Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 121

Thread: Ted Miller Breaks Down Cal's QB Situation

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by 9thCircuitBear View Post
    I think our QBs during the Tedford era have been good enough.

    Boller: had a good yr
    Rogers: superbowl champ
    Ayoob: paper airplane champ
    Levy: big game win
    Longshore: led team to conference co-championship
    Riley: undefeated in big game
    Maynard: winning record in 1st season

    We need to focus on building a COMPLETE team -- establish depth at TE and FB . . . also special teams

    QBs are red herrings and serve as a "quick fix".

    Excellent levity on the situation... If ZM hadn't had those few really awful games (bunches of INTs)... the offense discussion would focus on where you rightly point it.... TE, FB, better snaps from the C...

    ZM is playing because the other QBs on the roster didn't pan out (Every college in the country has 4+ "highly recruited" QBs on the roster - about 1 in 4 actually become a success on the field). Will Kline be different than them... we don't know.. yet.. and it will be at least a year before he should play.. unless several things happen between now and Sept 1st. He could be another Barkeley... but then again... maybe not.. it is always easy to be great against high school kids... not everyone can make the transition to playing against men...

  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by 59bear View Post
    Who said low? If the starter is only marginally ahead of the back-up, maybe the probability factor is 55-45 or 60-40, especially if the starter is prone to inconsistency (sound like anyone we've seen recently?). Also, what many of us have suggested is simply a "live fire" audition, say a couple of series in the the early part of the game. That's much different than switching at crunch time. A final observation: most coaches (rightfully so) place great emphasis on practice performance but, occasionally, a player is a "gamer" who performs markedly better in game conditions than in practice. How else to discover this than by playing him?
    I've already said earlier in this thread that it might not be a bad idea to put the backup in for a few series if the QB's are of relatively equal ability. If not, though, then you certainly do increase your risk of losing the game. Yes, doing such a thing early in the game gives you time to recover if the sub messes up, but not doing it means you there's no need to recover. Points scored in the first half count every bit as much as points scored at the end of the game.

  3. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by TorBear View Post
    I've already said earlier in this thread that it might not be a bad idea to put the backup in for a few series if the QB's are of relatively equal ability. If not, though, then you certainly do increase your risk of losing the game. Yes, doing such a thing early in the game gives you time to recover if the sub messes up, but not doing it means you there's no need to recover. Points scored in the first half count every bit as much as points scored at the end of the game.
    No one puts the back-up QB in for a few series when the game's outcome is in doubt... so much of the QB play is finding that rhythm.. and then staying with it... its not like running in RBs and WRs every play... they have a very narrow focus on the game... Same reason that you don't platoon OL.... they need that rhythm and group dynamics to function at the expected level...

    No successful program platoons QBs of "relatively equal ability" - unless their skill sets are demonstratively different (i.e. Oklahoma) - which is used by other teams without two QBs under a different name - The Wildcat. Even Texas tried that last year... and it didn't work for them.. they ended up sticking with one kid.. even though he struggled... it was better than the disrupted rhythm that alternating gave them...

  4. #94
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,175

    USC did it

    Quote Originally Posted by Masau80 View Post
    No one puts the back-up QB in for a few series when the game's outcome is in doubt... so much of the QB play is finding that rhythm.. and then staying with it... its not like running in RBs and WRs every play... they have a very narrow focus on the game... Same reason that you don't platoon OL.... they need that rhythm and group dynamics to function at the expected level...

    No successful program platoons QBs of "relatively equal ability" - unless their skill sets are demonstratively different (i.e. Oklahoma) - which is used by other teams without two QBs under a different name - The Wildcat. Even Texas tried that last year... and it didn't work for them.. they ended up sticking with one kid.. even though he struggled... it was better than the disrupted rhythm that alternating gave them...
    USC won the 1962 national championship and the Rose Bowl with the quarterback tandem of Pete Beathard and Bill Nelsen, by alternating quarterbacks, giving each nearly equal time. Both were great passers. It is rare, but it can be done.

  5. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    USC won the 1962 national championship and the Rose Bowl with the quarterback tandem of Pete Beathard and Bill Nelsen, by alternating quarterbacks, giving each nearly equal time. Both were great passers. It is rare, but it can be done.
    Hasn't happened in 50 years, but sure it could work.


  6. #96
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by UCBerkGrad View Post
    Hasn't happened in 50 years, but sure it could work.

    Sure it could work, with the right coach and the right quarterbacks. What it would require would be for the coach (and some fans) to think a little outside the box, but we haven't seen much of that at Cal in recent years.

    Masau said we shouldn't alternate quarterbacks, because it would disrupt the rhythm. What rhythm is that? Maynard's rhythm could be described in one word, "jumpy". I have never seen a more nervous quarterback. Joe Cool, he ain't.

