oskipeak;496008 said:

---

i'm sorry, but hinder did not look good on sat. his ball routinely flutters, rarely a spiral, and he's consistently inaccurate. honestly i expect a lot more from a high level D1 qb, even one a semester into his college career.

and if you think his lack of size/bulk is a factor in him not being considered for the starting job, you can rule maynard out for any meaningful snaps. maynard looked as skinny if not skinnier than hinder.

---

the staff's comments before spring practice started. For a redshirt frosh, Hinderlooked real good, but his body isn't there yet to start this year. Tedford and others have specifically said he has the arm stregnth and potential. Not prepared to judge a guy on one practice that you saw. All I know, Maynard may look skinnier, but Hinder has a few inches on him and less weight. Looks must be deceiving.

drunkoski;495748 said:

---

i must say i do wonder why redshirt freshman can't hope to compete for a starting position anymore. nate got it why can't hinder?

---

just sprculation but maybe we missed the boat on other recruits who might be better... shreve, Mannion. They seem to be doing vey well in the Utes and Beavs camps.

1979bear;496230 said:

---

My guess is you were at the 1995 game where Jim Sweeney's Bulldogs scored two TDs in the last eight minutes to upset Gilby's Bears. Sweeney was a very good coach. Beau got the scolly because JT felt he owed Jim. I don't begrudge JT that move at all, or Beau either.

---

I wouldn't either if we had a decent qb option last year.... :headbang

sycasey;496145 said:

---

That's my thinking as well, but ultimately when you are replacing an average player, there's always a decent chance that the replacement will be worse than him.

---

as we saw last year

elpbear - I agree. That was always the plan according to the info available to all of us - he is a project in terms of weight, arm strength and experience - he wasn't Vince Ferragamo soming out of hs. No one is throwing him under the bus and no one should say he was a mistake to offer (unlike Sweeney).
People seem so ready to pick an argument where there is general agreement.

wifeisafurd;496005 said:

---

Let's see where everyone is at the end of the month. Things may look more interesting.

---

I agree with you. In Lena Roth's book, she describes how her son threw 5 interceptions in a single scrimmage during his first Spring at Cal. He somehow managed to go on to become arguably the greatest Cal quarterback of all time.

drunkoski;496133 said:

---

he was average this year. below average in 09 and one of the worst in the conference in 08

---

But looked phenomenal as a redshirt freshman in 2007 (174.6 rating).


So promising: LINK

Also, Riley's 2010 140.7 rating compares well with Barkley's 141.2 Nick Foles 140.9 and Longshore's 141 in 2006, all of which I would say are better than average.

LafayetteBear;496138 said:

---

It's a pretty safe bet in my opinion. Not only because the next QB is likely to be decent in his own right, but because JT will be calling the plays again, and (more importantly) the next QB will be surrounded by better blockers and receivers.

---

Agree that these are the MOST important changes.

calbb;495696 said:

---

Sweeney won't transfer. He's there to learn under Tedford and become a coach. Simple as that imo.

---

Bingo. He's learning to be a coach. He had the clip board and communicated all the signals to all the qbs at Saturdays scrimmage at Grant. His role for the team is now defined.

After seven pages of comments it is amazing to me how low the bar has been set for the QB position at Cal. You all spent years killing Riley and then look what we got. Riley was an amazing prospect who looked incredible when throwing to the likes of Jackson and company and then spent the next three years behind a crummy line and throwing to a set of receivers that were a far cry from what he was throwing to as a freshman. Why don't any of you expect a freshman to be able to come to Cal and compete. There a freshman and RS freshman QB's having impact all over the country year in and year out except at Cal. This is a huge problem for us and I think it has hurt recruiting because really talented HS QB's don't think they have a chance to play until they are in the program for at least three years. This needs to change. Maybe this year's recruit from Mitty will change all of this. Hope so because we need someone to come in with some swagger and take over this position soon or it is going to be the same sorry offense we have been watching for the last few years all over again.

kasaja;497695 said:

---

After seven pages of comments it is amazing to me how low the bar has been set for the QB position at Cal. You all spent years killing Riley and then look what we got. Riley was an amazing prospect who looked incredible when throwing to the likes of Jackson and company and then spent the next three years behind a crummy line and throwing to a set of receivers that were a far cry from what he was throwing to as a freshman. Why don't any of you expect a freshman to be able to come to Cal and compete. There a freshman and RS freshman QB's having impact all over the country year in and year out except at Cal. This is a huge problem for us and I think it has hurt recruiting because really talented HS QB's don't think they have a chance to play until they are in the program for at least three years. This needs to change. Maybe this year's recruit from Mitty will change all of this. Hope so because we need someone to come in with some swagger and take over this position soon or it is going to be the same sorry offense we have been watching for the last few years all over again.

