calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff told me he's confident remaining members will sign a new Grant of Rights: "They'll sign as soon as I have a deal in front of them that they want to sign up for." Sources told @ActionNetworkHQ they expect new Pac-12 media rights deal to be 5-6 years

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 29, 2022

Wishful thinking by Kliavkoff if he thinks Oregon, Washington, Stanford or Arizona are going to sign a Grant of Rights.

---

Read his statement again. It is a tautology. He said they will sign when he gets a deal in front of them that they want to sign.

---

Exactly. The key words are THAT THEY WANT TO SIGN....basically means he needs to somehow negotiate a package that would deliver north of $50M/yr for several years, or I don't think Cal, Furd, UW, and UO will sign. Frankly, if he somehow pulls together a highly lucrative package, some of these teams might be better off staying with the Pac once one takes into account all of the travel expenses - especially for non-revenue sports.

---

A coast to coast superconference only really makes sense for football if at all. I think we will see non-revenue sports eventually parked in regional conferences.

---

I agree, but couldn't you also do it for men's basketball? After all, the teams are small enough to easily travel and the sport generates revenue. Aside from that, I think you're right that we'll see different conferences for non-revenue sports.

---

You definitely could and should for logistical reasons, but I think one of the reasons the B1G wants UCLA is for the basketball TV contract.

---

Certainly it was not for their crappy football team which hasn't seen a Rose Bowl since Hector was a pup.

---

They were 8-4 (6-3) last year. #28 in Sagarin. Invited to the Holiday Bowl. That would be a banner year for us. Tedford in his heyday. They have SIX 4-star players coming in including Justyn Martin who looks great and I was hoping would be our savior.

If they are crappy, what are we? Something far worse?

---

Yes, something far far worse.

Sucks about Martin, because I, too, thought he could turn this program around. We shall see.

---

The loss to the bear runts was bad, but there were plenty of games last year (Nevada, TCU, Washington, Wazzu, Oregon, Arizona) where we could have flipped the script and we're looking at a much different outlook. Hell we had a decent shot in every game last year with the exception of the stinker in Westwood.

---

We had a senior laden team and the easiest schedule I can remember in a very down year for the PAC-12 powers, with no game against Utah. Last year was Wilcox's best chance for a breakthrough. This year is probably his last chance.

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff told me he's confident remaining members will sign a new Grant of Rights: "They'll sign as soon as I have a deal in front of them that they want to sign up for." Sources told @ActionNetworkHQ they expect new Pac-12 media rights deal to be 5-6 years

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 29, 2022

Wishful thinking by Kliavkoff if he thinks Oregon, Washington, Stanford or Arizona are going to sign a Grant of Rights.

---

Read his statement again. It is a tautology. He said they will sign when he gets a deal in front of them that they want to sign.

---

Exactly. The key words are THAT THEY WANT TO SIGN....basically means he needs to somehow negotiate a package that would deliver north of $50M/yr for several years, or I don't think Cal, Furd, UW, and UO will sign. Frankly, if he somehow pulls together a highly lucrative package, some of these teams might be better off staying with the Pac once one takes into account all of the travel expenses - especially for non-revenue sports.

---

A coast to coast superconference only really makes sense for football if at all. I think we will see non-revenue sports eventually parked in regional conferences.

---

I agree, but couldn't you also do it for men's basketball? After all, the teams are small enough to easily travel and the sport generates revenue. Aside from that, I think you're right that we'll see different conferences for non-revenue sports.

---

You definitely could and should for logistical reasons, but I think one of the reasons the B1G wants UCLA is for the basketball TV contract.

---

Certainly it was not for their crappy football team which hasn't seen a Rose Bowl since Hector was a pup.

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff told me he's confident remaining members will sign a new Grant of Rights: "They'll sign as soon as I have a deal in front of them that they want to sign up for." Sources told @ActionNetworkHQ they expect new Pac-12 media rights deal to be 5-6 years

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 29, 2022

Wishful thinking by Kliavkoff if he thinks Oregon, Washington, Stanford or Arizona are going to sign a Grant of Rights.

---

Read his statement again. It is a tautology. He said they will sign when he gets a deal in front of them that they want to sign.

