Stanford is a damn good team. They have a great running game and a heisman caliber QB. After watching the Fiesta Bowl it was obvious they have a weak secondary. ZM got so much credit for his play against furd. I believe it was unwarranted. The idea of him starting next year makes me want to :headbang!!! Sure he is good when Isi is gashing teams for 180 yards and he is required to do nothing more than be a game manager. The problem is when the defense is actually good, he is lost and sometimes horrid to watch. <br /><br />I pray JT makes the QB competition fair. Please JT do the right thing.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">AZGoldenBear;665122 said:</div><hr>Stanford is a damn good team. They have a great running game and a heisman caliber QB. After watching the Fiesta Bowl it was obvious they have a weak secondary. ZM got so much credit for his play against furd. I believe it was unwarranted. The idea of him starting next year makes me want to :headbang!!! Sure he is good when Isi is gashing teams for 180 yards and he is required to do nothing more than be a game manager. The problem is when the defense is actually good, he is lost and sometimes horrid to watch. <br /><br />I pray JT makes the QB competition fair. Please JT do the right thing.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Aww come on you Maynard-haters give the poor guy a break. We have to give him just another 12 starts to see what he can really do. All those INT's, fumbles, TO's and terrible passes do not tell the whole story.<br />:sarc:

I started off a big Maynard fan, esp. when he made some magical plays v. CU and UW. Then the Oregon game happened where we first saw the deer in the headlights look. Then I was kind of did a double take when he did that head snapping thing even on the TD to KA. It got me thinking this kid may not be upper BCS caliber. Then the $C and UCLA games happened and the wheels fell off. The kid is living his dream, doing his best, studying hard as a Cal student. ZM deserves much praise for that. But I don't think he's the guy to lead us to the next level -- I think it's beyond his God-given abilities (it's not his fault, we all have our limits). I really hope even in 2012 that's what JT is shooting for -- getting back to the next level. We do have guys that have the God-given talent to get us to the next level. Whether JT wants to develop them now or later is going to be the issue.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">GivemTheAxe;665140 said:</div><hr>Aww come on you Maynard-haters give the poor guy a break. We have to give him just another 12 starts to see what he can really do. All those INT's, fumbles, TO's and terrible passes do not tell the whole story.<br />:sarc:<hr></blockquote><br />And by all means it has to be every single meaningful snap in all 12 games in order for the full comparison to be made

:horse:horse:horse:horse:horse:horse

<blockquote><div class="name-said">tommie317;665173 said:</div><hr>And by all means it has to be every single meaningful snap in all 12 games in order for the full comparison to be made<hr></blockquote><br /><br />OK. This is a dead horse but taking the "long view" there are worse things that ZM being the starter next year _IF_ Klein is the number 1 backup. The idea of installing ANOTHER first year QB in this system is just terrifying. Our OL in 2 years should be solidifiied and "good". Brigeford will be ready to contribute at tailback. We do lose all world KA but we have a young recieving corp that should be ready in 2013.<br /><br />Honestly, do BI'er want Klein to start as a true Freshman, get beat up and lose confidence? ZM is the right guy for a 1 year progression, to set things up for better things in the long run.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;665294 said:</div><hr>if he's the right guy he'll be fine.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Do you really think that this isn't a team sport? Come on. There are GREAT QBs that SUCK if the O-Line isn't good and vis-a-versa. _IF_ the Bears had a great OLine coming back than I would agree. But we do not. We lose probably our best 2 pass blockers. <br /><br />When Klien gets blindsided by a blitzing LB that our new Left guard wiffs on your ideas go "poof". Stick with ZM, suffer through a 7-9 win season but it sets up well for 2013.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;665304 said:</div><hr>Do you really think that this isn't a team sport? Come on. There are GREAT QBs that SUCK if the O-Line isn't good and vis-a-versa. _IF_ the Bears had a great OLine coming back than I would agree. But we do not. We lose probably our best 2 pass blockers. <br /><br />When Klien gets blindsided by a blitzing LB that our new Left guard wiffs on your ideas go "poof". Stick with ZM, suffer through a 7-9 win season but it sets up well for 2013.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I would LOVE to "suffer" through a 9-win season.

