I'm surprised nobody has posted this, but hey.

Thoughts?

It's good that the process seems fluid, it kind of belies the unfair fan criticism of JT as displaying favoritism. At this point no QB has a significant edge in experience, so it makes sense that things get settled during practice.

I wonder if any of the current freshmen will be in the mix, who's 4th in the depth chart? is Bridgford back or is it still Wertenberger, and will Hinder be part of the mix next year?

More information from the Oakland Tribune.

I think this all corroborates what we've been hearing in practice about Mansion slowly regaining his form, no?

if next year's qb isn't either Bridgeford or Maynard.

UrsaMajor;405114 said:

---

if next year's qb isn't either Bridgeford or Maynard.

---

That would be my bet as well.

BGGB2;405119 said:

---

That would be my bet as well.

---

Not only do I bet on it, I'm hoping for it.

StillNoStanfurdium;405138 said:

---

Not only do I bet on it, I'm hoping for it.

---

Not to pick on you personally, but the old joke that "the most popular guy on campus is the #2 QB" has been taken to new levels at Cal. Here, the most popular guy is the QB who's never taken the field.

Let's see what he does the rest of the way, and especially in the spring. It is going to be bad enough going with an inexperienced QB next year. Since that is going to happen, it might be just as well, all other thing being equal, to have someone who has been intensively studying the system which is apparently so complex that only a Cal scholar can learn it in all its aspects.


The real question should be, do we need a system that is excessively complex? There was a freshman QB who threw for well over 200yds last weekend.
How complex could that system have been?

Hell, we've heard Mansion was tearing up our defense running the Pistol when we were preparing for Nevada. Maybe Mansion and Maynard battle it out for #1 and #2 running the Pistol next year.

(No, I'm not being serious)

Hinder, Bridgford, and Maynard are competing. Mansion may have stepped-up into the competition given his promotion to back-up and percieved improvement in practice

Honestly, I think the complex system concept is just a speculative excuse. I don't know why we haven't gotten good QB play - poor development, poor recruiting, bad luck, whatever, but I don't think it is because it takes a genius 4 years to figure out our system. Frankly, I don't think that was even remotely Longshore's problem anyway. He understood the system pretty well from the get go.

We are going to have a completely wide open competition next year (a good thing, IMO, though yes, I would love it a lot more if it were a one man competition featuring the next Aaron Rodgers). The best performer needs to get the nod, not the guy who has been in the system longest or who knows the system best. A great QB who is proficient in 25% of the offense is better than a poor/mediocre one who is proficient in 100% - its up to the OC to give the guy the plays that maximize his talent.

IMO, we are probably going to see Bridgeford, Maynard or Hinder step up. (and everyone can spare me the commentary that the coach that started a new soph with a few weeks in the system over redshirt junior, started a redshirt frosh, and started a redshirt soph over a senior with two years starting experience refuses to go with the less experienced guy) Quite frankly, I think there were times this year where we would have seen more of the backups if Tedford really thought our current backups would be the next starter. I think there is something to be said for having the backup be a guy that has more experience in the system (since he has to go in unprepared at a moments notice), but when you have the offseason to prepare and give a new guy 1st team reps, you go with the talent.

wifeisafurd;405198 said:

---

Hinder, Bridgford, and Maynard are competing. Mansion may have stepped-up into the competition given his promotion to back-up and percieved improvement in practice

---

I would not count Mansion out of the race. He was very highly touted as a tall mobile QB with a strong arm. He passed up an offer from Texas (I believe) to come to Cal. [This alone made me a BIG fan of his.] And he seemed like the second coming of Kyle Boller. I was disappointed for him when he fell behind Sweeny when he couldn't get his head around JT's offense. I was really happy to read that he did not get discouraged and worked hard as a "team" player.