---

Exactly. The key words are THAT THEY WANT TO SIGN....basically means he needs to somehow negotiate a package that would deliver north of $50M/yr for several years, or I don't think Cal, Furd, UW, and UO will sign. Frankly, if he somehow pulls together a highly lucrative package, some of these teams might be better off staying with the Pac once one takes into account all of the travel expenses - especially for non-revenue sports.

---

A coast to coast superconference only really makes sense for football if at all. I think we will see non-revenue sports eventually parked in regional conferences.

---

I agree, but couldn't you also do it for men's basketball? After all, the teams are small enough to easily travel and the sport generates revenue. Aside from that, I think you're right that we'll see different conferences for non-revenue sports.

---

You definitely could and should for logistical reasons, but I think one of the reasons the B1G wants UCLA is for the basketball TV contract.

---

Certainly it was not for their crappy football team which hasn't seen a Rose Bowl since Hector was a pup.

---

They were 8-4 (6-3) last year. #28 in Sagarin. Invited to the Holiday Bowl. That would be a banner year for us. Tedford in his heyday. They have SIX 4-star players coming in including Justyn Martin who looks great and I was hoping would be our savior.

If they are crappy, what are we? Something far worse?

---

Yes, something far far worse.

Sucks about Martin, because I, too, thought he could turn this program around. We shall see.

---

The loss to the bear runts was bad, but there were plenty of games last year (Nevada, TCU, Washington, Wazzu, Oregon, Arizona) where we could have flipped the script and we're looking at a much different outlook. Hell we had a decent shot in every game last year with the exception of the stinker in Westwood.

---

We had a senior laden team and the easiest schedule I can remember in a very down year for the PAC-12 powers, with no game against Utah. Last year was Wilcox's best chance for a breakthrough. This year is probably his last chance.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff told me he's confident remaining members will sign a new Grant of Rights: "They'll sign as soon as I have a deal in front of them that they want to sign up for." Sources told @ActionNetworkHQ they expect new Pac-12 media rights deal to be 5-6 years

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 29, 2022

Wishful thinking by Kliavkoff if he thinks Oregon, Washington, Stanford or Arizona are going to sign a Grant of Rights.

---

Read his statement again. It is a tautology. He said they will sign when he gets a deal in front of them that they want to sign.

---

Exactly. The key words are THAT THEY WANT TO SIGN....basically means he needs to somehow negotiate a package that would deliver north of $50M/yr for several years, or I don't think Cal, Furd, UW, and UO will sign. Frankly, if he somehow pulls together a highly lucrative package, some of these teams might be better off staying with the Pac once one takes into account all of the travel expenses - especially for non-revenue sports.

---

A coast to coast superconference only really makes sense for football if at all. I think we will see non-revenue sports eventually parked in regional conferences.

---

I agree, but couldn't you also do it for men's basketball? After all, the teams are small enough to easily travel and the sport generates revenue. Aside from that, I think you're right that we'll see different conferences for non-revenue sports.

---

You definitely could and should for logistical reasons, but I think one of the reasons the B1G wants UCLA is for the basketball TV contract.

---

Certainly it was not for their crappy football team which hasn't seen a Rose Bowl since Hector was a pup.

---

They were 8-4 (6-3) last year. #28 in Sagarin. Invited to the Holiday Bowl. That would be a banner year for us. Tedford in his heyday. They have SIX 4-star players coming in including Justyn Martin who looks great and I was hoping would be our savior.

If they are crappy, what are we? Something far worse?

---

Yes, something far far worse.

Sucks about Martin, because I, too, thought he could turn this program around. We shall see.

---

The loss to the bear runts was bad, but there were plenty of games last year (Nevada, TCU, Washington, Wazzu, Oregon, Arizona) where we could have flipped the script and we're looking at a much different outlook. Hell we had a decent shot in every game last year with the exception of the stinker in Westwood.

---

We had a senior laden team and the easiest schedule I can remember in a very down year for the PAC-12 powers, with no game against Utah. Last year was Wilcox's best chance for a breakthrough. This year is probably his last chance.

