1. Bridgford does well enough, team wins, and he remains the starter.

2. Bridgford throws 3 picks, Tedford bring backs Maynard and wins the game.

3. Bridgford throws 5 picks, Tedford keep him for the rest of season, a la 2010 (but may be 2012 looks brighter?)

4. Bridgford sucks, Tedford brings in Mansion, does enought to win.

5. etcc..

OR

6. Keep Maynard for rest of season without having other qbs with sig playing time.

What do you prefer? I'd take choices 1 to 5 but NOT 6.

At this point the only reason for playing Maynard is that he has a better chance of leading us to bowl eligibilty-so we can be the biggest midget in the circus. Tedford has to realize that at this point he (personally) may have more downside with playing Maynard than Bridgford. Sure Bridg could be bad but we already have bad; play him because there is the possibility of good, if not this week, in future ones.

I dunno, if you put it that way, number 6 seems *awfully* tempting...

You play Bridge because he has more upside in 2012 than ZM. You KNOW what you have with him. Crum. hit nose on the head - ZM is a Fricken JUNIOR and still in game 8 he looks all too lost when throwing against zone defenses. He just is not going to be the guy to get it done.

So you start thinking about the PROGRAM and how things set up not even next year but the year after that. We NEED Kline to either RS or to be the number 1 backup on the team in 2012 and then the starter in 2013. Ideally that means he steps into an offense that isn't this strange hybrid but a classic, west coast, pocket passing offense.

The alternative is so much worse. ZM keeps his job, likely starts next year and THEN what? Do we have a 2 way threat I don't know about to start in 2013? This is just classic JT if he stays the course - not thinking a year ahead and what he wants to accomplish.

Seriously? How is he a fricken 2 million head coach? Cause this is NOT rocket science!

cal4life;609341 said:

---

if bridg can complete 50 percent of his passes and turn it over fewer than 4 x, he's an upgrade as far as i'm concerned.

maynard isn't the answer. not this year, not next year. he's awful. at the least you get a look at a guy who could gain valuable experience for next season. you can't replicate the game experience in practice.

---

Yep, Maynard had 8 games to show what he can do. Time to move on to the next guy. Bridgford should get the remaining 4 games. If his performance is not up to par, I don't see how JT can pull him, since Maynard was given so much margin for error.

If Bridgford does struggle, then it pretty much tells me the problems are more about the coaching staff than the players.

radibear;609326 said:

---

2. Bridgford throws 3 picks, Tedford bring backs Maynard and wins the game.

---

If he decides to start AB, Teddy won't bench him for 3 picks. Maynard has thrown at least 3 pics now in a couple of games and hasn't been benched.

-kap

We can't start AB. He's too green. This game is a must win for our bowl hopes. We have to go with our best guy. If he's struggling and we're behind at the half, then I'll let you pull him.

GB54;609335 said:

---

At this point the only reason for playing Maynard is that he has a better chance of leading us to bowl eligibilty-so we can be the biggest midget in the circus. Tedford has to realize that at this point he (personally) may have more downside with playing Maynard than Bridgford. Sure Bridg could be bad but we already have bad; play him because there is the possibility of good, if not this week, in future ones.

---

Bullsh*t. We would have done better Saturday without a QB, just running every down.


Maynard is NOT the best chance for a bowl. Bridgford will win all the games Maynard could win... MAYBE he does not lose games Maynard would lose.

pappysghost;609427 said:

---

We can't start AB. He's too green. This game is a must win for our bowl hopes. We have to go with our best guy. If he's struggling and we're behind at the half, then I'll let you pull him.

---

There is no way to tell who the "best" guy is at this point (though most are convinced they are willing to trade for an unknown because it couldn't be any worse--many said the same about benching Riley for Mansion the last couple of years and it turned out it was worse.) I think part of our problem is this either/or binary thinking.

If a guy is struggling, you can't wait until the half.

I think going into the game, you say both players will play. Start Maynard just to avoid the drama. If he moves the ball down field and we score, great. Leave him in. If he looks shaky in the first series, bring in Bridgford for the next. If he plays well, leave him in until any sign he is losing it. Then sit him for a series or more. Same with Bridgford. You don't need to put all your eggs in the Maynard or the Bridgford basket. Let them prove it on the field, but for God's sake, if a guy is struggling pull him!

pappysghost;609427 said:

---

We can't start AB. He's too green. This game is a must win for our bowl hopes. We have to go with our best guy. If he's struggling and we're behind at the half, then I'll let you pull him.

---

I'll take our chances with a guy who you think is too green than a guy who's proven to be very inaccurate and a turnover waiting to happen.

We got crushed by a depleted UCLA team. Score would've been worse if it wasn't for the 2 gifts we got. As for a bowl game...

Pappy - It's Sunday. What have you been drinking, smoking, snorting or otherwise ingesting. Maybe the old eyes are just slipping a bit.