I agree with the posters who say that either Mansion or Maynard will be the next Cal QB. Hinder and Bridgeford still seem too unfamiliar with JT's offense. Maybe in 2012 it will be their time. In 2011 Maynard has the edge because he has extensive time as a D-1 QB; but I am hoping that Mansion will push him for the starting job.

elpbear;405169 said:

---

Hell, we've heard Mansion was tearing up our defense running the Pistol when we were preparing for Nevada. Maybe Mansion and Maynard battle it out for #1 and #2 running the Pistol next year.

(No, I'm not being serious)

---

Unlike you, I hope the Cal coaches are serious about it. I don't think the Pistol is a gimmick offense when I see Alabama and Oklahoma, with their coaching pedigree and storied histories, do it on a regular basis.

Hell, Hawaii had a better showing against USC using their Pistol formation than whatever pro-style stuff we tried against them....despite us winning the second half or whatever that was supposed to be.

Cal can audible in and out of the Pistol whenever they want. It doesn't have to be a permanent formation.

drunkoski;405342 said:

---

masion's offer from texas has been much mistated. he got an offer well after he commited to us and it was at the last second. likely to fill a spot because they missed on some better targets.

---

Still, he could have changed his mind like Chris Conte did to Ucla and like Hasiak did to us or JJ did to us but then was invalidated and came back to us.

Our Domicile;405374 said:

---

Cal can audible in and out of the Pistol whenever they want. It doesn't have to be a permanent formation.

---

This part I really disagree with - Cal needs to pick an identity, do it well, and stay with it. If you try to do too many formations, you don't do any of them well.

And basically I don't agree with running the pistol or anything other than basically what our offense is at this point. I have nothing against the pistol. It can be successful. But while you point to successful teams, UCLA looks atrocious. They look atrocious for 3 reasons 1. Their execution is terrible; 2 Their personnel is terrible; and 3, Watching Chow try to call plays in it when he really wants to run what he knows is painful.

UCLA would be terrible on O in the pistol or any other offense. I think there best bet, though, would be to run what their top offensive coordinator is good at running.

Cal's problem is not offensive scheme and the solution is not running whatever the offense du jour is, whether its spread, spread option, pistol, etc. The solution is talent and execution. Tedford's offense worked great with good QB's, HB and receivers and an OL kicking butt all over the field. The issue is we haven't had all that. Putting this team in the pistol won't resolve that. All it will do is compound the problem by running an offense our coaches are comfortable in.

Cal's problem is that we have not developed the talent at all positions on offense and executed the game plans well. Its not scheme. We resolve that problem and we will win whether we are in the pistol or Tedford's offense.

OaktownBear;405393 said:

---

This part I really disagree with - Cal needs to pick an identity, do it well, and stay with it. If you try to do too many formations, you don't do any of them well...

---

That's very conservative of you. Running multiple packages is what separates Boise State, Oklahoma, Alabama and TCU from pretenders like Cal.

OaktownBear;405393 said:

---

...And basically I don't agree with running the pistol or anything other than basically what our offense is at this point. I have nothing against the pistol. It can be successful. But while you point to successful teams, UCLA looks atrocious. They look atrocious for 3 reasons 1. Their execution is terrible; 2 Their personnel is terrible; and 3, Watching Chow try to call plays in it when he really wants to run what he knows is painful.

UCLA would be terrible on O in the pistol or any other offense. I think there best bet, though, would be to run what their top offensive coordinator is good at running....

---

The "UCLA sucks at the Pistol therefore Cal should stay away from it" argument is weak to me when Cal gets run over by Nevada and QB Prince (the more effective runner) was injured for UCLA. Prince beat Texas. He did not play against Cal (the non-running QB Brehaut did) and suddenly now Cal is big-headed about stopping the Pistol. Sorry, but it still works with the right personnel plugged in...even if Cal tried it.