or maybe OK State is just one of the best offenses in the country? They're 3rd in the country in ypg and 2nd in points. <br /><br />I heard somewhere that furd hadn't allowed a single receiver to get 100 yards on them all year until the bowl game. They may not have a dominant defense and Maynard may not be a great qb or the man to lead us to anything all that exciting next year but there's no need to denigrate his performance against a top 5 team on the road.

I didn't see much of this game, but anybody who expected OSU to score less than 5 TDs didn't know much about their team. That is a potent offensive team. They scored 38 points on that Texas defense we played and 44 against Oklahoma.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;665304 said:</div><hr>Do you really think that this isn't a team sport? Come on. There are GREAT QBs that SUCK if the O-Line isn't good and vis-a-versa. _IF_ the Bears had a great OLine coming back than I would agree. But we do not. We lose probably our best 2 pass blockers. <br /><br />When Klien gets blindsided by a blitzing LB that our new Left guard wiffs on your ideas go "poof". Stick with ZM, suffer through a 7-9 win season but it sets up well for 2013.<hr></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />More like get rid of Maynard, start Bridgford or Boehm, and then ZK in 13

<blockquote><div class="name-said">GoBears58;665364 said:</div><hr>More like get rid of Maynard, start Bridgford or Boehm, and then ZK in 13<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Remember when everyone was saying we should get rid of Riley, and then we got Mansion? <br /><br />Remember that?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">socaltownie;665291 said:</div><hr>OK. This is a dead horse but taking the "long view" there are worse things that ZM being the starter next year _IF_ Klein is the number 1 backup. The idea of installing ANOTHER first year QB in this system is just terrifying. Our OL in 2 years should be solidifiied and "good". Brigeford will be ready to contribute at tailback. We do lose all world KA but we have a young recieving corp that should be ready in 2013.<br /><br />Honestly, do BI'er want Klein to start as a true Freshman, get beat up and lose confidence? ZM is the right guy for a 1 year progression, to set things up for better things in the long run.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />WTF we had a poor QB in 2011 so we must stick with him in 2012 because our best star recruit will be a true Freshman and we are afraid of ruining him AND because we are afraid to give any other star recruits a fair chance to start.<br /><br />As FDR said: We have nothing to fear but Fear itself.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">68great;665381 said:</div><hr>WTF we had a poor QB in 2011 so we must stick with him in 2012 because our best star recruit will be a true Freshman and we are afraid of ruining him AND because we are afraid to give any other star recruits a fair chance to start.<br /><br />As FDR said: We have nothing to fear but Fear itself.<hr></blockquote><br />+1<br /><br />the point is the ZM reached his ceiling......do we go with someone whom we know cannot beat teams that aren't sub-par? or do we go with a qb that may be able to?

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Bear Island;667561 said:</div><hr>Remember when Spazzy McGee made a good point on any Cal site?<br /><br />Me either.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />+100:beer:

Yeah and if Shaw hadn't choked on his clipboard, we wouldn't be talking about OK St. Now, W. Va. really demonstrated how potent an offense can be.

