calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are moving towards quarterbacks who are more athletic and so height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be (still a plus, though). The thing is, even a "dual threat" quarterback needs to have "quarterback passing skills" which include more than just a strong arm and a pretty pass. They need to be great decision-makers (processing information) and they need to find the most open receiver under pressure.

Goff is great at moving around within the pocket and finding his receivers, then getting them the ball. Job One for a QB!

---

I loved the offense the Rams used to run with Goff that featured running Gurley mostly outside the tackles and every pass began with play action to Gurley and mostly Goff bootlegs with easy throws to Cooper Kupp and the TE underneath mixed/in with deeper shots to the WRs when the above opened that up.

Seems like what we should be running. Ott, Ifanse, Stredick and the Jett are the heart of our offense, but (well, other than Ifanse) we need to get our speed backs outside the tackle box in space. And Jackson needs to be going in the other direction for bootlegs and keepers.

---

In your dream world, Jackson is half as accurate as Goff. But Jackson misses wide open receivers while rolling out with plenty of time to throw. Where is the "upside" with an inaccurate passer? Some experts say inaccuracy is incurable. I don't necessarily agree with that. But the level of inaccuracy is concerning to me and enough that I think Mendoza should be given a chance. I think he is more accurate. But I'm sure his confidence is at an all time low at this point since the fans and coaches have dog-housed him for absolutely no reason other than that Jackson has "upside".

---

Nobody doghoused Mendoza. He had been third string QB. That's all. Jackson still hasn't lost the job. If we are getting blown out in a game he actually starts, we should see what Mendoza can do.

---

At this point we are 3-0 with Jackson as a starter and we have outscored 4 opponents and tied the fifth with him in the game.

---

Lmao, this **** again.

---

Sure ignore the rest of my post that elaborates on that statement.

Do you really think someone else should be starting?

If Jackson is our best bet at QB, why not root for him?

---

Yeah I think Jackson should be starting, so do most Cal fans. You don't need to cherry pick meaningless stats with no context over and over again to defend Jackson against, well, nobody. He's a subpar QB right now and likely the best we have. Both things can be true.

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are moving towards quarterbacks who are more athletic and so height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be (still a plus, though). The thing is, even a "dual threat" quarterback needs to have "quarterback passing skills" which include more than just a strong arm and a pretty pass. They need to be great decision-makers (processing information) and they need to find the most open receiver under pressure.

Goff is great at moving around within the pocket and finding his receivers, then getting them the ball. Job One for a QB!

---

I loved the offense the Rams used to run with Goff that featured running Gurley mostly outside the tackles and every pass began with play action to Gurley and mostly Goff bootlegs with easy throws to Cooper Kupp and the TE underneath mixed/in with deeper shots to the WRs when the above opened that up.

Seems like what we should be running. Ott, Ifanse, Stredick and the Jett are the heart of our offense, but (well, other than Ifanse) we need to get our speed backs outside the tackle box in space. And Jackson needs to be going in the other direction for bootlegs and keepers.

---

In your dream world, Jackson is half as accurate as Goff. But Jackson misses wide open receivers while rolling out with plenty of time to throw. Where is the "upside" with an inaccurate passer? Some experts say inaccuracy is incurable. I don't necessarily agree with that. But the level of inaccuracy is concerning to me and enough that I think Mendoza should be given a chance. I think he is more accurate. But I'm sure his confidence is at an all time low at this point since the fans and coaches have dog-housed him for absolutely no reason other than that Jackson has "upside".

---

Nobody doghoused Mendoza. He had been third string QB. That's all. Jackson still hasn't lost the job. If we are getting blown out in a game he actually starts, we should see what Mendoza can do.

---

At this point we are 3-0 with Jackson as a starter and we have outscored 4 opponents and tied the fifth with him in the game.

---

Lmao, this **** again.

---

Sure ignore the rest of my post that elaborates on that statement.

Do you really think someone else should be starting?

If Jackson is our best bet at QB, why not root for him?

---

Yeah I think Jackson should be starting, so do most Cal fans. You don't need to cherry pick meaningless stats with no context over and over again to defend Jackson against, well, nobody. He's a subpar QB right now and likely the best we have. Both things can be true.

---

Who do you think "I miss tall drop back QBs…" was directed against? It echos a poster who said they don't like "short, athletic" QBs.