---

Except not. Longshore started as a redshirt freshman and got injured. Riley beat him out in 08 as a sophmore. Riley was not going to start as a freshman due to the year Longshore had in 06.The quarterbacks we have had who were here as freshman were, Mansion and Sweeney. Uhmmm... I don't think either will start at Cal ever again (they were not good enough to beat out our current QB at the time). Bridgford last year was injured so he couldn't compete. So can someone please explain when we have had a chance to start a freshman who was good enough to beat out our current QB? This recruiting issue you bring up I would think would be more of an issue with starting freshman QB's. If the frosh QB turns out to have good seasons without much injury you will be sitting behind him for at least three years.

Furthermore, you act like we have had a Colt McCoy or an Andrew Luck in waiting. Which of our amazing frosh QB's would you have started?

foradolla;497794 said:

---

Except not. Longshore started as a redshirt freshman and got injured. Riley beat him out in 08 as a sophmore. Riley was not going to start as a freshman due to the year Longshore had in 06.The quarterbacks we have had who were here as freshman were, Mansion and Sweeney. Uhmmm... I don't think either will start at Cal ever again (they were not good enough to beat out our current QB at the time). Bridgford last year was injured so he couldn't compete. So can someone please explain when we have had a chance to start a freshman who was good enough to beat out our current QB? This recruiting issue you bring up I would think would be more of an issue with starting freshman QB's. If the frosh QB turns out to have good seasons without much injury you will be sitting behind him for at least three years.

Furthermore, you act like we have had a Colt McCoy or an Andrew Luck in waiting. Which of our amazing frosh QB's would you have started?

---

And going back a bit further, we had Aaron Rodgers taking over for Reggie Robertson in his first year in the program (as he was a JC transfer, technically not a freshman, but still basically the same situation).

I don't know where this idea comes from that Tedford only wants to play veterans. The historical record simply doesn't bear this out. The problem is not an unwillingness to play freshmen; it's a lack of development across the board at the QB position (perhaps due to the fact that JT stepped away from being hands-on with QB development circa 2008).

Genykologist;497712 said:

---

Well said

---

Well said. Based on a false premise.

sycasey;497814 said:

---

And going back a bit further, we had Aaron Rodgers taking over for Reggie Robertson in his first year in the program (as he was a JC transfer, technically not a freshman, but still basically the same situation).

I don't know where this idea comes from that Tedford only wants to play veterans. The historical record simply doesn't bear this out. The problem is not an unwillingness to play freshmen; it's a lack of development across the board at the QB position (perhaps due to the fact that JT stepped away from being hands-on with QB development circa 2008).

---

I think a lot of those ideas suddenly became popular on the boards when he stuck with Longshore in 07 and didn't put in Riley.

bear1027;497827 said:

---

I think a lot of those ideas suddenly became popular on the boards when he stuck with Longshore in 07 and didn't put in Riley.

---

Bingo! Longshore was obviously still injured, yet Tedford wasn't willing to live with some (redshirt) freshman mistakes (I think 2007 really hurt both quarterbacks). Add what Tedford [U][U]says[/U][/U] in that he does tend to emphasize in his comments experience, "knowing the offense," making the right read and managing the huddle over actually making the throws/plays.

Experience is always a plus. It isn't an "either/or" it is a matter of degree and bias and Tedford tends to lean in that direction a little more many Cal fans would like.

calumnus;497845 said:

---

Bingo! Longshore was obviously still injured, yet Tedford wasn't willing to live with some (redshirt) freshman mistakes (I think 2007 really hurt both quarterbacks). Add what Tedford [U][U]says[/U][/U] in that he does tend to emphasize in his comments experience, "knowing the offense," making the right read and managing the huddle over actually making the throws/plays.