the horse is not laughing, not even a smile

<blockquote><div class="name-said">AZGoldenBear;665122 said:</div><hr>Stanford is a damn good team. They have a great running game and a heisman caliber QB. After watching the Fiesta Bowl it was obvious they have a weak secondary. ZM got so much credit for his play against furd. I believe it was unwarranted. The idea of him starting next year makes me want to :headbang!!! Sure he is good when Isi is gashing teams for 180 yards and he is required to do nothing more than be a game manager. The problem is when the defense is actually good, he is lost and sometimes horrid to watch. <br /><br />I pray JT makes the QB competition fair. Please JT do the right thing.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Give me a break. Give credit where credit is due. Of all the games to be critical of Maynard, the Big Game wasn't one of them.<br /><br />In games against conference foes, furd is ranked 3rd in the conf in passing yards allowed per game, 3rd in passing yds allowed per att, and #1 in fewest passing TDs allowed. They are very good against the pass.<br /><br />Down the stretch of the regular season...the final 4 games of the year (incl road games against a bowl team and a BCS game)...Maynard was the #2 rated QB in the Pac-12. Only behind Barkley and ahead of Darron Thomas and Andrew Luck.<br /><br />But, if the thought of ZM starting next year bothers you that much, I welcome you to forego your season tickets next year.

Excuse me, but can you tell me where I can find the Maynard-haters thread? Oh, this is the one.

Honestly, about Maynard...<br /><br />Who cares if he starts. <br />He did not get blown apart by Tennessee in 2006.<br />He did not lose to one of the worst Furd teams in recent history in 2007.<br />He did not get luld by Arizona in 2008<br />He did not string together the two worst (given our talent) weeks of football in 2009 at Oregon and at home against SC.<br />He did not lose 7 games in 2010.<br />He does not false start at home.<br />He does not get PFs out of nowhere.<br />He does not miss blocks<br />He does not miss tackles<br />He does not fair catch inside the 5<br />He is not (the only) one making game one mistakes in the 13th game of the season.<br /><br />Maynard, I am convinced, is not the problem... NONE of our players should be used as a scape goat. These problems existed long before he arrived at Cal. Blaming him is like blaming Boller for going 1-10. <br /><br />The coaching is not there at any position (outside Gould, IMO, not even coach M could get his squad firing on all 8), and that makes it absolutely unfair to blame individual players. Until coaching is fixed, we will be doing a lot of blaming "kids"...in a couple years it will be Kline. If he is some kind of magical guy that can overcome no blocking, we will blame the next guy...<br /><br /><br /><br />I expect that AT LEAST blocking will improve, and that will help a lot next year.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />BTW, If Kline is as good as claimed, Tedford may use him like Rodgers in 2003. That might be nice.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;667746 said:</div><hr>Honestly, about Maynard...<br /><br />Who cares if he starts. <br />He did not get blown apart by Tennessee in 2006.<br />He did not lose to one of the worst Furd teams in recent history in 2007.<br />He did not get luld by Arizona in 2008<br />He did not string together the two worst (given our talent) weeks of football in 2009 at Oregon and at home against SC.<br />He did not lose 7 games in 2010.<br />He does not false start at home.<br />He does not get PFs out of nowhere.<br />He does not miss blocks<br />He does not miss tackles<br />He does not fair catch inside the 5<br />He is not (the only) one making game one mistakes in the 13th game of the season.<br /><br /><hr></blockquote><br /><br />I'm pretty sure that was him I saw on the Hindenburg.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;667746 said:</div><hr>Honestly, about Maynard...<br /><br />Who cares if he starts. <br />He did not get blown apart by Tennessee in 2006.<br />He did not lose to one of the worst Furd teams in recent history in 2007.<br />He did not get luld by Arizona in 2008<br />He did not string together the two worst (given our talent) weeks of football in 2009 at Oregon and at home against SC.<br />He did not lose 7 games in 2010.<br />He does not false start at home.<br />He does not get PFs out of nowhere.<br />He does not miss blocks<br />He does not miss tackles<br />He does not fair catch inside the 5<br />He is not (the only) one making game one mistakes in the 13th game of the season.<br /><br />Maynard, I am convinced, is not the problem... NONE of our players should be used as a scape goat. These problems existed long before he arrived at Cal. Blaming him is like blaming Boller for going 1-10. <br /><br />The coaching is not there at any position (outside Gould, IMO, not even coach M could get his squad firing on all 8), and that makes it absolutely unfair to blame individual players. Until coaching is fixed, we will be doing a lot of blaming "kids"...in a couple years it will be Kline. If he is some kind of magical guy that can overcome no blocking, we will blame the next guy...<br /><br /><br /><br />I expect that AT LEAST blocking will improve, and that will help a lot next year.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />BTW, If Kline is as good as claimed, Tedford may use him like Rodgers in 2003. That might be nice.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />:rant :bravo:bravo:bravo:bravo