Other than debating who should be starting, I do not understand the need some people have to attack the players in a public forum. That is different than discussing their strengths and deficiencies and ways they might improve, or ways our coaches might better use them or game plan or yes, even how another player might give the team a better chance and should start.

I agree "he is our best option" and "our schedule gets tougher and he needs to play better than he has so far if we are going to win more games" (paraphrasing) are not mutually exclusive.

Would we beat any of the ranked PAC-12 teams with Plummer. And wouldn't everyone still have the same state of unhappiness that has persisted since Holme?

calumnus said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Literally did that last year. Plummer is 6'5" and was playing in Musgrave's pro style offense. The whole college game has been trending heavily towards tempo, air raid style spread offenses with mobile QBs.

We have that now and the coaches also understand that in the era of portal transfers the offense needs to be simpler so new
players can learn it quickly. This allows you to get your most talented players on the field fastest.

The thing about the guys that you listed is not height or system. It is talent. Most, if not all of those guys have NFL quality talent.

---

People focus on the QB but the biggest issue is we would need to build a great OL FIRST. Kinda like Jonathan Smith did at OSU. Plummer was tall enough and had the arm talent. The analysis of his play at Purdue, Cal and now Louisville is he is great when he has a clean pocket but is bad when he doesn't. And at Cal he mostly didn't.

---

Offensive line is very important. But quality QB is mandatory is we are going to have any level of success.

Look around this conference… Caleb, Nix, Penix, Sanders. Etc

You literally can't win without quality QB. The utes badly miss cam rising, and they have one of the best offensive lines in the conference (country?)

Wilcox can't find a viable qb in the portal and can't recruit and develop one either. Until we do, we are going to struggle mightily.

dmh65 said:

---

GoBears72 said:

---

Craig Morton
Vince Ferragamo
Steve Bartkowski
Joe Roth
Troy Taylor
Rich Campbell
Pat Barnes
Kyle Boller
Nate Longshore
Jared Goff

What is preventing us from going in this direction?

---

I find It amusing that you seem to have forgotten A. A. Ron Rodgers. He must've hurt your feels.

---

He said tall. Rodgers was considered short in his day. (Yes, he's the same height as Brett Favre and Steve Young, but still....)

Cal Strong! said:

---

Jack Plummer is currently 5-0 and the captain of a ranked college football team.

Does he have an NFL future? Maybe, but probably not. Maybe as an UFA, or as a 7th round or possibly a 6th round pick at best.

Is he capable of leading a team to a bunch of wins and a spot in the rankings? Manifestly yes.

The Air Raid is no longer a trend really. But it can certainly still score points.

A multiple pro-style offense can do the same.

It just depends on the players and coaches.

---

Just goes to show you anyone can be successful in the ACC. Looking forward to it.

burritos said:

---

Would we beat any of the ranked PAC-12 teams with Plummer. And wouldn't everyone still have the same state of unhappiness that has persisted since Holme?

---

We had Plummer all last year (fitting the OP's criterion) and our only wins were UC Davis, UNLV, Arizona and Stanford at home. I don't know why the OP misses that

calumnus said:

---

burritos said:

---

Would we beat any of the ranked PAC-12 teams with Plummer. And wouldn't everyone still have the same state of unhappiness that has persisted since Holme?

---

We had Plummer all last year (fitting the OP's criterion) and our only wins were UC Davis, UNLV, Arizona and Stanford at home. I don't know why the OP misses that

---

For starters, our OL was horrible. Even more telling we had an OC whose play calling was predictably limited to runs up the middle and passes to the sideline. Craig Morton, Steve Bartkowski, Joe Roth, Aaron Rodgers, Jared Goff, et. al. would not have been successful in that offense.

By the way, the OP surprisingly forgot a tall strong-armed and smart QB who was the first to win 2 consecutive bowl games: Mike Pawlawski.

calumnus said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Literally did that last year. Plummer is 6'5" and was playing in Musgrave's pro style offense. The whole college game has been trending heavily towards tempo, air raid style spread offenses with mobile QBs.

We have that now and the coaches also understand that in the era of portal transfers the offense needs to be simpler so new
players can learn it quickly. This allows you to get your most talented players on the field fastest.

The thing about the guys that you listed is not height or system. It is talent. Most, if not all of those guys have NFL quality talent.

---

People focus on the QB but the biggest issue is we would need to build a great OL FIRST. Kinda like Jonathan Smith did at OSU. Plummer was tall enough and had the arm talent. The analysis of his play at Purdue, Cal and now Louisville is he is great when he has a clean pocket but is bad when he doesn't. And at Cal he mostly didn't.