---

So because Tedford did this once, as opposed to the several other times he's started the younger guy, people think it's a trend that's going to continue. Well, no one ever said fans were logical.

sycasey;497881 said:

---

So because Tedford did this once, as opposed to the several other times he's started the younger guy, people think it's a trend that's going to continue. Well, no one ever said fans were logical.

---

And if he does it 10 years from now at another program, we'll hound their message board with "I told you so".

sycasey;497881 said:

---

So because Tedford did this once, as opposed to the several other times he's started the younger guy, people think it's a trend that's going to continue. Well, no one ever said fans were logical.

---

No, all I said is experience is a factor that Tedford weighs more heavily than a lot of Cal fans do.

Put it this way, Tedford has said he views Mansion's actual game experience last year as a positive in his quest to win the starting position this year. Not determinative, but a positive. In contrast, many Cal fans view Mansion's experience (or performance) in games last year as a negative and some in fact hoped he was eliminated from the competition this year because of it.

I think the difference is Cal fans view QBs as unknowns and based on last year we think we know what we got (or don't got) in Mansion. We would rather try door number 2. I think Tedford feels like he knows his QBs and views QBs more as putty to be molded, shaped and developed ("Rodgers learned from OSU 2003, therefore...). Just different points of view, partly based on different assumptions and different amounts of information.

He might not be the odds on favorite, but there is a chance greater than zero that Mansion will be our starter. Many Cal fans are not happy with that, because they want something different, but it does not make it less true. However, as you said, no one ever said Cal fans were logical.

calumnus;497963 said:

---

No, all I said is experience is a factor that Tedford weighs more heavily than a lot of Cal fans do.

Put it this way, Tedford has said he views Mansion's actual game experience last year as a positive in his quest to win the starting position this year. Not determinative, but a positive. In contrast, many Cal fans view Mansion's experience (or performance) in games last year as a negative and some in fact hoped he was eliminated from the competition this year because of it.

There is a chance greater than zero that Mansion will be our starter. Many Cal fans are not happy with that, but it does not make it less true.

---

I'd argue that Tedford is not significantly different from most football coaches in this respect. If the argument is that fans in general want to see the backup if the starter isn't performing well, that's very much true; it's also usually true that the backup is the backup for a reason.

Your "(or performance)" parenthetical is the problem.

Mansion's experience is definitely a positive. Mansion should definitely be a better Mansion because he had the experience than if he didn't, and he should absolutely be performing better than Bridgford and Maynard right now as they try to get some experience.

That is a completely different question from whether the performance is a positive or a negative. As I said before, I think it was quite clear that Ayoob's performance was treated as a negative by the staff. I suspect that Mansion's is as well (though he would be given more leeway as his performance was not under the same circumstances), but I can't demonstrate that at this point.

But a coach can't get emotional over a decision. He has to go out to practice every day and see who will give him the best chance to win. Fans don't see what goes on in practice. I think that people are drastically over interpreting Tedford who is describing what he is seeing - Mansion has a better feel for the offense right now - not telling you who his best guy is. In fact, if you look at his commentary on Maynard he talks very positively about the fact that he is a guy that is on a learning curve right now and that you can't expect him to be on the same plane as the other guys now. He needs a chance to learn the offense.

If Mansion gets this job, its not because he played in 4 games last year.

sycasey;497970 said:

---

I'd argue that Tedford is not significantly different from most football coaches in this respect. If the argument is that fans in general want to see the backup if the starter isn't performing well, that's very much true; it's also usually true that the backup is the backup for a reason.

---

Agreed, although a lot of other coaches are more likely to try the true freshman than Tedford.

I think many of us think "great quarterbacks are born" whereas I think Tedford views quarterbacking more as a craft that is honed (before anyone responds, obviously in both cases it is a mix, I'm just saying Tedford is more the later than most of us--who, not coincidentally, don't train quarterbacks for a living).

calumnus;497978 said:

---

Agreed, although a lot of other coaches are more likely to try the true freshman than Tedford.

I think many of us think "great quarterbacks are born" whereas I think Tedford views quarterbacking more as a craft that is honed (before anyone responds, obviously in both cases it is a mix, I'm just saying Tedford is more the later than most of us--who, not coincidentally, don't train quarterbacks for a living).

---

Hey, I have seen a lot of College QB's play. I guess that qualifies me to criticize. :p

calumnus;497963 said:

---

No, all I said is experience is a factor that Tedford weighs more heavily than a lot of Cal fans do.

