Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 62

Thread: A real FB thread

  1. #16

    QB Gets Better In 2nd Year As A Starter

    My gut feeling is that ZM gets better in his 2nd year as a starter. 1st: He has had a year to adjust to the Pac 12 season. 2nd: He has seen the Pac 12 defenses thrown at him. 3rd: He has had more time with Teddy and the offense. 4th: He has had time to work on his deficiencies. Hopefully all of the above leads to better play at the QB position. If not, Teddy's seat will start to heat up and force a change at the QB position. 1st year in the new stadium, the fans and alumni will want wins.

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsusTexicanus View Post
    That may have possibilities. Combine a drop back QB like Bridgford with a scrambler like ZM and it would give defenses a lot to think about. One issue is ZM is awfully streaky, so ideally he'd be in during his hot streaks. Well, one can always dream.
    If you are playing two, and one is playing so well you have to leave him in...

    The thing that is avoided is leaving in a QB who is falling apart, hoping he will turn it around on the field. Usually, though, bad follows bad. There are days in sports when a player just has a bad outing. A Cy Young pitcher gets rocked. Even Rodgers had a few games like that in 2003. The problem is that in college football, you play so few games, you can't afford to just let a QB work out his kinks in one. The one time Tedford brought in the reliever early is the only time he has beaten USC. If he had done the same against OSU and then either UCLA or Oregon, we probably go to the Rose Bowl. If we had done that in 2005, maybe we figure out Levy is passable. In 2007 we avoid the second half meltdown and in 2008 we avoid the QB controversy and win a few more games. In 2010, we have a back-up with experience....

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsusTexicanus View Post
    One issue is ZM is awfully streaky, so ideally he'd be in during his hot streaks. Well, one can always dream.
    "Streaky" is probably not the right term. That would imply he is hot and cold regardless of who the opponent is. He tends to play consistently well against average to lower half Ds, and then against good D's he usually either falls apart mentally with multiple boneheaded turnovers or pulls a K. Riley with multiple 3-and-outs.

    So, bring in Bridgf/Hinder/Boehm for the entirety of the OhSt, SC, Oregon, Ucla games and have ZM play the other 8 reg season games??? Ideally, JT would have one of those 3 alts ready by Sept to take over the starting role for ALL games.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Nasal Mucus Goldenbear View Post
    "Streaky" is probably not the right term. That would imply he is hot and cold regardless of who the opponent is. He tends to play consistently well against average to lower half Ds, and then against good D's he usually either falls apart mentally with multiple boneheaded turnovers or pulls a K. Riley with multiple 3-and-outs.

    So, bring in Bridgf/Hinder/Boehm for the entirety of the OhSt, SC, Oregon, Ucla games and have ZM play the other 8 reg season games??? Ideally, JT would have one of those 3 alts ready by Sept to take over the starting role for ALL games.
    I think the problem for years has been that our offense works fine for teams that our OL can dominate and we get good yardage on our first down runs, if not, we get into too many third and longs, where we always go max protect with our two receivers, which is too easy to defend = fail.

    The major difference with Maynard was that initially, he actually completed those third and longs by just tossing the ball up for Allen and Jones who could beat the DBs for the ball--a play Riley had stopped trying to make.

    However, against better defenses, once opponents knew what he/we do, those third and long desperation throws turned into turnovers (the lesson Riley had learned).

    The thing that made me optimistic during the season is that we then started mixing up our plays better and getting the ball to Sofele outside on the pitch, and letting Maynard roll out or run, and the result was that we moved the ball and had a lot fewer third and long situations.

    I thought in the Holiday Bowl it seemed like we forgot everything we learned and we reverted to predictable play calling and running up the gut against a very good defense resulting in third and longs with the same result as when we did the same thing earlier in the season against good defenses.
    Last edited by calumnus; 02-23-2012 at 08:19 PM.

  5. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Nasal Mucus Goldenbear View Post
    "Streaky" is probably not the right term. That would imply he is hot and cold regardless of who the opponent is. He tends to play consistently well against average to lower half Ds, and then against good D's he usually either falls apart mentally with multiple boneheaded turnovers or pulls a K. Riley with multiple 3-and-outs.

    So, bring in Bridgf/Hinder/Boehm for the entirety of the OhSt, SC, Oregon, Ucla games and have ZM play the other 8 reg season games??? Ideally, JT would have one of those 3 alts ready by Sept to take over the starting role for ALL games.
    I wish he would "pull a K. Riley". KR was a superior QB to ZM.

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    I think the problem for years has been that our offense works fine for teams that our OL can dominate and we get good yardage on our first down runs, if not, we get into too many third and longs, where we always go max protect with our two receivers, which is too easy to defend = fail.

    The major difference with Maynard was that initially, he actually completed those third and longs by just tossing the ball up for Allen and Jones who could beat the DBs for the ball--a play Riley had stopped trying to make.

    However, against better defenses, once opponents knew what he/we do, those third and long desperation throws turned into turnovers (the lesson Riley had learned).

    The thing that made me optimistic during the season is that we then started mixing up our plays better and getting the ball to Sofele outside on the pitch, and letting Maynard roll out or run, and the result was that we moved the ball and had a lot fewer third and long situations.

