According to scout.com:

Maynard (2008) - 2 Stars
Bridgford (2009) - 4 Stars
Boehm (2011) - 4 Stars
Mansion (2007) - 4 Stars
Hinder (2010) - 3 Stars

I realize high school is high school and players grow over time, but why are we starting a struggling QB who is arguably the least talented QB on the roster?

We were 3-0 and he played a damn good game in a tuff lost to Washington. He climbed the depth chart deservingly. Alot of the intense criticism did not start until the Oregon game. Nothing smelled rotten until the Oregon week.

I'm firmly in the "Tedford has lost me" camp and would want to see a change as soon as reasonably possible. But, the notion that Tedford would guarantee playing time for a player that gets his hands on 100% of snaps in order to secure the services of a guy that gets his hands on 10% of the snaps is preposterous. But if some reason that turns out to be true, I'd consider it the worst, by far, of any other grievance. I don't agree with much these days about how Tedford is running the program, but I can't ever imagine he'd do something so ridiculous.

So you're saying that Tedford cares about the # of stars of players he recruits but doesn't care at all if the team wins or loses games. Very believable.

Why would he want KA to come? I presume in order to win football games. So now you're saying he doesn't want to win games. Very logical.

goldenjax;610528 said:

---

We were 3-0 and he played a damn good game in a tuff lost to Washington. He climbed the depth chart deservingly. Alot of the intense criticism did not start until the Oregon game. Nothing smelled rotten until the Oregon week.

---

Hopefully, you are speaking for yourself.

What does a star mean?

Wasn't QB Jake Heaps a 5*?

Wasn't LB Patrick Willis a 2*?

And how many stars did QB Kellen Moore have?

Now subtract one * for every season under Tedford's system and we're getting somewhere accurate.

rcs15;610599 said:

---

He's starting because he and Keenan Allen were a package deal. It's obviously not because he is any good.

---

Exactly.
Anyone who doesn't believe this is the case obviously hasn't been paying attention.

goldenjax;610528 said:

---

We were 3-0 and he played a damn good game in a tuff lost to Washington. He climbed the depth chart deservingly. Alot of the intense criticism did not start until the Oregon game. Nothing smelled rotten until the Oregon week.

---

You are delusional. Grasping at anything you can to avoid facing reality.


First, anyone who claimed he was doing well (or damn good) in the first four games is football illiterate. AT BEST he showed promise.

EVERYONE saw a horrendously inconsistent QB, with flashes of brilliance.

Some people thought he would improve and become consistent, and others (like me) predicted that he would start to fall apart once he faced any reasonable team.


His "Damn good game" included going 1 for 5 in the redzone... GARBAGE.

Against a DII/FCS team (JUST moved up to FCS, but does not even have full membership), he threw a horrendous pick6 that harkened to the kinds of picks Longshore would throw late in his carreer.

Against FSU, he certainly had flashes, but all I saw was a guy who got flustered and played a LOT like Vedder.

He almost lost (but thankfully his ridiculously inconsistent flashes of brilliance and his epic WR brother averted disaster) to a TERRIBLE -ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE- Colorado. Make no mistake, we won despite ourselves. We did not win because of QB play.

And then he ran roughshod over a equally inept (but somehow claimed stellar Defensed) Utah.




The teams we have beaten with Maynard have 6 TOTAL FBS wins and only 4 FCS wins.

Yeah, against FBS teams they are a combined 0.240 on the season against FBS teams (excluding Presby). THINK ABOUT THAT.





If Maynard deserved the top of the depth chart...

oskihasahearton;610579 said:

---

What does a star mean?

Wasn't QB Jake Heaps a 5*?

Wasn't LB Patrick Willis a 2*?

And how many stars did QB Kellen Moore have?

---

You know better... if you dont, I feel sorry for you.

Phantomfan;610720 said:

---

You know better... if you dont, I feel sorry for you.

---

...you get one star for sympathy.

oskihasahearton;610765 said:

---

...you get one star for sympathy.

---

As long as it's GOLD, baby!

calpride;610609 said:

---

Exactly.
Anyone who doesn't believe this is the case obviously hasn't been paying attention.

---

You know, I think there might be some truth in this observation.

goldenjax;610528 said:

---

We were 3-0 and he played a damn good game in a tuff lost to Washington. He climbed the depth chart deservingly. Alot of the intense criticism did not start until the Oregon game. Nothing smelled rotten until the Oregon week.