---

We've still got plenty of really good players with experience. 'Course, I said that last year, but COVID/CoB. In fact, if Plummer had been here last year, we would have won most of those games. I think he'll be good and much more suited to the O.

Until we win more games and show good passing doing so, we're not getting the Martin's or the Rashada's. Maybe the Portal will become our qb pipeline. Except for NIL.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

juarezbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Pac-12 commish George Kliavkoff told me he's confident remaining members will sign a new Grant of Rights: "They'll sign as soon as I have a deal in front of them that they want to sign up for." Sources told @ActionNetworkHQ they expect new Pac-12 media rights deal to be 5-6 years

— Brett McMurphy (@Brett_McMurphy) July 29, 2022

Wishful thinking by Kliavkoff if he thinks Oregon, Washington, Stanford or Arizona are going to sign a Grant of Rights.

---

Read his statement again. It is a tautology. He said they will sign when he gets a deal in front of them that they want to sign.

---

Exactly. The key words are THAT THEY WANT TO SIGN....basically means he needs to somehow negotiate a package that would deliver north of $50M/yr for several years, or I don't think Cal, Furd, UW, and UO will sign. Frankly, if he somehow pulls together a highly lucrative package, some of these teams might be better off staying with the Pac once one takes into account all of the travel expenses - especially for non-revenue sports.

---

A coast to coast superconference only really makes sense for football if at all. I think we will see non-revenue sports eventually parked in regional conferences.

---

I agree, but couldn't you also do it for men's basketball? After all, the teams are small enough to easily travel and the sport generates revenue. Aside from that, I think you're right that we'll see different conferences for non-revenue sports.

---

You definitely could and should for logistical reasons, but I think one of the reasons the B1G wants UCLA is for the basketball TV contract.

---

Certainly it was not for their crappy football team which hasn't seen a Rose Bowl since Hector was a pup.

---

They were 8-4 (6-3) last year. #28 in Sagarin. Invited to the Holiday Bowl. That would be a banner year for us. Tedford in his heyday. They have SIX 4-star players coming in including Justyn Martin who looks great and I was hoping would be our savior.

If they are crappy, what are we? Something far worse?

---

Yes, something far far worse.

Sucks about Martin, because I, too, thought he could turn this program around. We shall see.

---

The loss to the bear runts was bad, but there were plenty of games last year (Nevada, TCU, Washington, Wazzu, Oregon, Arizona) where we could have flipped the script and we're looking at a much different outlook. Hell we had a decent shot in every game last year with the exception of the stinker in Westwood.

---

We had a senior laden team and the easiest schedule I can remember in a very down year for the PAC-12 powers, with no game against Utah. Last year was Wilcox's best chance for a breakthrough. This year is probably his last chance.

---

We've still got plenty of really good players with experience. 'Course, I said that last year, but COVID/CoB. In fact, if Plummer had been here last year, we would have won most of those games. I think he'll be good and much more suited to the O.

Until we win more games and show good passing doing so, we're not getting the Martin's or the Rashada's. Maybe the Portal will become our qb pipeline. Except for NIL.

---

I hope you are right, but Garbers had a 132 career passing rating, Plummer has a 136 but is not as good of a runner. Maybe a Purdue had a worse line and worse talent at WR? We'll see soon enough.

---

Despite his stats, he just didn't look like a qb and didn't pass like one. Good leadership, good scramble/run, but hesitant and late. Why? I don't know. Internal disbelieve in himself, maybe?

You want a kid who will stand up and fling it with authority. Plummer is more that kid.

---

BearGreg said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I hope you are right, but Garbers had a 132 career passing rating, Plummer has a 136 but is not as good of a runner. Maybe a Purdue had a worse line and worse talent at WR? We'll see soon enough.

---

I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

Plummer got a ton of snaps as a Freshman starter and posted a 124 rating before getting hurt. His Sophomore year, after recovering from his injury, he started the last three games and posted a 152 rating. Last year, he won the job in Camp and started the first four games with a 142 rating.

Garbers meanwhile went 119 in his first year, then 149 in his second before slipping back to 120 as a Junior and then 136 last year.