Put it this way, Tedford has said he views Mansion's actual game experience last year as a positive in his quest to win the starting position this year. Not determinative, but a positive. In contrast, many Cal fans view Mansion's experience (or performance) in games last year as a negative and some in fact hoped he was eliminated from the competition this year because of it.

---

I think you (and many other fans) misinterpret what he said. Brock's experience isn't a check in the pro column of a pro/con chart. It simply makes him better. If Bridgford was a teeeeeeeny bit better than Brock, Brock is not going to start because he has the trump card of "Experience." The point is that without that experience, Brock would be even further behind Bridgford, in my hypothetical scenario.

Quote:

---

I think the difference is Cal fans view QBs as unknowns and based on last year we think we know what we got (or don't got) in Mansion. We would rather try door number 2. I think Tedford feels like he knows his QBs and views QBs more as putty to be molded, shaped and developed ("Rodgers learned from OSU 2003, therefore...). Just different points of view, partly based on different assumptions and different amounts of information.

He might not be the odds on favorite, but there is a chance greater than zero that Mansion will be our starter. Many Cal fans are not happy with that, because they want something different, but it does not make it less true. However, as you said, no one ever said Cal fans were logical.

---

Agreed.

drunkoski;497998 said:

---

then why did riley get pulled for longshore in 08 despite performing better in practice?

---

Maybe because he didn't perform all that better during game time... juss sayin

drunkoski;498002 said:

---

to my eyes he absolutely did. did you watch the emerald bowl?

---

right except for the fact that everyone knew what longshore was once capable of. He had an amazing year in 06. Riley never was that good. I think tedford was holding on to the hope that Longshore would return to form. Mansion does not have anything saying he will at all be any good let alone just consistant

foradolla;498006 said:

---

right except for the fact that everyone knew what longshore was once capable of. He had an amazing year in 06. Riley never was that good. I think tedford was holding on to the hope that Longshore would return to form. Mansion does not have anything saying he will at all be any good let alone just consistant

---

Longshore's QB rating in 2006 was 141. Riley's in 2010 was 140. Neither were "amazing." In 2006, Longshore had some bad games down the stretch when the Rose Bowl was on the line (Arizona and USC). What made 2006 impressive was all the yardage that Longshore put up surrounded by All-Pro talent, something Riley did not have in 2010. Riley truly looked "amazing" in 2007 when surrounded by similar talent. Unfortunately, they both looked mediocre in 2008 when surrounded by lesser talent.

calumnus;498008 said:

---

Longshore's QB rating in 2006 was 141. Riley's in 2010 was 140. Neither were "amazing." In 2006, Longshore had some bad games down the stretch when the Rose Bowl was on the line (Arizona and USC). What made 2006 impressive was all the yardage that Longshore put up surrounded by All-Pro talent, something Riley did not have in 2010. Riley truly looked "amazing" in 2007 when surrounded by similar talent. Unfortunately, they both looked mediocre in 2008 when surrounded by lesser talent.

---

Wait...are you making an argument that football is.....a team sport? :bluecarrot:

drunkoski;498002 said:

---

to my eyes he absolutely did. did you watch the emerald bowl?

---

The truth is that in 2008 we were flip-flopping between two mediocre QBs. Tedford was hoping one of them would step up and be great, but it didn't happen. Let's look at the actual sequence of events:

-QB competition in preseason, eventually Tedford announces that Riley will start the opener against Michigan St. (to many people's surprise), but that Longshore will also play.

-Both QBs play against MSU, Riley having one of his best games and significantly outplaying Longshore.

-Riley starts the next three games, while Longshore only sees garbage time. However, Riley isn't exactly lighting the world on fire; his completion percentage stinks in wins over WSU and CSU (teams that should be relatively easy to score on), and he only pads his stats long after the Maryland game is lost.

-Given that Riley isn't looking great, Tedford returns to Longshore against ASU. Nate plays reasonably well in leading Cal to a win.

-Nate starts against Arizona. Looks good early, throws a crucial pick-6 in the second half. Riley enters in the 4th quarter for a futile comeback attempt.

-Riley starts next two games against UCLA and Oregon. Plays well against UCLA and starts well against Oregon before going down with a concussion. Nate finishes the Oregon game and plays well, given the bad weather conditions.

