Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but your telling me if your life depended on winning the Oregon St. game, you'd start Bridford over Maynard?? I sure as hell wouldn't.

This is silly. Accepting the snap and going the right way on handoffs is purely a matter of repetition. Is anyone here really concerned that AB can't clean that up with more practice time? He'll figure it out. The question is how long will it take him to play at a high level (given his skillset) and does he have what it takes to succeed as a QB at Cal?

Mansion eventually got his handoffs right and took the snap fine last year once he got reps in practice and AB will do the same.

Yeah, I'm not saying he wouldn't be better in time, but right now I'd go with Maynard.

Good to have you back Drunk.

CalReason;617245 said:

---

It's true, the question is how long and IF, with time, AB can become solid. It has nothing to do with whether AB will or will not continue to run the wrong way on plays.

This point illuminates why JT is reserved in making the change at QB...whether that is an adequate set of reasoning for sticking with ZM I'm not so sure.

---

I think playing both QBs from the beginning of the season was the way to go, but at this point it makes no sense to start Bridgford. Maynard had a pretty good game in a good game plan. Bridgford continues to look shakey in basics like taking snaps, making handoffs and completing passes beyond 5 yards (and yes, I do think it is a catch-22).

However, juts like for WSU, I would have Bridgford ready and say we would like to play him again and if Maynard hits a rough patch, play Bridgford for a least a series and see how he does.

A little off topic, but the play I really liked in that WSU game was when Allen shifted into the backfield and they ran the read option with him. I'd like to see more of that one. We're getting a little more imagination this year anyway.

calumnus;617288 said:

---

I think playing both QBs from the beginning of the season was the way to go, but at this point it makes no sense to start Bridgford. Maynard had a pretty good game in a good game plan. Bridgford continues to look shakey in basics like taking snaps, making handoffs and completing passes beyond 5 yards (and yes, I do think it is a catch-22).

However, juts like for WSU, I would have Bridgford ready and say we would like to play him again and if Maynard hits a rough patch, play Bridgford for a least a series and see how he does.

---

So you'd start Maynard because Bridgford doesn't look ready but you'd have Bridgford ready just in case?

The whole premise on this board is we have to start Maynard to beat OSU so we can become bowl eligible because nobody thinks we can beat Stanford or ASU with Maynard at quarterback. At what point do we just play the guy who would develop into the better quarterback?

dajo9;617353 said:

---

The whole premise on this board is we have to start Maynard to beat OSU so we can become bowl eligible because nobody thinks we can beat Stanford or ASU with Maynard at quarterback.

---

Uh, no. It's the stated judgement of the coaching staff that Maynard gives us the better chance to beat OSU which is desirable because neither Maynard OR Bridgford would be favored to win vs. Furd or ASU. You left out that rather critical last part. What IS a premise on this board is your claim that Bridgford would develop into the better QB.

dajo9;617353 said:

---

At what point do we just play the guy who would develop into the better quarterback?

---

It seems pretty clear that you'd prefer Cal simply give up on bowl eligibility this year in order to get a chance to prove your premise. How selfish is that? You've got 80+ players, the vast majority of them non-seniors who would benefit mightily from having another month to practice and another game to play, but screw that.

freshfunk;616509 said:

---

Did we see enough today to evaluate him?

The game under AB today looked much different from Oregon.

I don't remember how many fumbles there were. It was hard to tell who was at fault.

It seemed like they were calling runs for all 1st and 2nd downs (running game was there all day) and he had his chances on 3rd downs. I think I read he was 1-3 so it's a really small sample.

Some seem to be hanging the fumbles on him.

What do you think? Wet ball? Bad snaps? Miscommunication?

---

From my perspective all of his few passes were on target. In fact one bounced off of Allen's hands. If he had caught it, he was off to the races.
The passes did not require the WR's to jump, fall, or stretch. They were chest high.

As for the fumbles, one looked to be a problem of the runner. The other looked to be the problem of the center's snap. But it was cold and very wet.
If you blame AB, then you might as well blame ZM for the fumble on which he was hurt.