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Spazzy McGee;665366 said:</div><hr>Remember when everyone was saying we should get rid of Riley, and then we got Mansion? <br /><br />Remember that?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Remember when everyone said sit Robertson and start Rogers?<br /><br />BTW when people argued against KR (for the record, many of us never did since we knew it was more of a problem with the OLine and the WR's), KR did not have the TO's that ZM is having or lack of performance when he had the ball with "1st and goal". There is more than enough evidence that ZM is no where near the same caliber of QB as KR.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">AZGoldenBear;665122 said:</div><hr>Stanford is a damn good team. They have a great running game and a heisman caliber QB. After watching the Fiesta Bowl it was obvious they have a weak secondary. ZM got so much credit for his play against furd. I believe it was unwarranted....<hr></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Of course, the Stanford performance was unwarranted as it may have been a one-time deal...but some of us thought ZM's against ASU <b>the following week</b> was cause to give him credit. Some of us thought his performance against the Sun Devils was better than against Stanford and that, combined, ZM may have had the "lights turn on" for him.<br /><br />Even a troll or a guy off the street can look at the season schedule and figure out in what order the games were played.<br /><br />Your Stanford example sucks. It's just flame-bait by an amateur. It was the game afterwards, the ASU game, that made some us excited about ZM and the offense because we put up 40+ points.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;667746 said:</div><hr>Honestly, about Maynard...<br /><br />Who cares if he starts. <br />He did not get blown apart by Tennessee in 2006.<br />He did not lose to one of the worst Furd teams in recent history in 2007.<br />He did not get luld by Arizona in 2008<br />He did not string together the two worst (given our talent) weeks of football in 2009 at Oregon and at home against SC.<br />He did not lose 7 games in 2010.<br />He does not false start at home.<br />He does not get PFs out of nowhere.<br />He does not miss blocks<br />He does not miss tackles<br />He does not fair catch inside the 5<br />He is not (the only) one making game one mistakes in the 13th game of the season.<br /><br />Maynard, I am convinced, is not the problem... NONE of our players should be used as a scape goat. These problems existed long before he arrived at Cal. Blaming him is like blaming Boller for going 1-10. <br /><br />The coaching is not there at any position (outside Gould, IMO, not even coach M could get his squad firing on all 8), and that makes it absolutely unfair to blame individual players. Until coaching is fixed, we will be doing a lot of blaming "kids"...in a couple years it will be Kline. If he is some kind of magical guy that can overcome no blocking, we will blame the next guy...<br /><br /><br /><br />I expect that AT LEAST blocking will improve, and that will help a lot next year.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />BTW, If Kline is as good as claimed, Tedford may use him like Rodgers in 2003. That might be nice.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Right, so it's tedford's fault because there are only so many times you can keep firing the coordinators.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">tommie317;667978 said:</div><hr>Right, so it's tedford's fault because there are only so many times you can keep firing the coordinators.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Maybe...<br /><br />However:<br />1. Tedford was once the KING of fundamentals. His teams would hold onto the ball, and get takeaways like crazy. They would tackle and block WAY above their talent level... They would be in the correct places so that their lack of talent could be overcome by being where they were meant to be.<br /><br />For example: Vinnie Strang had very little in terms of his physical gifts. Tedford used fundamentals to increase his chance of success... You can do that with athletes who have the physical gifts as well.<br /><br />2. Tedford may be rotating coaches, but what is the net change? His coaches might be as bad or worse. They may not be given enough control to make their units reach potential, or they may just not be the correct fit for his system. No way to tell. IMHO, I think it is the pay we offer being too low to recruit 10-13 win as. coaches. <br /><br /><br /><br />Tedford should get fired, and we should name a major part of the stadium (say "Tedford Club level"<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />"> IMHO. But he wont get fired, so we are left hoping he gets back to teaching these kids the fundamentals of football so we stop having multiple games with 5 turnovers, and at least get BEAT instead of giving away games. <br /><br />He did it VERY well between 2002 and 2006. We had season with +24 (or something crazy) on turn overs... with Holmoe players... HE built them into a team long on fundamentals and short on talent (save a few ridiculously good players) and won a lot of games he should not have.<br /><br /><br /><br />Honestly, Rodgers was [U]VERY good[/U], but he was NEVER as good as people remember him to be. He had a great line, a RB with the most yards in FBS, and well coached D, but most of all, he was given a playbook FULL of high percentage short gain plays. He was part of a good team, and he was a very good QB, but he was not a superbowl MVP when he played in 2004, and in 2003 he ranged from horrible (OSU) to great (VT). Throw Rodgers into this holiday bowl, and he looks like the standard human QB. You cannot "survive" without your TEAM playing sound football. Not Rodgers. Not Maynard (I am not claiming Maynard could be rodgers).