---

I think the issue is we need to build an AD first.

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are moving towards quarterbacks who are more athletic and so height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be (still a plus, though). The thing is, even a "dual threat" quarterback needs to have "quarterback passing skills" which include more than just a strong arm and a pretty pass. They need to be great decision-makers (processing information) and they need to find the most open receiver under pressure.

Goff is great at moving around within the pocket and finding his receivers, then getting them the ball. Job One for a QB!

---

I loved the offense the Rams used to run with Goff that featured running Gurley mostly outside the tackles and every pass began with play action to Gurley and mostly Goff bootlegs with easy throws to Cooper Kupp and the TE underneath mixed/in with deeper shots to the WRs when the above opened that up.

Seems like what we should be running. Ott, Ifanse, Stredick and the Jett are the heart of our offense, but (well, other than Ifanse) we need to get our speed backs outside the tackle box in space. And Jackson needs to be going in the other direction for bootlegs and keepers.

---

In your dream world, Jackson is half as accurate as Goff. But Jackson misses wide open receivers while rolling out with plenty of time to throw. Where is the "upside" with an inaccurate passer? Some experts say inaccuracy is incurable. I don't necessarily agree with that. But the level of inaccuracy is concerning to me and enough that I think Mendoza should be given a chance. I think he is more accurate. But I'm sure his confidence is at an all time low at this point since the fans and coaches have dog-housed him for absolutely no reason other than that Jackson has "upside".

---

Nobody doghoused Mendoza. He had been third string QB. That's all. Jackson still hasn't lost the job. If we are getting blown out in a game he actually starts, we should see what Mendoza can do.

---

At this point we are 3-0 with Jackson as a starter and we have outscored 4 opponents and tied the fifth with him in the game.

---

Lmao, this **** again.

---

Sure ignore the rest of my post that elaborates on that statement.

Do you really think someone else should be starting?

If Jackson is our best bet at QB, why not root for him?

---

Yeah I think Jackson should be starting, so do most Cal fans. You don't need to cherry pick meaningless stats with no context over and over again to defend Jackson against, well, nobody. He's a subpar QB right now and likely the best we have. Both things can be true.

---

Yeah. What we've all been agreeing on without actually saying it is that we don't have any QB good enough to compete in most of the remaining games on the schedule. This weekend should wake the "upside" folks up to that reality. But I suppose that, if we are to pull an upset it would be Saturday or maybe WSU. Otherwise it's Furd and another 4 win season. In any case, we should see what we have in Jackson Saturday night.

"eah, when Ott has had enough running up the middle and they bring in Ifanse, move Ott out to slot receiver. Then, either get him the ball in space, or his very presence out there loosens things up everywhere else!"

?send him over the middle, a real; mismatch with LBs

not sure why we don't go more over the middle, does the QB just not look there?? or are the plays designed to go elsewhere

So apparently, "short & athletic" is one of only two combinations available. If you want tall, then you don't get athletic. So instead of "tall & non-athletic," we picked the only other option of "short & athletic. Weird how there are ZERO tall athletic QBs out there.

I'm really glad I now understand why we chose a 5' 9" QB.

Oakbear said:

---

"eah, when Ott has had enough running up the middle and they bring in Ifanse, move Ott out to slot receiver. Then, either get him the ball in space, or his very presence out there loosens things up everywhere else!"

?send him over the middle, a real; mismatch with LBs

not sure why we don't go more over the middle, does the QB just not look there?? or are the plays designed to go elsewhere

---

Ben Finley threw to the middle. He also was intercepted quite a bit.

bearister said:

---

Nate thanks you for inclusion on your list.

When the world ends and an atomic conflagration envelopes the earth, only two species are going to crawl out of the ashes:

Cockroaches and Ben Roethlisberger.

*You have to love a QB that is a beast of a man (6'5 245 lbs) that could volunteer as a test crash dummy all day Saturday and then show up on Sunday to throw for 400 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT and get the win.

---

I couldn't stand Ben either, coackroach, on top of the Steelers style of play.

upsetof86 said:

---

bearister said:

---

Nate thanks you for inclusion on your list.

When the world ends and an atomic conflagration envelopes the earth, only two species are going to crawl out of the ashes:

Cockroaches and Ben Roethlisberger.

*You have to love a QB that is a beast of a man (6'5 245 lbs) that could volunteer as a test crash dummy all day Saturday and then show up on Sunday to throw for 400 yards, 4 TD, 2 INT and get the win.