82gradDLSdad;616540 said:

---

but my god, can we ever have a backup QB come in and just play? I watched Oregon do it. WSU is doing it. OSU is doing it. UCLA is doing it. Our backup QBs look worse than if we just picked them up from high school and threw them in the game. Maybe Bridgford is horrible. But Mansion was too, last year, Sweeney the year before. And Hinder is 4th string. Boehm showed so little that they are redshirting him. Jesus Tedford, prepare a backup QB, get him some meaningful playing time, treat him like you expect him to come in and play without missing a beat. It is GD embarrassing. He is one play from being your starter, as tonight showed. Get him ready, already!!!!!

---

Sorry 82. But you are [U]dead wrong [/U]on your analysis of Bridgford.

calumnus;617288 said:

---

I think playing both QBs from the beginning of the season was the way to go, but at this point it makes no sense to start Bridgford. Maynard had a pretty good game in a good game plan. Bridgford continues to look shakey in basics like taking snaps, making handoffs and completing passes beyond 5 yards (and yes, I do think it is a catch-22).

However, juts like for WSU, I would have Bridgford ready and say we would like to play him again and if Maynard hits a rough patch, play Bridgford for a least a series and see how he does.

---

How can you say that aB looked bad but you apparently think that ZM looked OK.
Again ZM had very few good looking passes.
If he can learn to hit the WR's in the hands, chest high and in stride, Cal could beat ASU and OSU.
ZM missed all deep passes by more than 3 yards. The WSU QB was much more accurate on the deep passes.
ZM had maybe 5-6 good passes. The others required great catches by Jones or Allen. On one Allen was running an out pattern all alone, but had to reach way back for the ball. By the time he brought the ball in his momentum carried him out of bounds. If the ball had been well thrown, it would have been a long gain.
So I get so tired of the posters looking only at the stats and not behind the stats. ZM had a "decent" day on the stats. But an accurate passing QB would have had at least 2 or 3 more TD's.

As I have said before, JT's plays are getting the WR's open. But ZM is not accurate enough to take full advantage of this. AB is much more accurate. the one drop was clearly KA's miss not AB's miss.

Cal84;617367 said:

---

Uh, no. It's the stated judgement of the coaching staff that Maynard gives us the better chance to beat OSU which is desirable because neither Maynard OR Bridgford would be favored to win vs. Furd or ASU. You left out that rather critical last part. What IS a premise on this board is your claim that Bridgford would develop into the better QB.

goddammit people what is wrong with you? you tell me ONE other Pac12 school that would continue to start Maynard today, given our QBs on the bench. why is it that we, at Cal, think his performance is all hunky dory? Why do we even debate whether Bridgford would be better than Maynard? it doesn't matter because we will NEVER BE GOOD, let alone great, with Maynard at the helm.

I am a pragmatist. Hanky will remember I was very vocal about keeping Maynard on in the first few games and giving him a shot. That shot has been had.

It's fking time to find out what bridgford has because there is no chance in hell Maynard has it.

this repeated oh shucks well maynard gives us the best chance to win is asinine.

Cal84;617367 said:

---

Uh, no. It's the stated judgement of the coaching staff that Maynard gives us the better chance to beat OSU which is desirable because neither Maynard OR Bridgford would be favored to win vs. Furd or ASU. You left out that rather critical last part. What IS a premise on this board is your claim that Bridgford would develop into the better QB.



It seems pretty clear that you'd prefer Cal simply give up on bowl eligibility this year in order to get a chance to prove your premise. How selfish is that? You've got 80+ players, the vast majority of them non-seniors who would benefit mightily from having another month to practice and another game to play, but screw that.

---

I guess I don't need a full response since Haashole pretty much summed it up

i'm sure i'll get skewered for saying this, but it's true -- why do we watch college football? it's not BECAUSE we care deeply about the lives of the kids on the field. rather, we care because it provides us with entertainment. we may also care about the lives of these players, but get real, it's not like we would care about them a fraction of what we do if they weren't playing football for Cal. So yes, unfortunately we're absolutely selfish when it comes to watching college football. it's not fair to insinuate that this doesn't apply to some people or some fans are better because they don't think this way.