    All kidding aside, we all know that Tedford has so much time and effort invested in Maynard, he isn't going to change quarterbacks for next season. But when the starting quarterback isn't very good, then why not give the backup(s) a little time? At least now and then, in games where you are way ahead or way behind? It would prepare the backups to play, in case the starter goes down with an injury.

  7. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    USC won the 1962 national championship and the Rose Bowl with the quarterback tandem of Pete Beathard and Bill Nelsen, by alternating quarterbacks, giving each nearly equal time. Both were great passers. It is rare, but it can be done.
    If we are going back 50 years to find an example, then I think the point is well taken that it really isn't an option... Back then most players played both ways, didn't wear facemasks and were almost monochromatic...

  8. #98
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Masau80 View Post
    If we are going back 50 years to find an example, then I think the point is well taken that it really isn't an option... Back then most players played both ways, didn't wear facemasks and were almost monochromatic...
    By the way, Beathard and Nelson weren't the only successful quarterbacks to alternate. In the NFL, again in the '60s, saw Red Hickey of the 49ers devise the shotgun formation, and Y.A. Tittle, John Brodie and Bobby Waters alternated at QB. Then they traded Tittle, and Billy Kilmer joined the trio of alternating QB's. They alternated on every single play. I think Norm Van Brocklin and Bob Waterfield of the Rams may have alternated sometimes.

    I don't seem to understand your argument. What does going back 50 years have to do with whether quarterbacks could successfully alternate today? Are you saying that the players of the '60's were real men, because they went both ways, and today's QB's are too soft for alternating? Are you saying the players today are too soft to alternate because they want to use more protective facemasks, which weren't available in the '60's? Most helmets just had a single bar then. And when you say "monochromatic", is that a code word for white players? Are you saying that a QB's skin color has something to do with whether he can alternate with another QB?

    I do agree with you that in today's game, on Cal's team, it would be hard to alternate QB's. There is plenty of confusion already. Last season, Coach Tedford called the plays, each time getting input from Michalczik and Kiesau. Play calling by committee. Then Coach Gould had to call the personnel for the play that had been called. Then QB Maynard had to get in the huddle and look around to see who was on the field for that play. They break the huddle, and then Maynard does his reads, and he can decide to change the play. So there are 5 men involved in calling a play. This may very well be too complicated to allow fitting an alternate QB into the mix. 50 years ago, the head coach called the play, and the QB either ran it or called an audible. Pretty simple. A system with two QB's in the '60's is probably far less complicated than the offense Cal runs today, with only one QB getting a chance to play, even late in a game with a lopsided score.

  9. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    Sure it could work, with the right coach and the right quarterbacks. What it would require would be for the coach (and some fans) to think a little outside the box, but we haven't seen much of that at Cal in recent years.

    Masau said we shouldn't alternate quarterbacks, because it would disrupt the rhythm. What rhythm is that? Maynard's rhythm could be described in one word, "jumpy". I have never seen a more nervous quarterback. Joe Cool, he ain't.

    All kidding aside, we all know that Tedford has so much time and effort invested in Maynard, he isn't going to change quarterbacks for next season. But when the starting quarterback isn't very good, then why not give the backup(s) a little time? At least now and then, in games where you are way ahead or way behind? It would prepare the backups to play, in case the starter goes down with an injury.
    I agree that Tedford should play the backups more than he does in games that are not close, but it's not as if he never does this. Allan Bridgford played almost the entire second half vs. Presbyterian, the bulk of the fourth quarter vs. Oregon, and most of the second half vs. Washington State. Apart from Utah and, maybe, Fresno State, these were the only games we had last year that were pretty much over by the fourth quarter.

  10. #100

    Tedford puts in the QB

    Quote Originally Posted by TorBear View Post
    I agree that Tedford should play the backups more than he does in games that are not close, but it's not as if he never does this. Allan Bridgford played almost the entire second half vs. Presbyterian, the bulk of the fourth quarter vs. Oregon, and most of the second half vs. Washington State. Apart from Utah and, maybe, Fresno State, these were the only games we had last year that were pretty much over by the fourth quarter.

    And then has him hand the ball off every down. I'd like to see the backup QB come in and run the offense more often.

  11. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by dimitrig View Post
    And then has him hand the ball off every down. I'd like to see the backup QB come in and run the offense more often.
    Bridgford did have 32 pass attempts. Wasn't like he came in to just hand off or kneel.

  12. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by UCBerkGrad View Post
    Bridgford did have 32 pass attempts. Wasn't like he came in to just hand off or kneel.
    32 attempts is more than most of our back-ups have gotten. It is at least equivalent to an entire game.

    Riley had 34 attempts in 2007 during the regular season and that was with Longshore having a fractured bone and Riley playing the entire OSU game.

    In 2005, Steve Levy had 29 attempts in the regular season, but only 11 before his Big Game start. He came in late against SC went 4 for 4 and was named the starter for Big Game.