---

I couldn't stand Ben either, coackroach, on top of the Steelers style of play.

---

Kimo von Owlhoffen, criminal
Hines Ward, cockroach

Don't forget the great Brock Mansion--he was a drop back, tall (6'5"), pro style Golden Bear QB. And while it sadly turned out he didn't have an NFL future after getting some starts in his sophomore year, he did have a most excellent studly name.

GoBears72 said:

---

Craig Morton
Vince Ferragamo
Steve Bartkowski
Joe Roth
Troy Taylor
Rich Campbell
Pat Barnes
Kyle Boller
Nate Longshore
Jared Goff

What is preventing us from going in this direction?

---

have you scanned the college or pro landscape? Doesn't seem like you have. Watch the Texas and Oklahoma game today, or maybe a Washington st game?

cal83dls79 said:

---

GoBears72 said:

---

Craig Morton
Vince Ferragamo
Steve Bartkowski
Joe Roth
Troy Taylor
Rich Campbell
Pat Barnes
Kyle Boller
Nate Longshore
Jared Goff

What is preventing us from going in this direction?

---

have you scanned the college or pro landscape? Doesn't seem like you have. Watch the Texas and Oklahoma game today, or maybe a Washington st game?

---

I watched some if that game and kept expecting to see a Royal vs Switzer wishbone contest

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

burritos said:

---

Would we beat any of the ranked PAC-12 teams with Plummer. And wouldn't everyone still have the same state of unhappiness that has persisted since Holme?

---

We had Plummer all last year (fitting the OP's criterion) and our only wins were UC Davis, UNLV, Arizona and Stanford at home. I don't know why the OP misses that

---

For starters, our OL was horrible. Even more telling we had an OC whose play calling was predictably limited to runs up the middle and passes to the sideline. Craig Morton, Steve Bartkowski, Joe Roth, Aaron Rodgers, Jared Goff, et. al. would not have been successful in that offense.

By the way, the OP surprisingly forgot a tall strong-armed and smart QB who was the first to win 2 consecutive bowl games: Mike Pawlawski.

---

Interestingly, Mendoza's play against OSU reminds me of Pawlawski a little bit.

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are moving towards quarterbacks who are more athletic and so height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be (still a plus, though). The thing is, even a "dual threat" quarterback needs to have "quarterback passing skills" which include more than just a strong arm and a pretty pass. They need to be great decision-makers (processing information) and they need to find the most open receiver under pressure.

Goff is great at moving around within the pocket and finding his receivers, then getting them the ball. Job One for a QB!

---

I loved the offense the Rams used to run with Goff that featured running Gurley mostly outside the tackles and every pass began with play action to Gurley and mostly Goff bootlegs with easy throws to Cooper Kupp and the TE underneath mixed/in with deeper shots to the WRs when the above opened that up.

Seems like what we should be running. Ott, Ifanse, Stredick and the Jett are the heart of our offense, but (well, other than Ifanse) we need to get our speed backs outside the tackle box in space. And Jackson needs to be going in the other direction for bootlegs and keepers.

---

In your dream world, Jackson is half as accurate as Goff. But Jackson misses wide open receivers while rolling out with plenty of time to throw. Where is the "upside" with an inaccurate passer? Some experts say inaccuracy is incurable. I don't necessarily agree with that. But the level of inaccuracy is concerning to me and enough that I think Mendoza should be given a chance. I think he is more accurate. But I'm sure his confidence is at an all time low at this point since the fans and coaches have dog-housed him for absolutely no reason other than that Jackson has "upside".

---

Nobody doghoused Mendoza. He had been third string QB. That's all. Jackson still hasn't lost the job. If we are getting blown out in a game he actually starts, we should see what Mendoza can do.

---

At this point we are 3-0 with Jackson as a starter and we have outscored 4 opponents and tied the fifth with him in the game.

---

Lmao, this **** again.

---

Sure ignore the rest of my post that elaborates on that statement.

Do you really think someone else should be starting?

If Jackson is our best bet at QB, why not root for him?

---

If Mendoza is our best QB why not root for him?

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are moving towards quarterbacks who are more athletic and so height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be (still a plus, though). The thing is, even a "dual threat" quarterback needs to have "quarterback passing skills" which include more than just a strong arm and a pretty pass. They need to be great decision-makers (processing information) and they need to find the most open receiver under pressure.