That premise said, for the future of the program, while it may be best for the seniors on the field i don't think it's in our best interest to play Maynard. heck, it's not even better for the sophs or juniors on the field.

one person it IS better for is JT. cynical? yes. true? same response.

dajo9;617353 said:

---

...At what point do we just play the guy who would develop into the better quarterback?

---

Cal84;617367 said:

---

...It seems pretty clear that you'd prefer Cal simply give up on bowl eligibility this year in order to get a chance to prove your premise. How selfish is that? You've got 80+ players, the vast majority of them non-seniors who would benefit mightily from having another month to practice and another game to play, but screw that.

---

As NFL HOF Coach George Allen famously said, "The future is now."

all the proof you need to whether we should give Bridgford a full shot at starting:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/conferences/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/collegeQuarterbackRating/year/2011/id/9/pacific-12-conference

11 qualifying Pac 12 QB's rated (Brehaut was on the list last week but dropped out since Prince is playing). Last week Maynard was dead last #12 of 12 QB's, this week, this brehaut dropped out and an okay WSU game, he vaulted himself up to #10, 0.2 rating above last place.

history of Cal QB's Ratings Ranking in Pac 10/12:
2004: Rodgers #2
2005: Ayoob #9
2006: Longshore #2
2007: Longshore #6
2008: Riley #6
2009: Riley #6
2010: Riley #5
2011: Maynard #10

Maynard is projected to be the lowest ranked Cal QB based on QB Rating in the Pac in the last 8 years

It seems like Maynard can't throw short or long passes with any type of accuracy.

He's good at throwing mid-range throws over the middle while on the run to his left.

Makes perfect sense that he's one of the worst starting QBs in PAC12.

Interesting to see that nearly every PAC 12 quarterback is over 60% on attempts. Maynard isn't even close at 53%. But of course, JT is right and the silly fans (and apparently the stats) are wrong.

^ it's all the more damning when you think of the relative quality of our receivers...

drunkoski;617179 said:

---

Yes. I predict two ints with Maynard rolling left against a riley coached d. He'll be waiting for it.

---

Since you're basing the QB decision on your gut instinct instead of the fact that clearly point in the opposite direction?

Facts matter to most people. I know they don't to you. So how many fumbled snaps are okay for AB to make before it starts becoming a problem? 6? 8? 10? All day long, who cares so long as do gets his way??

Damn, and you say JT is stubborn...

Haashole;617382 said:

---

Cal84;617367 said:

---

Uh, no. ... asinine.

---

a good thing. worth nike's money, but priceless & circumstantially appropriate

BeachyBear;617537 said:

---

Since you're basing the QB decision on your gut instinct instead of the fact that clearly point in the opposite direction?

Facts matter to most people. I know they don't to you. So how many fumbled snaps are okay for AB to make before it starts becoming a problem? 6? 8? 10? All day long, who cares so long as do gets his way??

Damn, and you say JT is stubborn...

---

The thing is, AB wasn't fumbling snaps in practice so you might chalk that up to nerves and wet conditions. OTOH, Maynard threw many interceptions in practice so he is doing the same things.....I don't know if AB is any good at all except for his ranking coming out of high school, but we do know Maynard is limited to what he can do...being ranked 10th in the Pac 12 after 9 games is not all that great.....

AZGoldenBear;616597 said:

---

so mop up duty @ oregon and a couple bad snaps today cancel out any shot of AB starting..

ZM can go out and throw 3 picks against sc and 4 picks against Fucla and he is still without question our #1 guy.

Can we please see more of AB in order to make a FAIR judgement on him. All i've seen from ZM is terrible mechanics, footwork, horrendous accuracy, etc..

ZM can throw a decent pass to KA time to time, and that's about it. He is the definition of a one trick pony.

---

Right on
AZGoldenBear.
If I didn't know better I would say that ZM is JT's son.