OaktownBear;405393 said:

---

....Cal's problem is not offensive scheme and the solution is not running whatever the offense du jour is, whether its spread, spread option, pistol, etc. The solution is talent and execution. Tedford's offense worked great with good QB's, HB and receivers and an OL kicking butt all over the field. The issue is we haven't had all that. Putting this team in the pistol won't resolve that. All it will do is compound the problem by running an offense our coaches are comfortable in.

Cal's problem is that we have not developed the talent at all positions on offense and executed the game plans well. Its not scheme. We resolve that problem and we will win whether we are in the pistol or Tedford's offense.

---

By all means, stay this way. Status quo. Circa 2004. ESPN reruns of Aaron Rodgers twice a year. Stuff like that. Cal's glory years.

You seems to be scared by a bunch of college-educated kids attending an Academic school learning and executing a "package" (a subset of plays based on formation) being put into the Cal offense when every play we see out there is already part of a "package".

People may make fun of Boise's academics, but obviously their players must be smarter than Cal's are allowed to demonstrate.

Our Domicile;405413 said:

---

That's very conservative of you. Running multiple packages is what separates Boise State, Oklahoma, Alabama and TCU from pretenders like Cal.



The "UCLA sucks at the Pistol therefore Cal should stay away from it" argument is weak to me when Cal gets run over by Nevada and QB Prince (the more effective runner) was injured for UCLA. Prince beat Texas. He did not play against Cal (the non-running QB Brehaut did) and suddenly now Cal is big-headed about stopping the Pistol. Sorry, but it still works with the right personnel plugged in...even if Cal tried it.



By all means, stay this way. Status quo. Circa 2004. ESPN reruns of Aaron Rodgers twice a year. Stuff like that. Cal's glory years.

You seems to be scared by a bunch of college-educated kids attending an Academic school learning and executing a "package" (a subset of plays based on formation) being put into the Cal offense when every play we see out there is already part of a "package".

People may make fun of Boise's academics, but obviously their players must be smarter than Cal's are allowed to demonstrate.

---

So so so so so wrong.

Fact: PRINCE PLAYED AGAINST CAL. He was terrible and he got injured AGAINST US. He threw the ball 31 times because they got behind so quickly. Breuhaut barely played. I'm glad you watch our games, though.

Fact: UCLA looks terrible running the Pistol because it is not the sole focus of their team's offense. It looks simple but takes precise timing and experience on the part of the quarterback. It is not something you throw in mid-week.

Fact: Kevin Prince did NOT have a great day running the pistol against Texas, either. He went for all of 50 yards on 13 carries (3.8 ypc) and threw just 5/8 for 27 yards.

Their offense didn't play well, either.

They had scoring drives of: 4 yards (TD), 37 yds (ending in a FG), 2 yards (ending in a FG), 80 yds (TD), 50 yds (TD), 42 yds (TD).

One drive over half the field.

grandmastapoop;405434 said:

---

So so so so so wrong.

Fact: PRINCE PLAYED AGAINST CAL. He was terrible and he got injured AGAINST US. He threw the ball 31 times because they got behind so quickly. Breuhaut barely played. I'm glad you watch our games, though.

Fact: UCLA looks terrible running the Pistol because it is not the sole focus of their team's offense. It looks simple but takes precise timing and experience on the part of the quarterback. It is not something you throw in mid-week.

Fact: Kevin Prince did NOT have a great day running the pistol against Texas, either. He went for all of 50 yards on 13 carries (3.8 ypc) and threw just 5/8 for 27 yards.

Their offense didn't play well, either.

They had scoring drives of: 4 yards (TD), 37 yds (ending in a FG), 2 yards (ending in a FG), 80 yds (TD), 50 yds (TD), 42 yds (TD).

One drive over half the field.

---

Wow. Glad you have the UCLA game DVR'ed alongside the 2004 Cal @ USC game.

My stance remains the same -- UCLA is no excuse for Cal not to try the Pistol as a package. Given your logic, I guess Alabama and Oklahoma should abandon the Pistol package too.