Plummer and Aidan O'Connell competed every year in Purdue. Plummer beat him out as a Freshman, then while recovering from injury lost his job to him prior to the Sophomore year before beating Aidan out again to end his Sophomore year, he then beat him out one more time entering last year before giving way to O'Connell after leading Purdue to a 3-1 start to the season.

While Plummer has seen far fewer games and snaps than Garbers had entering his fourth year, he is statistically IMO way ahead of Chase. The film reviews demonstrate that even more markedly. And finally, Plummer's Spring performance this year was far better than any Spring performance Chase had while in Berkeley.

---

BearGreg said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I hope you are right, but Garbers had a 132 career passing rating, Plummer has a 136 but is not as good of a runner. Maybe a Purdue had a worse line and worse talent at WR? We'll see soon enough.

---

I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

Plummer got a ton of snaps as a Freshman starter and posted a 124 rating before getting hurt. His Sophomore year, after recovering from his injury, he started the last three games and posted a 152 rating. Last year, he won the job in Camp and started the first four games with a 142 rating.

Garbers meanwhile went 119 in his first year, then 149 in his second before slipping back to 120 as a Junior and then 136 last year.

Plummer and Aidan O'Connell competed every year in Purdue. Plummer beat him out as a Freshman, then while recovering from injury lost his job to him prior to the Sophomore year before beating Aidan out again to end his Sophomore year, he then beat him out one more time entering last year before giving way to O'Connell after leading Purdue to a 3-1 start to the season.

While Plummer has seen far fewer games and snaps than Garbers had entering his fourth year, he is statistically IMO way ahead of Chase. The film reviews demonstrate that even more markedly. And finally, Plummer's Spring performance this year was far better than any Spring performance Chase had while in Berkeley.

---

BearGreg said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I hope you are right, but Garbers had a 132 career passing rating, Plummer has a 136 but is not as good of a runner. Maybe a Purdue had a worse line and worse talent at WR? We'll see soon enough.

---

I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

Plummer got a ton of snaps as a Freshman starter and posted a 124 rating before getting hurt. His Sophomore year, after recovering from his injury, he started the last three games and posted a 152 rating. Last year, he won the job in Camp and started the first four games with a 142 rating.

Garbers meanwhile went 119 in his first year, then 149 in his second before slipping back to 120 as a Junior and then 136 last year.

Plummer and Aidan O'Connell competed every year in Purdue. Plummer beat him out as a Freshman, then while recovering from injury lost his job to him prior to the Sophomore year before beating Aidan out again to end his Sophomore year, he then beat him out one more time entering last year before giving way to O'Connell after leading Purdue to a 3-1 start to the season.

While Plummer has seen far fewer games and snaps than Garbers had entering his fourth year, he is statistically IMO way ahead of Chase. The film reviews demonstrate that even more markedly. And finally, Plummer's Spring performance this year was far better than any Spring performance Chase had while in Berkeley.

---

fat_slice said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I hope you are right, but Garbers had a 132 career passing rating, Plummer has a 136 but is not as good of a runner. Maybe a Purdue had a worse line and worse talent at WR? We'll see soon enough.

---

I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

Plummer got a ton of snaps as a Freshman starter and posted a 124 rating before getting hurt. His Sophomore year, after recovering from his injury, he started the last three games and posted a 152 rating. Last year, he won the job in Camp and started the first four games with a 142 rating.

Garbers meanwhile went 119 in his first year, then 149 in his second before slipping back to 120 as a Junior and then 136 last year.

Plummer and Aidan O'Connell competed every year in Purdue. Plummer beat him out as a Freshman, then while recovering from injury lost his job to him prior to the Sophomore year before beating Aidan out again to end his Sophomore year, he then beat him out one more time entering last year before giving way to O'Connell after leading Purdue to a 3-1 start to the season.

While Plummer has seen far fewer games and snaps than Garbers had entering his fourth year, he is statistically IMO way ahead of Chase. The film reviews demonstrate that even more markedly. And finally, Plummer's Spring performance this year was far better than any Spring performance Chase had while in Berkeley.

---

So why do sportswriters keep ranking hi like 9th or 10th best in the pac-10? Or is he just better than Garbers but still a subpar qb?