BearEatsTacos;617115 said:

---

Myth? The reality is you are playing with statistics to favor your cause. 3 of the incomplete passes were placed perfectly and dropped. Including the completions you conveniently left out and accounting for dropped passes, his completion would have been 11/19, a respectable 58%. (See, I can do the same thing.) This is of course not accounting for the fact that Oregon runs a pretty damned good defense and Bridgford came in cold with 9 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

---

Agree as was the pass to KA on Saturday.

GivemTheAxe;617372 said:

---

How can you say that aB looked bad but you apparently think that ZM looked OK.
Again ZM had very few good looking passes.
If he can learn to hit the WR's in the hands, chest high and in stride, Cal could beat ASU and OSU.
ZM missed all deep passes by more than 3 yards. The WSU QB was much more accurate on the deep passes.
ZM had maybe 5-6 good passes. The others required great catches by Jones or Allen. On one Allen was running an out pattern all alone, but had to reach way back for the ball. By the time he brought the ball in his momentum carried him out of bounds. If the ball had been well thrown, it would have been a long gain.
So I get so tired of the posters looking only at the stats and not behind the stats. ZM had a "decent" day on the stats. But an accurate passing QB would have had at least 2 or 3 more TD's.

As I have said before, JT's plays are getting the WR's open. But ZM is not accurate enough to take full advantage of this. AB is much more accurate. the one drop was clearly KA's miss not AB's miss.

---

If you don't bench Maynard after UCLA, why would you bench him after WSU? And no, Bridgford has not looked that good when he has been in, and yes, I attribute that to not having played him more earlier, which is what I would have liked us to do, but that is where we are at. He has not looked that good when in and he is not the first QB at Cal to have passes dropped.

Passing Ratings:
2010 Riley 140
2009 Riley 129
2011 Maynard 122
2010 Sweeney 105
2009 Sweeney 98
2011 Bridgford 89
2010 Mansion 86

We have had back-up in the past that came in an looked really good--Rodgers and Riley, and they ended up winning the starting position (and then losing it in Riley's case). Bridgford has to look a little better in relief before you just name him the starter (being able to take a snap for one). And yes, I realize it is a Catch 22--but how can we make him the starter before that is nailed down.

So my plan going into OSU is what my plan would have been for WSU--start Maynard, but have Bridgford ready to play if Maynard is shakey, even play him early, just for a change of pace. Hopefully we have the same scenario where we build up a big lead and Bridgford gets a lot more snaps in garbage time and hopefully he tears it up then and looks super confident and ready to come in and be the hero in Big Game under the same formula. There is still the chance for us to go to a bowl AND have Bridgford look good as the number 2 and compete for the starting position. No need to put all the eggs in the Bridgford now. For one, that wouldn't really be fair to Bridgford basket at this point.

FingeroftheBear;617171 said:

---

You say grow up, I say grow a pair, tape 'em back on or just chill. This is suppose to be goofy fun.

---

You're right, sorry. It was a frustrating night for 'negabears' everywhere.

I just want to see Bridgford show what he's got, even if it's not much. The ZM experiment has gone on too long and it doesn't bode well for the future of the team. Or, I guess we can see how good defenses react to his repeated rolling out left shenanigans...

EBBear2009;617134 said:

---

Unless someone improves dramatically before next season... we all know that Maynard will be the starter... Our mistakes and bad plays have led to Maynard trying way too hard to make big plays which leads to major mistakes and our losses.

---

This is just plain revisionist history! The truth is that our qb has made his own bed, and then has to have the team attempt to sleep in it.

The real problem IS the offense. When the qb does not make mistakes, the team is NOT playing from a deep hole; and the defensive mistakes are FAR fewer.

Act 1: Replace Maynard with Longshore and Bridgford with Riley.
Act 2: Replace Maynard with Riley and Bridgford with Mansion.

You've got a great trifecta going. And when reality was exposed for everyone to see, one legged Longshore > half brained Riley > Mansion. But clearly you know better than the coaching staff this time. And God forbid that Cal actually wins the two games after this board melted down from the UCLA game. Egads, that would be the worst possible outcome - denied both your dream ending AND the "I told you so" ending.