---

Besides spring ball, he sucked at washington too... remove your cranium from your rectum as this qb has plumbed depths that even Ayoob and Mansion have failed to reach.

QB Recruits HS Stars

2002 Steve Levy 0 stars
2003 Cary Dove 3 stars
2003 Aaron Rodgers 0 stars
2004 Nate Longshore 4 stars
2005 Kyle Reed 4 stars
2005 Joe Ayoob ? stars
2006 Kevin Riley 4 stars
2007 Brock Mansion 4 stars
2008 Beau Sweeney 3 stars
2009 Allan Bridgford 4 stars
2010 Austin Hinder 3 stars
2011 Zach Maynard 2 stars
2011 Kyle Boehm 4 stars

Maynard is like our other two other transfers, Rodgers and Ayoob, in that they were not highly rated out of high school. That is [U]why[/U] they played at a lower level and then transferred to Cal. I would say HS ratings of transfers means even less than it normally does.

That is all wrong about Rodgers. Revisionist history from some of you fans.

Rivals: 3 stars
http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Aaron-Rodgers-14550

Scout: 4 stars
http://grandvalleystate.scout.com/a.z?s=449&p=8&c=1&nid=492366

And stop using Scout rankings. Since most of the Cal-related staff there left, they've been very anti-Cal.

TheSouseFamily;610546 said:

---

I'm firmly in the "Tedford has lost me" camp and would want to see a change as soon as reasonably possible. But, the notion that Tedford would guarantee playing time for a player that gets his hands on 100% of snaps in order to secure the services of a guy that gets his hands on 10% of the snaps is preposterous. But if some reason that turns out to be true, I'd consider it the worst, by far, of any other grievance. I don't agree with much these days about how Tedford is running the program, but I can't ever imagine he'd do something so ridiculous.

---

Me too, I can't ever imagine Tedford doing something ridiculous like that.

What's happening is that Tedford is looking bad because of his system that does not develop back up Qbs and his resistance to changing the Qb. He chose Zack as the starter for good reasons, and not just to appease KA. Some of us even noted that Zack and KAs connecting would be a good thing. The gamble didn't work. He's kinda stuck because of his bad experiences with Mansion last year. Unfortunately, this is painting him as playing favorites.

Now he really needs to figure out what to do. I hope he has some foresight and chooses Bridgford to start. Otherwise, he may face dissentions not just with his fans but also of with his players.

:rant

radibear;610957 said:

---

Now he really needs to figure out what to do. I hope he has some foresight and chooses Bridgford to start. Otherwise, he may face dissentions not just with his fans but also of with his players.
:rant

---

I think you meant foreskin... or testicular fortitude... ?

goldenjax;610528 said:

---

We were 3-0 and he played a damn good game in a tuff lost to Washington. He climbed the depth chart deservingly. Alot of the intense criticism did not start until the Oregon game. Nothing smelled rotten until the Oregon week.

---

Please, oh please, do not go here. The level of competition we played, up till Oregon game, well lets just say Beau Sweeney could have looked like the next coming of Aaron Rodgers, that is not a good point to base ones opinion on.

We've always done a good job of recruiting top QB's. There will always be exceptions with guys who fail to develop or guys who come out of now where. For all of you "high school rankings" don't matter pundits; can we agree at the very least that a highly touted prep is a safer bet?

We've had a bad run of QB's who failed to develop. Longshore may have been great for us had he not gotten hurt, and Riley as well had it not been for the Oregon State debacle which still haunts him to this day. Guarantee you that people still say "Kevin, why didn't you get out of bounds? Could have been number one man."

Maynard is trash, always was, always will be. At least all of our other "failures" were recruited to come here based on their ability, not because they were a packaged deal.

Anyone who tells me that we offered him as out of HS, I will tell you is damn lie. Maybe he visited, maybe Tedford said "nice throw" at a camp. No way in hell this guy was offered. He didn't have the grades, let alone the ability. We took Sweeney that year who was a very highly touted recruit (a safer bet). A competitor website did not add Cal to Maynards offer list until KA decommitted from Alabama. Hate to say it but something shady happened here. If you look at his prep profile now, it says his visit date was in 2010, he was a 2008 recruit.