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;668089 said:</div><hr>Maybe...<br /><br />However:<br />1. Tedford was once the KING of fundamentals. His teams would hold onto the ball, and get takeaways like crazy. They would tackle and block WAY above their talent level... They would be in the correct places so that their lack of talent could be overcome by being where they were meant to be.<br /><br />For example: Vinnie Strang had very little in terms of his physical gifts. Tedford used fundamentals to increase his chance of success... You can do that with athletes who have the physical gifts as well.<br /><br />2. Tedford may be rotating coaches, but what is the net change? His coaches might be as bad or worse. They may not be given enough control to make their units reach potential, or they may just not be the correct fit for his system. No way to tell. IMHO, I think it is the pay we offer being too low to recruit 10-13 win as. coaches. <br /><br /><br /><br />Tedford should get fired, and we should name a major part of the stadium (say "Tedford Club level"<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />"> IMHO. But he wont get fired, so we are left hoping he gets back to teaching these kids the fundamentals of football so we stop having multiple games with 5 turnovers, and at least get BEAT instead of giving away games. <br /><br />He did it VERY well between 2002 and 2006. We had season with +24 (or something crazy) on turn overs... with Holmoe players... HE built them into a team long on fundamentals and short on talent (save a few ridiculously good players) and won a lot of games he should not have.<br /><br /><br /><br />Honestly, Rodgers was [U]VERY good[/U], but he was NEVER as good as people remember him to be. He had a great line, a RB with the most yards in FBS, and well coached D, but most of all, he was given a playbook FULL of high percentage short gain plays. He was part of a good team, and he was a very good QB, but he was not a superbowl MVP when he played in 2004, and in 2003 he ranged from horrible (OSU) to great (VT). Throw Rodgers into this holiday bowl, and he looks like the standard human QB. You cannot "survive" without your TEAM playing sound football. Not Rodgers. Not Maynard (I am not claiming Maynard could be rodgers).<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I know that many on this board would not agree with me; but IMO JT is still a good coach but he has tendencies that limit his effectiveness. One of the tendencies is to be too stubborn with playing a particular player.<br />For example Maynard and Isi.<br />Maynard especially has his defects; Isi just is too small and a step slower than he should be.<br /><br />IMO the problems this year were [besides Maynard], an OLine that was recovering from the problems of two years with the prior OLine coach and horrible OLine recruiting.<br /><br />But over all the performance was not garbage, and there was a definite improvement. With better play at the QB spot Cal could have been an 8 or 9 or even 10 win team in the regular season. Not too shabby.