GivemTheAxe;617371 said:

---

Sorry 82. But you are [U]dead wrong [/U]on your analysis of Bridgford.

---

what [U]analysis[/U] was I making of Bridgford? My post was about Tedford continuing to not prepare a competent backup QB.

Cal84;618079 said:

---

Act 1: Replace Maynard with Longshore and Bridgford with Riley.
Act 2: Replace Maynard with Riley and Bridgford with Mansion.

You've got a great trifecta going. And when reality was exposed for everyone to see, one legged Longshore > half brained Riley > Mansion. But clearly you know better than the coaching staff this time. And God forbid that Cal actually wins the two games after this board melted down from the UCLA game. Egads, that would be the worst possible outcome - denied both your dream ending AND the "I told you so" ending.

---

we actually expect to win these 2 games. It's about being more than mediocre that we are frustrated about. Maynard will not do that for us. Tedford is too risk-averse to go for a QB change since he'd rather choose a mediocre outcome than an unknown outcome.

tommie317;618103 said:

---

we actually expect to win these 2 games. It's about being more than mediocre that we are frustrated about. Maynard will not do that for us. Tedford is too risk-averse to go for a QB change since he'd rather choose a mediocre outcome than an unknown outcome.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with the overall tone of what you are saying. However having spent an entire career observing people make predictions/expectations about unknown outcomes, I'll tell you that people systematically overestimate the upside dispersion and underestimate the downside dispersion of such random variables.

TheSouseFamily;617488 said:

---

Interesting to see that nearly every PAC 12 quarterback is over 60% on attempts. Maynard isn't even close at 53%. But of course, JT is right and the silly fans (and apparently the stats) are wrong.

---

Bridgford is at 40%

You guys keep making a great case for our starter not being as good as the rest of the Pac-12 QBs, but the problem is Bridgford has not done better when he is in. You can make all the excuses in the world, but he hasn't completed passes--which is supposed to be his strength. He has had trouble taking snaps.

Now, I fully agree that if he had been our starter from Day 1 it would be a different story, but he hasn't been. Or if he even had more real game experience even as the #2, he would likely be doing much better--and I'd agree.THAT has been JT's failing, not playing Bridgford more earlier (I think duel QBs made/make sense). However, saying we should now bench Maynard and start Bridgford just does not make sense.

Moreover, it wouldn't be fair to Bridgford to make him the starter against OSU and potentially have him be "the reason we didn't go to a bowl game" (much like people somehow still blame Riley for us losing all those games in 2007 when he was only the QB in one of them, OSU). I am all for playing Bridgford a lot more, even equally as duel--QBs and certainly bring him in at the slightest hint that Maynard is struggling, but I think he has to play better before he is the starter. We aren't playing completely for next season yet--and you can still get him needed experience and then give him more if he is successful, without putting the remainder of the season on his shoulders from the opening kickoff.

drunkoski;618238 said:

---

So its better to make Maynard the reason we don't go to a bowl?

---

I think Maynard should start but have a short leash--which lets Bridgford have a shot at coming in and being the hero--and if he isn't doing well let's us bring back Maynard. Puts Bridgford in a no-lose situation and with less stress, he might just do better. He has a chance to win it, but if we lose, it is on Maynard (assuming everyone else plays well).

calumnus;618270 said:

---

I think Maynard should start but have a short leash--which lets Bridgford have a shot at coming in and being the hero--and if he isn't doing well let's us bring back Maynard. Puts Bridgford in a no-lose situation and with less stress, he might just do better. He has a chance to win it, but if we lose, it is on Maynard (assuming everyone else plays well).

---

why couldn't he be the hero in the ucla game?

tommie317;618286 said:

---

why couldn't he be the hero in the ucla game?

---

I think he should have come in against UCLA, definitely, but really the game he should have come in with a chance to be the hero was SC.

I personally thought from that point on we should have gone with a QB tandem, each in a different offense and stay with the hot hand.

As an alternative, I like the baseball starter/reliever analogy--if the starter hits a shaky patch, bring in the reliever.

What I don't like is leaving the starter in when he is falling apart. At least take him out for a series and see what the back-up can do.