If it were me, I'd go with Bridg. If that were a cluster, then is go with Hinder. If that also were a cluster, then I'd go with Boehm. Simple as that.

To begin with Maynard will have to be kidnapped by aliens.

calumnus;609474 said:

---

There is no way to tell who the "best" guy is at this point (though most are convinced they are willing to trade for an unknown because it couldn't be any worse--many said the same about benching Riley for Mansion the last couple of years and it turned out it was worse.) I think part of our problem is this either/or binary thinking.

If a guy is struggling, you can't wait until the half.

I think going into the game, you say both players will play. Start Maynard just to avoid the drama. If he moves the ball down field and we score, great. Leave him in. If he looks shaky in the first series, bring in Bridgford for the next. If he plays well, leave him in until any sign he is losing it. Then sit him for a series or more. Same with Bridgford. You don't need to put all your eggs in the Maynard or the Bridgford basket. Let them prove it on the field, but for God's sake, if a guy is struggling pull him!

---

As much as you would like to have seen this last several games, this would never happen as long as Tedford is HC. Tedford has proven time and time again that he would stick with one QB as long as possible. If he was smart, he would have played Bridgford just enough in garbage time to shut up his critics, but no!!!

cal4life;609344 said:

---

no he doesn't

---

GB54 is just saying Tedford is big on guys with real game experience and he obviously feels comfortable, to a point he's read to crash and burn, with ZM and doesn't like to start a new direction mid-stream. I think Tedford finds installing a new QB to be serviceable to be a steep learning curve and that thought in itself creates this kind of inertia for Tedford not to want to bring in AB even for mop up duty. I saw Tedford being interviewed by Todd McKimm after the Oregon game as he said that while he was going to bring in AB anyway, he was forced to bring him in earlier than he wanted to because ZM got lit up and was close to having a concussion. I have no doubt that AB would have been brought in for the last 2 minutes of the Oregon game if ZM had not been banged up. Tedford is perhaps the most inflexible head coach in the FBS.

freshfunk;609498 said:

---

If it were me, I'd go with Bridg. If that were a cluster, then is go with Hinder. If that also were a cluster, then I'd go with Boehm. Simple as that.

---

I know, you have a HS all-star team in relief. It's this simple. But JT has turned this into a soap opera with lots of layers and emotion.

radibear;609326 said:

---

1. Bridgford does well enough, team wins, and he remains the starter.

2. Bridgford throws 3 picks, Tedford bring backs Maynard and wins the game.

3. Bridgford throws 5 picks, Tedford keep him for the rest of season, a la 2010 (but may be 2012 looks brighter?)

4. Bridgford sucks, Tedford brings in Mansion, does enought to win.

5. etcc..

OR

6. Keep Maynard for rest of season without having other qbs with sig playing time.

What do you prefer? I'd take choices 1 to 5 but NOT 6.

---

you forgot 7. Bridgford has a game similar to Maynards Utah game playing against crap competition, gets everyone's hopes up, then throws 5 picks against oregon st.

Anyone who thinks QB play would have elevated this team anywhere beyond "7-8 win chump team" hasn't been paying attention.

Even if Bridgford became the second coming of Andrew Luck, we still have the problems of lousy running game, spotty line play, only three guys who can catch a football, only one guy who can play fullback, inconsistent/ occasionally great/ occasionally putrid defense, lousy special teams, penalties, poor execution and overall ineptitude.

It doesn't matter whose QB, this team would still be scratching and clawing for 7-8 lousy wins, just that our losses would look slightly less horrific.

Perhaps we can turn the venom away from our QB and focus on the "big picture" ball of fail that is, and has been, Cal football.

The problem isn't the QB. The problem is, with all our talent, this team isn't any good. That's a big problem.

We have had to replace 2 qb's due to injury since 2007. Mansion came in and was a complete disaster. Riley came in in 2007 with a watered down package and actually had a great game except for the colossal error at the end. riley then came back in the bowl game with a super performance.

What could we expect from Bridgeford? If he is potentially a good QB we can expect JT to water down the offensive system and that might result in a QB taking the field without being in a complete state of confusion. If he is not good then we get what we got from Mansion. If he takes the field with the complete package at his disposal expect a complete meltdown and we can move on and destroy the next QB.

Unfortunately if he plays well w/o the complete passing package then we can expect the package to be expanded and a good QB will become a confused QB.

As i reread the post something caught my attention.

Mansion was in his 4th year (3.5) in the program when he replaced riley so it seems reasonable to assume that he came into the game with a complete or close to complete passing package and we saw the results.

Riley replaced Longshore as a redshirt frosh (1.5) so i think he came in with a watered down package and if u recall the game riley seemed to play better from 1 quarter to the next. Riley's 1st 2 games at Cal were very good games and then with the full package he became a very average QB.

I am not a cynic...but the longer Bridgford doesn't play, the more I start to think that there is some wheelin' and dealin' that has Maynard as our starter.

I get that you want a mobile guy in there. But our OL has actually shown some competency in pass protection.