Keep replaying that game though.

Our Domicile;405413 said:

---

That's very conservative of you. Running multiple packages is what separates Boise State, Oklahoma, Alabama and TCU from pretenders like Cal.



The "UCLA sucks at the Pistol therefore Cal should stay away from it" argument is weak to me when Cal gets run over by Nevada and QB Prince (the more effective runner) was injured for UCLA. Prince beat Texas. He did not play against Cal (the non-running QB Brehaut did) and suddenly now Cal is big-headed about stopping the Pistol. Sorry, but it still works with the right personnel plugged in...even if Cal tried it.



By all means, stay this way. Status quo. Circa 2004. ESPN reruns of Aaron Rodgers twice a year. Stuff like that. Cal's glory years.

You seems to be scared by a bunch of college-educated kids attending an Academic school learning and executing a "package" (a subset of plays based on formation) being put into the Cal offense when every play we see out there is already part of a "package".

People may make fun of Boise's academics, but obviously their players must be smarter than Cal's are allowed to demonstrate.

---

I do agree with those who would rather see our offense simplified than made more complex than it already is. I don't want Riley trying to learn the pistol.

However, I would love to see us replace the wildcat as our "change of pace package" with a pistol package and have one quarterback--probably Brock Mansion, work with it. When Brock comes in, we are in pistol. Probably have one running back work with him all the time also so they get the hand-off correct. The pistol is simple, but execution is critical. In the very least it would give our defense good practice for defending Oregon. Unlike the wildcat, we would be getting a quarterback snaps and it also would have the potential to become our primary offense.

I like the idea of a spread that utilizes TEs and their versatility in both the passing and the running game.

OaktownBear;405393 said:

---

This part I really disagree with - Cal needs to pick an identity, do it well, and stay with it. If you try to do too many formations, you don't do any of them well.

---

Looking only at personnel we seem stuck in between a few different styles of offense. I blame that on recruiting, mostly. Add the fact that our OC is a Jack of all trades, master of none kind of play caller and one can see why we run up 500 yards on some teams and get stuck in the mud against others (namely, the better ones).

Interestingly, keeping Ludwig around for next season (not a given) may be great considering we'll have so many QBs with different skill sets and backgrounds. He could make our offense effective next year regardless of who is starting under center. The key word, of course, is COULD...

I don't know how to say this other than you have completely misinterpreted everything I was saying.

1. I didn't say not to run different packages (and Cal does). There is a difference between running different packages and running totally different offenses. And, as an aside, one could argue what separates Boise and TCU, but what separates Alabama and Oklahoma are the same factors that separated them when they ran unimaginative, grind it out offenses to national championships.

2. I did not say UCLA sucks so we shouldn't run it. I said the pistol is a perfectly good offense, but the point is that execution is what matters. UCLA stinks at executing it, so they stink. I specifically said they would stink no matter what offense they ran. My point was that in the teams you cite, execution is the much bigger factor as it is with almost any offense. (and by the way, give me a break on the Texas stuff - I saw the game and let's just say I wasn't worried about Cal beating UCLA)

3. I'm not worried about Cal kids not learning the offense. If Cal hired Nevada's coach, BY ALL MEANS RUN THE PISTOL. Cal doesn't have a pistol coach. (and part of my point with UCLA is that Chow is an excellent OC who does not run the pistol. They "fixed" the one problem they didn't have - scheme and have not fixed the problems they actually had - talent and execution.) Let's put it this way. Cal students can learn physics. Cal students can learn chemistry. But I don't tell the chem professor to teach them physics.

Quite frankly, I think anyone that thinks the difference between 2004 and today is our scheme getting outdated is not paying attention. Look at the starting lineup. Would you take a single player off this year's team on offense over his counterpart from 2004? If you give me that exact team today, they'd easily be undefeated right now. There are two primary differences between then and now that make all the difference - 1. OL; 2. QB. Frankly, just give me that OL and you can run the pistol or the wishbone if you want to. In 2004, our OL was flat out kicking asses. Our HB's averaged 7.4 yards a carry (this year 5.1) That is not scheme. That is having talent on the OL, developing it and executing.