-Nate starts against USC, with Riley in relief. Neither QB looks great.

-Riley starts against Oregon St. Not a good game for him.

-Riley starts the remainder of the regular season. He doesn't need to do much in big wins over Furd and UW, as Jahvid Best dominates the offensive yardage in both games.

-Nate plays the entire Emerald Bowl (agreed, this was surprising). He's mediocre, but good enough to win.

Given all of that, I don't see a clear preference for Nate Longshore over Kevin Riley. Riley got the start in the first game and in the majority of games. When Nate started, it was because Riley wasn't playing well or because he had been hurt. The only exception is the Emerald Bowl, that's it. I don't think we can extrapolate from that to show that Tedford clearly prioritizes experience in his decision-making. He was flip-flopping because he had two inconsistent options.

"great quarterbacks are born"

I would state this a little differently and would give a nod to Moneyball here. Great QB's aren't born - they are made. Its more a matter of WHEN they are made. Scouts like to look at things like athleticism and say things like "you can't teach speed". Well, there are a lot of things that you can teach, but by the time guys reach a certain level, it is unlikely that they can/will be taught anymore. A basketball player who can jump out of the gym but can't shoot a lick is not likely to get to college and become a good shooter. He may improve, but not likely to be good. (as opposed to a guy that CAN shoot, but needs to learn to get his shot off while dealing with the faster pace of the game). I'm always suspicious of these mega-athletic guys with no skills. Same thing for the baseball player with no eye at the plate.

When it comes to QB's, IMO, if they aren't that good at throwing by the time they leave college, the NFL can forget it. (this should seem obvious, but those looking for the next Vick don't always seem to realize).

Entering college is a different matter, though, because it isn't always that easy to find coaches that are great at developing QB's. Some of these guys just haven't been exposed to the coaching at a high enough level to know whether they can develop these skills.

You take a look at Zach Kline's film. After you finish drooling and planning your 2016 trip to Pasadena, realize he was not born like that. The consistent mechanics, the set up in the pocket, the quick read, the quick release - he has been trained at the highest level. He will come to Cal with very little for Tedford to do but teach him the offense, speed of the game, and basic adjustments for going from HS to college. We have a good idea of what we are getting with Kline because he has been exposed to the teaching, he has been taught, and he has responded to that teaching. With his experience, if Kline were not showing command of the skills to play QB, I'd say its time for him to take up something else.

Most guys don't get that teaching. There is still room for a coach to come in and make a big difference in their skill level. Problem is, you don't know which guys will respond to that teaching. Personally, I don't like the risk there. Tedford seems to be willing to take more risk than I am. And funny thing is it is the guys who weren't risky that seem to make it. Looking at his recruits:

Dove - frankly, hard for me to judge he washed out in the classroom so fast
Rodgers - Not risky at all. An accomplished passer in JC
Longshore - Not risky. An accomplished passer in HS
Reed - Very risky. Athletic, but I believe completed less than 50% of his passes in HS. Quite frankly, I would not have taken him. I wonder if Tedford's level of comfort with Longshore as a prospect lead him to take a shot at an obvious physical talent who was obviously raw.
Riley - no very risky at all. Father a coach. Accomplished passer in HS.
Mansion - Risky - played in more of a running offense in HS
Sweeney - I think Sweeney was just a bad pick. He is the worst of all worlds, IMO. He had the coaching and was just okay. Unlikely he was going to be a guy that was going to excel (though I would have hoped for competent backup)
Bridgford - Not very risky. A well coached, accomplished passer in HS.
Hinder - risky - I think more accomplished than the other risky guys, but we'll see how he turns out.

Our starters all come from the not risky side - Rodgers, Longshore, Riley. Bridgford is too early to tell, but reports are encouraging. None of the risky guys have made it.

calumnus;498008 said:

---

Longshore's QB rating in 2006 was 141. Riley's in 2010 was 140. Neither were "amazing." In 2006, Longshore had some bad games down the stretch when the Rose Bowl was on the line (Arizona and USC). What made 2006 impressive was all the yardage that Longshore put up surrounded by All-Pro talent, something Riley did not have in 2010. Riley truly looked "amazing" in 2007 when surrounded by similar talent. Unfortunately, they both looked mediocre in 2008 when surrounded by lesser talent.

---

+1