And in my opinion, while Maynard is mobile, his mobility is a tad overrated. While he busts off a nice run once in a while, he doesn't have that escapability that I thought he'd have. Did anyone notice how he fell down like 3 times on runs in the UCLA game before he was even touched?!

AB knows the system. He broke all of M. Sanchez's passing records at Mission Viejo. Tedford 'has confidence in him'.

Give the kid a chance. What's the worse that could happen?!? 5 int's?

Unless, somehow it's not an option...

GB54;609335 said:

---

At this point the only reason for playing Maynard is that he has a better chance of leading us to bowl eligibilty-so we can be the biggest midget in the circus. Tedford has to realize that at this point he (personally) may have more downside with playing Maynard than Bridgford. Sure Bridg could be bad but we already have bad; play him because there is the possibility of good, if not this week, in future ones.

---

If Bridgford had played (and no turnovers); Cal wins over ucla 14-7.
ZM had very little to do with Cal's 14 points and everything to do with 24 of ucla's 31 points.

If ZM starts vs OSU and WSU and has 3 turnovers in each of those games, Cal loses those games as well. So where is the upside?
And the downside is obvious. Cal goes into 2012 with ZM as the only QB withsignificant playing time experience. Whoopteedoo for 2-0-1-2.

caltripper;610012 said:

---

you forgot 7. Bridgford has a game similar to Maynards Utah game playing against crap competition, gets everyone's hopes up, then throws 5 picks against oregon st.

---

As much as I hate to admit, I think you may be close what will actually happen. Tedford has owned WSU but been owned by OSU. Riley is a proven coach and may again prove that he is better than Tedford, by using his redshift QB freshman to beat Tedford, "the QB guru".

:headbang

Unfortunately, the likely decision by Tedford is Option 6.

i think the truth is we dont know what allan can do, but we do know what maynard can. hes just too inconsistant with his accuracy and decision making. hes like the stephen garcia of the west(without the off field problems) and spurrier made the change, tedford needs to do the same.

pappysghost;609427 said:

---

We can't start AB. He's too green. This game is a must win for our bowl hopes. We have to go with our best guy. If he's struggling and we're behind at the half, then I'll let you pull him.

---

Pappy I am usually behind you 90% of the time. But this is that other 10%.

This game and the next are BOTH must wins for our bowl hopes.

But ZM is like a vial of nitroglycerin. Some time during this next game or the follwoing one, that vial will go off. Bye bye bowl game. And what would we have to show for it. No bowl game this year; and no experienced starting QB for next year.

ZM is NO GUARANTY that Cal will win the next 2 games. If it were I would agree with you. I was willing to go with ZM in the hope of going to a bowl game and to mortgage next year if Cal could beat ucla, OSU and WSU and wind up 7-5.

But what makes you think that ZM can lead the team to victory vs. OSU and WSU.

IF AB had started vs. ucla, Cal would have done no worse than 14 points based upon the forced TO's. Plus with AB and without ZM's 5 unforced TO's Cal had a good shot at winning the ucla game.

So sorry, ZM is NOT Cal's BEST guy. He is only Cal's most experienced guy. I cannot say he gives Cal the best chance of winning the next 2 games.
[Past performance IS usually an indicator of future performance.]

pappysghost;609427 said:

---

We can't start AB. He's too green. This game is a must win for our bowl hopes. We have to go with our best guy. If he's struggling and we're behind at the half, then I'll let you pull him.

---

+1

KoreAmBear;609720 said:

---

GB54 is just saying Tedford is big on guys with real game experience and he obviously feels comfortable, to a point he's read to crash and burn, with ZM and doesn't like to start a new direction mid-stream. I think Tedford finds installing a new QB to be serviceable to be a steep learning curve and that thought in itself creates this kind of inertia for Tedford not to want to bring in AB even for mop up duty. I saw Tedford being interviewed by Todd McKimm after the Oregon game as he said that while he was going to bring in AB anyway, he was forced to bring him in earlier than he wanted to because ZM got lit up and was close to having a concussion. I have no doubt that AB would have been brought in for the last 2 minutes of the Oregon game if ZM had not been banged up. Tedford is perhaps the most inflexible head coach in the FBS.

---

OK if that is so, why did Steve Levy replace Joe Ayoob.

goldenjax;610522 said:

---

+1

---

Originally Posted by pappysghost
We can't start AB. He's too green. This game is a must win for our bowl hopes. We have to go with our best guy. If he's struggling and we're behind at the half, then I'll let you pull him.
Let's horse trade.

Let's start AB. If he is struggling and we are behind at half, then I'll let you pull him and put ZM back in.

If Bridgford starts, he is likely too face 8 or 9 in the box until he proves he can beat it. Tedford, on the other hand will likely be calling on Sofele up the middle. You will see a lot of Brian Anger.

What you really want to see is a Rothlesberger (against New England) like performance . But as Tedford has explained often, that kind of WCO isn't in the Cal playbook.