Cal will reach 2004 levels when it either 1) has a dominant OL and a good QB or 2) has a dominant QB and a good OL. Running the pistol isn't going to change that. Nevada blew our defense's doors off because they killed our front 7. We blew UCLA's doors off because our front 7 killed their OL.

wifeisafurd;405198 said:

---

Hinder, Bridgford, and Maynard are competing. Mansion may have stepped-up into the competition given his promotion to back-up and percieved improvement in practice

---

Don't forget Boehm, who may just step in and start from Day One!

I'm kidding. The whole thing's kind of depressing: Mansion, Sweeney, Bridgford, Hinder and Boehm, with Maynard now the "X factor", not to mention the 2012 verbal from Kline. I mean, could we trade the six for 2-3 really good QBs? Not to dis any of them, almost any one of whom could conceivably become "really good", but they remind me of wildebeests on the Serengeti or something (safety in numbers).

The reason why I don't agree with this is the pistol is not easy to run and its not just a matter of the QB, the whole O has to have the timing down. Its like all schools that "dabble" in option tend to get in more trouble with the option then they have success. Nevada is great running the pistol because they have a tremendously experienced O that has been running nothing but the pistol for a long time, and a talented QB that runs it well.

I'm not a big fan of the wildcat, but its not nearly as complex. And frankly, if Vereen runs it as well as he did last week, I'm going to become a fan of it pretty soon. He was brilliant running it. I think if you gave up on the wildcat now, you may be doing so right at the point where we have a guy that is executing it at maximum proficiency.

OaktownBear;405446 said:

---

I don't know how to say this other than you have completely misinterpreted everything I was saying.

1. I didn't say not to run different packages (and Cal does). There is a difference between running different packages and running totally different offenses....

---

And that's where we differ. I consider the Pistol to be a "package" in the same way Alabama and Oklahoma run it as a "package" not as their entire offense. The rest of your post is based on difficulties of installing the Pistol as a entire offense and, granted, that might be hard to do without hiring Nevada's HC to be our HC.

However, I see teams with lesser talent than Cal using it effectively as a change-of-pace. I've seen it in the NFL at times. I'm all for using a package based on the Pistol Offense. I am not advocating installing the entire Pistol Offense.

Ironically, UCLA's failures may be due to running it as an entire offense, not as a simple package. However, Norm Chow using it as a package alongside and within his typical and proven West Coast/pro-style Offense may have had different and possibly better results. This is the direction I'm advocating for Cal -- a Pistol package within the current pro-style offense's playbook.

deleting - I was just being overly obnoxious. Not that you didn't deserve some of it, BUT I'M TRYING NOT TO GO THERE ANYMORE.

Well, maybe we are just defining "pistol" differently. If all you mean is lining up the QB in a shortened version of the shotgun, and essentially running similar plays just with a different point of attack, I don't have an issue. Don't really care or see how it would help, but I don't have an issue.

If you mean running full pistol option plays, that is where I disagree. It takes completely different blocking sets and timing to do that and that just takes too much practice time. To me its like when Bill Walsh refused to run HB screens because he said it took too much practice time to perfect and he could install several other plays for the same amount of effort. Frankly, I would much rather see us perfect some slant and seam routes (and hey, do them out of the pistol if you want!)

Watching Chow call plays in that offense is brutal. Its like he's up there going "I'm going to call a pistol play. I will. This time I'm going to do it. Pistol. Pistol. Pistol. No! - West Coast! Damn I did it again."

Our Domicile;405441 said:

---

Wow. Glad you have the UCLA game DVR'ed alongside the 2004 Cal @ USC game.

