lose? That's Tedford's attitude and it is the reason why our backup QBs suck. The expectation should be that there is no drop-off when they get in. There is a decent chance they'll get into a close game anyway due to our starter getting dinged or injured. They have to be ready to go. Play them in games from the start of the season and you won't see such a drop-off.
    +1

    In Tedford's system, the backup never gets to play much at all, so he is usually not ready when the starter gets hurt in a game. Brock Mansion never had a prayer when he came in after Riley went down.

  12. #57
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueblood View Post

    "Someone's logic is too conventional!"

    You, bub, foul up my logic (you acknowledge that my post has some logic...well...that's a start for you) ....two QB's of "relatively equal ability" and "sub" are not the same when talking about Cal football. First, it doesn't appear that Cal from what little we've seen has two QBs of "relatively equal ability"....this is what is Cal's continuous problem is at that position....comprende' yeto?.....the problem is.....now listen up....you, like Tedford apparently believes, say "if you're reasonably confident that the sub can play at least as well".....huh?...if so, then Cal would have two QBs of "relatively equal ability"....but this isn't the case at Cal and won't be the case if the "sub" gets next to nothing PT......anyway you're full of yourself, that is from your view, your impenetrable logic!......I've looked at the amount of games that other PAC 12 subs get into games.....and you posit doesn't hold up......however your logic does appear to have some validity where a team has (oir at least is trying to find out if it does have) two QBs of "relatively equal ability" or has a star QB.....

    Cal ain't recruiting, on a consistent basis, star QB's that can immmediately play Pac 12 ball.....and Cal appears that it isn't developing QB's to eventually play Pac 12 ball....thus regardless of that you think of my posts....it does appear that Tedford should try something else than what "most football teams, good or bad," do to handle the situation......this feels logical to me....and....and maybe to someone else too?
    Okay, so you say Cal doesn't have two QB's of relatively equal ability, but you think we should give quality minutes in critical games to the QB of lesser ability so that he will hopefully improve until he's as good as the other guy? And you don't think this is likely to have a deleterious affect on the outcome of the game?

    As for what other Pac-12 teams do, please name all of the teams that regularly platoons QB's---and I'm not talking about putting in the backup QB in during garbage time (which, I would agree, Tedford could to more of).

    Finally, I also agree that JT should try something else in regard to the QB position, as it has been consistently sub-par for us for too long. JT needs to find a solution, and he needs to do it soon. But that doesn't mean that every idea that anybody proposes is necessarily better than what we've been doing.
    Last edited by TorBear; 02-24-2012 at 09:59 AM.

  13. #58
    no bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Up BI moderator A$$hole
    Posts
    10,620
    Okay, so you say Cal doesn't have two QB's of relatively equal ability [Hmmm, you think we do? The way Tedford works it doesn't look like he thinks that we do.], but you still think it's a good idea to play the QB of lesser ability????[Sure...improving ability doesn't just come from practicing in isolation from the stage where actual performance takes place. Like Cal should have played 3 QBs against the Blue Hose; I know they wouldn't of mind.]

    As for what other Pac-12 teams do, name one team that regularly platoons QB's---and I'm not talking about putting in the backup QB in during garbage time (which, I would agree, Tedford could to more of).[Uhh...well I'm not talking about platooning either? And, I'm not just talking "garbage time either" but even then Tedford is very stingy with PT. Tedford would never platoon anyway, as he didn't when he had AR and Robertson.]

    Finally, I also agree that JT should try something else in regard to the QB position, as it has been consistently sub-par for us for too long. JT needs to find a solution, and he needs to do it soon. But that doesn't mean that every idea that anybody proposes is necessarily better than what we've been doing.[..nor does it mean that every idea that anybody proposes is necessarily worse than what we've been doing.]
    Last edited by Blueblood; 02-24-2012 at 10:02 AM.

  14. #59
    True Blue Golden Bear 59bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bainbridge Island, WA
    Posts
    9,354
    Most of us aren't suggesting alternating QBs, just some structured approach to getting the back-up some meaningful game experience. It is not a recipe for disaster.
    Access is better than ownership!

  15. #60
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,068
    Okay, so you say Cal doesn't have two QB's of relatively equal ability [Hmmm, you think we do? The way Tedford works it doesn't look like he thinks that we do.]...

    LOL! When did I say that? Remember, I'm the one who is arguing against giving quality PT to the second-string QB.

    but you still think it's a good idea to play the QB of lesser ability????[Sure...improving ability doesn't just come from practicing in isolation from the stage where actual performance takes place. Like Cal should have played 3 QBs against the Blue Hose; I know they wouldn't of mind.]


    Of course that would likely lead to second-string QB's improvement. The key question is: would it be likely to have a negative impact on the outcome of some games?


    As for what other Pac-12 teams do, name one team that regularly platoons QB's---and I'm not talking about putting in the backup QB in during garbage time (which, I would agree, Tedford could to more of).[Uhh...well I'm not talking about platooning either? And, I'm not just talking "garbage time either" but even then Tedford is very stingy with PT. Tedford would never platoon anyway, as he didn't when he had AR and Robertson.]

    I'm still waiting to hear which other Pac-12 teams regularly give PT to their second-string QB's when the outcome of the game is still in doubt and the starting QB is not injured.

    Finally, I also agree that JT should try something else in regard to the QB position, as it has been consistently sub-par for us for too long. JT needs to find a solution, and he needs to do it soon. But that doesn't mean that every idea that anybody proposes is necessarily better than what we've been doing.[..nor does it mean that every idea that anybody proposes is necessarily worse than what we've been doing.][/QUOTE]

    No, but it's my argument that this particular idea is probably worse. The key to the issue is whether or not we have a QB on the bench who is either already as good as the current starter and is likely to surpass him with some PT; or, one who's upside is so great that he will likely be significantly better than the current starter in a very short time (a la, Aaron Rodgers).

Posting Permissions

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