---

movielover said:

---

How is WR crew looking?

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

movielover said:

---

How is WR crew looking?

---

Super Sophomores, all!

---

Realignment latest: Full circle from beginning to end of Big Ten latest media rights power play…Importance of “4th window” for P12/ESPN…Anti-trust concerns if @bigten, @sec grow too big … Looks like Cal, Ore, Stan, UW to B10 is cooling. https://t.co/BseoyZCYY9

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) August 3, 2022

BigDaddy said:

---

Realignment latest: Full circle from beginning to end of Big Ten latest media rights power play…Importance of “4th window” for P12/ESPN…Anti-trust concerns if @bigten, @sec grow too big … Looks like Cal, Ore, Stan, UW to B10 is cooling. https://t.co/BseoyZCYY9

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) August 3, 2022

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

BigDaddy said:

---

Realignment latest: Full circle from beginning to end of Big Ten latest media rights power play…Importance of “4th window” for P12/ESPN…Anti-trust concerns if @bigten, @sec grow too big … Looks like Cal, Ore, Stan, UW to B10 is cooling. https://t.co/BseoyZCYY9

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) August 3, 2022

---

Is this your way of admitting you were wrong for the last few weeks in claiming that the B1G had no interest in Cal and no reason to have any interest? Sounds like there was plenty of interest and there still might be, although antitrust concerns may weigh heavily.

---

fat_slice said:

---

If interest has cooled, the remaining PAC members should not schedule USC or UCLA. Yes a revenue a front gate revenue hit for us but we can force them to bear an even larger travel burden.

We should only be open to scheduling UCLA if they give us a share of their revenue.

---

philbert said:

---

As Pawlawski said during an interview on Sirius XM, Garbers was a great first read QB but he wasn't very good if his first read wasn't available. Basically, he ran because he wasn't very good at going through all of his progressions and when he did use his safety valve receiver, he often wasn't accurate.

Pawlawski also said that Plummer was much better at going through his progressions when he looked at his Purdue film and spring practice.

---

dimitrig said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I hope you are right, but Garbers had a 132 career passing rating, Plummer has a 136 but is not as good of a runner. Maybe a Purdue had a worse line and worse talent at WR? We'll see soon enough.

---

I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

Plummer got a ton of snaps as a Freshman starter and posted a 124 rating before getting hurt. His Sophomore year, after recovering from his injury, he started the last three games and posted a 152 rating. Last year, he won the job in Camp and started the first four games with a 142 rating.

Garbers meanwhile went 119 in his first year, then 149 in his second before slipping back to 120 as a Junior and then 136 last year.

Plummer and Aidan O'Connell competed every year in Purdue. Plummer beat him out as a Freshman, then while recovering from injury lost his job to him prior to the Sophomore year before beating Aidan out again to end his Sophomore year, he then beat him out one more time entering last year before giving way to O'Connell after leading Purdue to a 3-1 start to the season.

While Plummer has seen far fewer games and snaps than Garbers had entering his fourth year, he is statistically IMO way ahead of Chase. The film reviews demonstrate that even more markedly. And finally, Plummer's Spring performance this year was far better than any Spring performance Chase had while in Berkeley.

---

Yes, Looking at his stats, he had GREAT, GREAT games against Oregon State and UConn and played fairly well against Notre Dame before faltering and losing the starting position against Illinois.

The big question in my mind will be pass protection and even more importantly Musgrave's utilization of the run game (hopefully Ott kills it) and play-action to put Plummer in a position to succeed. Because if the play calling is predictable and vanilla again and pass rushers can continue to tee off on obvious pass plays, I'm doubtful Plummer can be as effective as he was in Spring practice.

---

Plummer has a quicker trigger, better accuracy and a little stronger arm. Those things are what we have needed since Webb. He'll be as good..

---

realignment swallows all other discussions, but I want to get back to Plummer again.

my concern about Plummer:

He might be slightly better passer than Garbers, BUT...