My stance remains the same -- UCLA is no excuse for Cal not to try the Pistol as a package. Given your logic, I guess Alabama and Oklahoma should abandon the Pistol package too.

Keep replaying that game though.

---

Love this. Guy makes an argument based on an entirely incorrect premise, and then tries to turn me into some dork who keeps re-watching the game. I haven't even SEEN the game on TV, big guy. I watched it from the stadium. To get those stats I checked ESPN.com's play by play. Crazy, I know.

Way to respond to the argument.

OaktownBear;405475 said:

---

Well, maybe we are just defining "pistol" differently. If all you mean is lining up the QB in a shortened version of the shotgun, and essentially running similar plays just with a different point of attack, I don't have an issue. Don't really care or see how it would help, but I don't have an issue....

---

Yes, something along those lines. This is what Hawaii is doing with pretty good success in their version of the Pistol -- using their same previous running plays with a new, different point of attack.

However, a QB who's a threat to run would increase the effectiveness of this "simple", basic Pistol and maybe Maynard and Mansion might thrive in the simpler Pistol package for Cal. This is the only reason I'm posting in this thread -- suggestions to make the best use of those two QBs next year.

OaktownBear;405475 said:

---

If you mean running full pistol option plays, that is where I disagree. It takes completely different blocking sets and timing to do that and that just takes too much practice time....

---

To alleviate those concerns, I like what Calumnus suggested above -- switch the time devoted to other packages (the more predictable Wildcat, for example) and move it towards developing another package (the less predictable Pistol). The zone-read and veer-action of the Pistol isn't that hard to learn. Practice time stays roughly the same. Everybody wins.

However, in the end, nothing might change and life goes on. This is all speculation.

grandmastapoop;405480 said:

---

Love this. Guy makes an argument based on an entirely incorrect premise, and then tries to turn me into some dork who keeps re-watching the game...

---

Turning you into a dork (your term, not mine) isn't hard to do.

I said my stance still stands even after your well-timed interjection of "facts" above.

To paraphrase (look up the term "paraphrase" in the dictionary) my stance -- UCLA's failure at running the Pistol "as an entire offense" is not an excuse for Cal not to try it as a (smaller) "package" with Mansion and Maynard, with Mansion being the main topic of this thread.

Is any of that statement above too hard to read or comprehend? I can't make it any simpler.

NOTE: If you have some sort of axe to grind against me because of a possible previous issue that I am unaware of, PM me. I'll handle it. Gladly.

Our Domicile;405441 said:

---

Wow. Glad you have the UCLA game DVR'ed alongside the 2004 Cal @ USC game.

---

Your MO appears to make flagrantly wrong assertions and then get snippy when someone points out that you're making stuff up. You might want to put a wee bit more effort into making sure what you say has a remote shred of evidence to back it up before vomiting it out, next time.

elpbear;405494 said:

---

Your MO appears to make flagrantly wrong assertions and then get snippy when someone points out that you're making stuff up. You might want to put a wee bit more effort into making sure what you say has a remote shred of evidence to back it up before vomiting it out, next time.

---

Exaggerate much? We are talking about what happened only yesterday, right? Yesterday?

Oooh, that must be my MO!

Our Domicile;405493 said:

---

Turning you into a dork (your term, not mine) isn't hard to do.

I said my stance still stands even after your well-timed interjection of "facts" above.

To paraphrase (look up the term "paraphrase" in the dictionary) my stance -- UCLA's failure at running the Pistol "as an entire offense" is not an excuse for Cal not to try it as a (smaller) "package" with Mansion and Maynard, with Mansion being the main topic of this thread.

Is any of that statement above too hard to read or comprehend? I can't make it any simpler.

NOTE: If you have some sort of axe to grind against me because of a possible previous issue that I am unaware of, PM me. I'll handle it. Gladly.

---

Sorry, honestly, I can't say I recall anything you've ever posted. Your name sticks out, but that's about it.