    I thought in the Holiday Bowl it seemed like we forgot everything we learned and we reverted to predictable play calling and running up the gut against a very good defense resulting in third and longs with the same result as when we did the same thing earlier in the season against good defenses.
    That is what I thought also but it turned out that ZM's improved play was mostly againt the weaker PAC12 teams.

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    .....

    The thing that made me optimistic during the season is that we then started mixing up our plays better and getting the ball to Sofele outside on the pitch, and letting Maynard roll out or run, and the result was that we moved the ball and had a lot fewer third and long situations.

    I thought in the Holiday Bowl it seemed like we forgot everything we learned and we reverted to predictable play calling and running up the gut against a very good defense resulting in third and longs with the same result as when we did the same thing earlier in the season against good defenses.
    Agree, a QB who can run not only causes the defense problems just for that, but also can change the game largely because what was doomed as a failed play can suddenly turn into a somewhat-undeserved first down (and momentum swing). Problem is, such a player can also get hurt. Looks like we wanted to preserve the health of the QB (or thought what was working before might not against them for some reason?). But if you want to win, you have to go with what works. Is it worth it to design a few good QB-draws or other rollout/option/running plays? Don't know that ZM is best described as "rugged," but if QB #2 is more effective this year (which he/they should be), then more risk-taking with ZM on the fly (in the running sense) could be very effective, maybe "dangerous, but worth the risk".?

  8. #23

    Maynard

    Consider that Maynard only has one season in the Cal system. He is NOT that much of a veteran.

    Maynard seemed to play better as the season went along.

    Yeah, yeah, Tedford will give lip service to all the QBs having a shot at starting, but unless someone else plays really well this spring, Maynard will probably be at the controls next season. I won't consider it that much of a surprise, and if he continues to improve I won't be too bothered about it.

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by GivemTheAxe View Post
    That is what I thought also but it turned out that ZM's improved play was mostly againt the weaker PAC12 teams.
    I agree that there was some confluence of different factors. Seems crazy that we play conservative and try to run up the middle against good defenses and then use a better mix of plays and better use of our speed and quarterback's mobility against weak teams, but that is more or less what we did.

    I am really tired of our last decade of conservative game plans against USC and now Oregon. If we are going to beat the top dog in our conference, we need to be more creative and take a few chances.

    Same with Texas in the Holiday Bowl. Maybe Tedford didn't hold a grudge, but the fan base sure did.

  10. #25

    Calumnus

    I pretty much agree with everything you write about Cal football.

  11. #26
    I will be disappointed if ZM is our starter..I don't trust his ability or instincts at our level of competition. Has anyone ever got a feeling of "confidence" with him at QB - even during his "good games?" He is shakey and unreliable - inconsistent. I welcome a hard fought competition and truly hope someone emerges to replace him on merit. Even though Tedford's history in this regard is debatable, I believe he was as frustrated as we were last season with ZM's performance and should open the door in the spring.

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by GldnBear71 View Post
    Consider that Maynard only has one season in the Cal system. He is NOT that much of a veteran.

    Maynard seemed to play better as the season went along.

    Yeah, yeah, Tedford will give lip service to all the QBs having a shot at starting, but unless someone else plays really well this spring, Maynard will probably be at the controls next season. I won't consider it that much of a surprise, and if he continues to improve I won't be too bothered about it.
    He has had TWO years in the Cal system. One year he had to sit out after transferring.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by 68great View Post
    He has had TWO years in the Cal system. One year he had to sit out after transferring.
    Note: he wasn't here in the Fall of 2010, he was at Contra Costa. Came to Cal in the Spring of 2011.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by EchoOfSilence View Post
    Note: he wasn't here in the Fall of 2010, he was at Contra Costa. Came to Cal in the Spring of 2011.
    Enough with the EXCUSES already.
    He was not a true freshman last year.
    He was not a red shirt freshman last year.
    He was not a true or redshirt Sophmore.
    He did not cut it.
    How many posters were ragging on AB for fumbling several times in the RAIN.
    And in my opinion those fumbles were much less of a problem than the inconsistent performance of ZM or than his own fumbles or than his own throwing INT's directly into the arms of a DB who should have been obvious to the QB.

    As my drill sargeant was wont to say to anyone who tried to come up with an excuse: "I ain't your mama, kid. I don't want to hear excuses. Just Do It!"

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by 68great View Post
    Enough with the EXCUSES already.
    He was not a true freshman last year.
    He was not a red shirt freshman last year.
    He was not a true or redshirt Sophmore.
    He did not cut it.
    How many posters were ragging on AB for fumbling several times in the RAIN.
    And in my opinion those fumbles were much less of a problem than the inconsistent performance of ZM or than his own fumbles or than his own throwing INT's directly into the arms of a DB who should have been obvious to the QB.

    As my drill sargeant was wont to say to anyone who tried to come up with an excuse: "I ain't your mama, kid. I don't want to hear excuses. Just Do It!"
    First, let's be clear, it is not Maynard who is making excuses. Second, it is one thing to say no excuses, but then you make excuses for Bridgford.

    Maynard completed 57% of his passes and had a 127 QB rating.

    Bridgford completed 40.6% of his passes and had an 89 QB rating.

    Bridgford had his chances to show he should be the starter in practice and in games. He didn't. If you are going to win the starting position you actually have to DO better than the other guy when you are in. No excuses.

Posting Permissions

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