Goff is great at moving around within the pocket and finding his receivers, then getting them the ball. Job One for a QB!

---

I loved the offense the Rams used to run with Goff that featured running Gurley mostly outside the tackles and every pass began with play action to Gurley and mostly Goff bootlegs with easy throws to Cooper Kupp and the TE underneath mixed/in with deeper shots to the WRs when the above opened that up.

Seems like what we should be running. Ott, Ifanse, Stredick and the Jett are the heart of our offense, but (well, other than Ifanse) we need to get our speed backs outside the tackle box in space. And Jackson needs to be going in the other direction for bootlegs and keepers.

---

In your dream world, Jackson is half as accurate as Goff. But Jackson misses wide open receivers while rolling out with plenty of time to throw. Where is the "upside" with an inaccurate passer? Some experts say inaccuracy is incurable. I don't necessarily agree with that. But the level of inaccuracy is concerning to me and enough that I think Mendoza should be given a chance. I think he is more accurate. But I'm sure his confidence is at an all time low at this point since the fans and coaches have dog-housed him for absolutely no reason other than that Jackson has "upside".

---

Nobody doghoused Mendoza. He had been third string QB. That's all. Jackson still hasn't lost the job. If we are getting blown out in a game he actually starts, we should see what Mendoza can do.

---

At this point we are 3-0 with Jackson as a starter and we have outscored 4 opponents and tied the fifth with him in the game.

---

Lmao, this **** again.

---

Sure ignore the rest of my post that elaborates on that statement.

Do you really think someone else should be starting?

If Jackson is our best bet at QB, why not root for him?

---

If Mendoza is our best QB why not root for him?

---

I am rooting for him! I had a good feeling about him when we recruited him but this is the first real game time he has gotten. He looked really good today. Plus, unlike Finley, I can see a lot of upside with him. Strong arm, decent mobility, good decision making. I like his moxy.

I do think you were way too harsh on Jackson, especially after games he played well in even nearly perfectly like UW, but I have no problem saying Mendoza should be #1 next week and assuming continued progress be the starter here on out.

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

We are moving towards quarterbacks who are more athletic and so height is not as much of an advantage as it used to be (still a plus, though). The thing is, even a "dual threat" quarterback needs to have "quarterback passing skills" which include more than just a strong arm and a pretty pass. They need to be great decision-makers (processing information) and they need to find the most open receiver under pressure.

Goff is great at moving around within the pocket and finding his receivers, then getting them the ball. Job One for a QB!

---

I loved the offense the Rams used to run with Goff that featured running Gurley mostly outside the tackles and every pass began with play action to Gurley and mostly Goff bootlegs with easy throws to Cooper Kupp and the TE underneath mixed/in with deeper shots to the WRs when the above opened that up.

Seems like what we should be running. Ott, Ifanse, Stredick and the Jett are the heart of our offense, but (well, other than Ifanse) we need to get our speed backs outside the tackle box in space. And Jackson needs to be going in the other direction for bootlegs and keepers.

---

In your dream world, Jackson is half as accurate as Goff. But Jackson misses wide open receivers while rolling out with plenty of time to throw. Where is the "upside" with an inaccurate passer? Some experts say inaccuracy is incurable. I don't necessarily agree with that. But the level of inaccuracy is concerning to me and enough that I think Mendoza should be given a chance. I think he is more accurate. But I'm sure his confidence is at an all time low at this point since the fans and coaches have dog-housed him for absolutely no reason other than that Jackson has "upside".

---

Nobody doghoused Mendoza. He had been third string QB. That's all. Jackson still hasn't lost the job. If we are getting blown out in a game he actually starts, we should see what Mendoza can do.

---

At this point we are 3-0 with Jackson as a starter and we have outscored 4 opponents and tied the fifth with him in the game.

---

Lmao, this **** again.

---

Sure ignore the rest of my post that elaborates on that statement.

Do you really think someone else should be starting?

If Jackson is our best bet at QB, why not root for him?

---

If Mendoza is our best QB why not root for him?

---

I am rooting for him!

---

I saw that after I posted.
My apologies
Ironically, I didn't even realize Mendoza was the starter and was complaining to my friend that Finley was starting instead of Mendoza. It wasn't until later I figured it out. Mendoza did start out a bit like Finley but it was clear that his ball had more zip and he was making better decisions with the ball. It's unfortunate that he threw that pick and who knows how the game ends up otherwise but lets hope he learns and improves.