    If Bridgford had come in and completed passes, like Levy did, he might have gotten more playing time. He didn't. However good people think he 'looked," he only completed 40% of his passes on 32 attempts. It isn't a yes/no referendum on Maynard, it is trying to put the best QB on the field and if you are the back-up, you have to do something to prove you might be better than the starter when you are in. Levy did it. Bridgford and the other back-ups need to do it this upcoming year. Now, I agree, I'd like to see the back-ups get more opportunities to show they can be better--especially when the starter is struggling (I'd like it to be part of our structure--a change of pace/reliever position), but they actually have to do better once they are in to get a shot at starting.

  13. #103
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    32 attempts is more than most of our back-ups have gotten. It is at least equivalent to an entire game.

    Riley had 34 attempts in 2007 during the regular season and that was with Longshore having a fractured bone and Riley playing the entire OSU game.

    In 2005, Steve Levy had 29 attempts in the regular season, but only 11 before his Big Game start. He came in late against SC went 4 for 4 and was named the starter for Big Game.

    If Bridgford had come in and completed passes, like Levy did, he might have gotten more playing time. He didn't. However good people think he 'looked," he only completed 40% of his passes on 32 attempts. It isn't a yes/no referendum on Maynard, it is trying to put the best QB on the field and if you are the back-up, you have to do something to prove you might be better than the starter when you are in. Levy did it. Bridgford and the other back-ups need to do it this upcoming year. Now, I agree, I'd like to see the back-ups get more opportunities to show they can be better--especially when the starter is struggling (I'd like it to be part of our structure--a change of pace/reliever position), but they actually have to do better once they are in to get a shot at starting.
    Does anyone know whether Bridgford has recovered full range of motion and has no other effects from his shoulder injury?

    It is curious why he has not done better so far. After all, he did break most or all of Mark Sanchez's records at Mission Viejo, didn't he?

  14. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    By the way, Beathard and Nelson weren't the only successful quarterbacks to alternate. In the NFL, again in the '60s, saw Red Hickey of the 49ers devise the shotgun formation, and Y.A. Tittle, John Brodie and Bobby Waters alternated at QB. Then they traded Tittle, and Billy Kilmer joined the trio of alternating QB's. They alternated on every single play. I think Norm Van Brocklin and Bob Waterfield of the Rams may have alternated sometimes.

    I don't seem to understand your argument. What does going back 50 years have to do with whether quarterbacks could successfully alternate today? Are you saying that the players of the '60's were real men, because they went both ways, and today's QB's are too soft for alternating? Are you saying the players today are too soft to alternate because they want to use more protective facemasks, which weren't available in the '60's? Most helmets just had a single bar then. And when you say "monochromatic", is that a code word for white players? Are you saying that a QB's skin color has something to do with whether he can alternate with another QB?

    I do agree with you that in today's game, on Cal's team, it would be hard to alternate QB's. There is plenty of confusion already. Last season, Coach Tedford called the plays, each time getting input from Michalczik and Kiesau. Play calling by committee. Then Coach Gould had to call the personnel for the play that had been called. Then QB Maynard had to get in the huddle and look around to see who was on the field for that play. They break the huddle, and then Maynard does his reads, and he can decide to change the play. So there are 5 men involved in calling a play. This may very well be too complicated to allow fitting an alternate QB into the mix. 50 years ago, the head coach called the play, and the QB either ran it or called an audible. Pretty simple. A system with two QB's in the '60's is probably far less complicated than the offense Cal runs today, with only one QB getting a chance to play, even late in a game with a lopsided score.
    You're still citing 50 year old examples... and it is certainly a different game now.. And it did make a difference about who was playing.... Over half the great athletes we have on the team now wouldn't have had the opportunity to play in 1960...

    Cite one successful DI team inthe last 10 years that rotated QBs (that were of similar style and ability). There isn't one...

    You last paragraph analysis was spot on... and is the best refutation for anyone advocating rotating QBs... Thanks!

  15. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    I do agree with you that in today's game, on Cal's team, it would be hard to alternate QB's. There is plenty of confusion already. Last season, Coach Tedford called the plays, each time getting input from Michalczik and Kiesau. Play calling by committee. Then Coach Gould had to call the personnel for the play that had been called. Then QB Maynard had to get in the huddle and look around to see who was on the field for that play. They break the huddle, and then Maynard does his reads, and he can decide to change the play. So there are 5 men involved in calling a play. This may very well be too complicated to allow fitting an alternate QB into the mix.
    I thought the system was more like, Kiesau calls the play from the box, Michalczik and Tedford can override, then Mansion or Bridgford signal in the play to Maynard, the team huddles while Maynard reads the play to the team off his wristband, the team breaks huddle and lines up in formation, then everyone stops and looks over to the sideline to get the new play from the committee based on what the defense is showing, Maynard calls out the audibles, the players shift, Maynard and the receivers read the defense and Maynard calls out the count and we hopefully get the snap off without anybody committing a false start before the play clock expires--or something to that effect?
    Last edited by calumnus; 03-05-2012 at 12:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

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