1. he will have less experience with his teammates and coaches
2. he will be operating with less experienced and arguably less talented RBs and WRs
3. our OL looks less talented and experienced, with less depth

and the big one for me...

he is way less a running threat compared to Garbers

Garbers dual-threat was huge for our offense, as teams always needed to account for his run. Defenses couldn't pin their ears back and attack. They needed to keep a spy on him and/or keep contain

Many of our key plays and explosive plays were from his running

His scrambling not only kept plays alive, but often resulted in considerable gains. The alternative is the QB throws risky passes while they are scrambling, or more often just throw the ball out of bounds

---

I think Garbers was too quick to start running. Yes, he made some plays but I want to see a QB throwing the ball unless his name is Michael Vick.

---

berserkeley said:

---

But the article comes from the same writer who reported that the B1G was considering adding Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington so that's not great for us.

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Exactly
I hope you are right, but Garbers had a 132 career passing rating, Plummer has a 136 but is not as good of a runner. Maybe a Purdue had a worse line and worse talent at WR? We'll see soon enough.

---

I think the trend line in their development is another relevant way of interpreting the stats.

Plummer got a ton of snaps as a Freshman starter and posted a 124 rating before getting hurt. His Sophomore year, after recovering from his injury, he started the last three games and posted a 152 rating. Last year, he won the job in Camp and started the first four games with a 142 rating.

Garbers meanwhile went 119 in his first year, then 149 in his second before slipping back to 120 as a Junior and then 136 last year.

Plummer and Aidan O'Connell competed every year in Purdue. Plummer beat him out as a Freshman, then while recovering from injury lost his job to him prior to the Sophomore year before beating Aidan out again to end his Sophomore year, he then beat him out one more time entering last year before giving way to O'Connell after leading Purdue to a 3-1 start to the season.

While Plummer has seen far fewer games and snaps than Garbers had entering his fourth year, he is statistically IMO way ahead of Chase. The film reviews demonstrate that even more markedly. And finally, Plummer's Spring performance this year was far better than any Spring performance Chase had while in Berkeley.

---

Yes, Looking at his stats, he had GREAT, GREAT games against Oregon State and UConn and played fairly well against Notre Dame before faltering and losing the starting position against Illinois.

The big question in my mind will be pass protection and even more importantly Musgrave's utilization of the run game (hopefully Ott kills it) and play-action to put Plummer in a position to succeed. Because if the play calling is predictable and vanilla again and pass rushers can continue to tee off on obvious pass plays, I'm doubtful Plummer can be as effective as he was in Spring practice.

---

Plummer has a quicker trigger, better accuracy and a little stronger arm. Those things are what we have needed since Webb. He'll be as good..

---

realignment swallows all other discussions, but I want to get back to Plummer again.

my concern about Plummer:

He might be slightly better passer than Garbers, BUT...

1. he will have less experience with his teammates and coaches
2. he will be operating with less experienced and arguably less talented RBs and WRs
3. our OL looks less talented and experienced, with less depth

and the big one for me...

he is way less a running threat compared to Garbers

Garbers dual-threat was huge for our offense, as teams always needed to account for his run. Defenses couldn't pin their ears back and attack. They needed to keep a spy on him and/or keep contain

Many of our key plays and explosive plays were from his running

His scrambling not only kept plays alive, but often resulted in considerable gains. The alternative is the QB throws risky passes while they are scrambling, or more often just throw the ball out of bounds

---

I think Garbers was too quick to start running. Yes, he made some plays but I want to see a QB throwing the ball unless his name is Michael Vick.

---

Musgrave tried to turn Garbers into a pocket passer for the 2020 and half of the 2021 season and it was a disaster. He was a piñata behind our porous line and vanilla running schemes. We (and Garbers) were MUCH better when he got the green light to run when WRs were covered and a running lane opened up. That in turn helped WRs get open as defenses had to have a safety spy on him.

---

LTbear said:

---

berserkeley said:

---

But the article comes from the same writer who reported that the B1G was considering adding Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington so that's not great for us.

---

I don't remember Dodd saying that, just McMurphy.

---

David's article reminds me:

The Big Ten had an odd number of teams for decades, so maybe Notre Dame wouldn't require a partner *if* the move ever comes. https://t.co/DWiuKXzPa2

— Jon Wilner (@wilnerhotline) August 4, 2022