But apparently, in your rush to call me a dork, you missed this statement in my initial post to you:

"Fact: UCLA looks terrible running the Pistol because it is not the sole focus of their team's offense. It looks simple but takes precise timing and experience on the part of the quarterback. It is not something you throw in mid-week."

We simply disagree on whether or not it is a package that can be installed. I point to UCLA as evidence of that fact. You point to...? Which is why your argument about Prince/Breuhaut was not some toss away. You said the reason it looked bad against us was because their "running" QB Prince was not in the game, and you pointed to how great their offense looked vs. Texas. I was simply correcting you: Prince did play against us, and the offense didn't look great against Texas - the defense just got turnovers and handed the offense short fields.

Try responding to actual arguments instead rushing to throw around names.

grandmastapoop;405526 said:

---

Sorry, honestly, I can't say I recall anything you've ever posted. Your name sticks out, but that's about it.

But apparently, in your rush to call me a dork, you missed this statement in my initial post to you:

"Fact: UCLA looks terrible running the Pistol [COLOR="Red"]because it is not the sole focus of their team's offense.[/COLOR]...

---

Stop right there, buddy. After claiming all you do is dish out FACTS and I dish out otherwise (admittedly some Blueblood-type attempts at humor and sarcasm here and there by me at times), you reassert as a FACT that the Pistol is NOT UCLA's sole focus, ignoring the FACT that the Pistol IS in fact their entire offense, installed this spring by their OC Norm Chow after physically meeting with the inventor of the Pistol, Nevada HC Ault, before the season?

As elpbear requested from me (given my exaggeration of the number of "post ASU beatdown Sunshine Pumper" threads yesterday solely due to reading Thread Titles and being misled by the titles and falsely assuming the content of those threads) -- back up that assertation.

Here's random articles stating that the Pistol is in fact UCLA's entire offense and therefore their SOLE FOCUS:

Norm Chow hopes pistol will fire up UCLA offense - actual UCLA site

UCLA football embraces change - ESPN article

UCLA finally making gains with new Pistol offense - random AP article

Go for it! Listen and take your own and elpbear's advice and back up this so-called FACTUAL statement by you above: "Fact: UCLA looks terrible running the Pistol [COLOR="Red"]because it is not the sole focus of their team's offense.[/COLOR]"

grandmastapoop;405526 said:

---

....We simply disagree on whether or not it is a package that can be installed. I point to UCLA as evidence of that fact. [COLOR="Red"]You point to...? [/COLOR]...

---

Sorry, but I previously [COLOR="red"]pointed[/COLOR] to Alabama and Oklahoma as pro-style teams (like us) successfully using the Pistol as a "package" (a subset of plays within their larger playbook) and not as their entire offense in this very thread.

You accuse me of not reading everything you wrote (actually, I did -- please see immediate post above as proof), but it appears you're guilty of that crime, not me.

I'm guilty of assuming QB Prince was not playing in the UCLA/CAL game. You're guilty of ignoring my evidence of other teams using a Pistol "package" successfully. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let's move on.

I still feel that Mansion and Maynard can indeed be used in a Pistol "package". You and others feel otherwise. Let's agree to disagree.

I still feel that UCLA is NOT proof of the Pistol's viability as a "package" because of their inconsistency using it up as their "entire offense" and, instead, point to Alabama's and Oklahoma's success in using it as a "package" combined with their overall pro-style offenses. Heck, I even described the Pistol package as a "simple" Pistol (a less complex version used by a pretty good Hawaii team) above and that it can be used in that fashion by CAL. But you're right -- let's all agree to disagree and move on.

All that said, I'll be pulling even more for both Mansion and Maynard to do well as QBs next year, Pistol or not. I'm just hoping to get the best out of them, whatever it takes, and, getting past my failed attempts at sarcasm, I was just making suggestions about how to go about doing just that -- getting the best out of the next QBs.