<blockquote><div class="name-said">Bear Island;675437 said:</div><hr>Unfortunately, the ball often started sprinting the other way for 6 points as he was avoiding the sack. Usually that was only because our receivers ran the wrong route though and was in no way shape or form a reflection on Nate.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />To be fair, a LOT of nates pick came on stupid play calls.<br /><br />Tedford overused two perticularly easy to sniff out plays so often that even mid-level players could jump them. Sparingly they can be good, but they were called so often that it is a wonder we ever scored any points at all. <br /><br />Best got blown up by one so bad it was talked about for an entire season. The rest often resulted in a loss, or a very short gain.<br />The other dumbass play is that hook that was our <i>other</i> pass play. High School DB's could sniff that out and make a play.<br /><br /><br />We did it for something like 5 seasons... This season was the first in a long time where those two were not our (seemingly) most used plays.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calbear93;675206 said:</div><hr> The Oregon State game, the QB controversy, and the poor pass protection under Marshall <b>just messed with Riley's head.</b><hr></blockquote><br /><br />As did the the multiple concussions, especially the one admininstered by the Ducks, the only double helmet to helmet to helmet hit I've ever seen on a QB (of course no penalty was called).<br /><br />We also had a long span of poor WR play between 2007 with Jackson, Hawkins and Jordan and the emergence of Marvin Jones and then the addition of Keenan Allen as a second WR in 2010.<br /><br />The there was that string of really bad play calling resulting in the OC getting fired nearly every year.<br /><br />There is a lot more to a passing offense than just the QB.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Bear Island;675437 said:</div><hr>Unfortunately, the ball often started sprinting the other way for 6 points as he was avoiding the sack. Usually that was only because our receivers ran the wrong route though and was in no way shape or form a reflection on Nate.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Nate threw 26 interceptions in 2006 and 2007. Seemingly every single one was blamed on the receivers. Even when he was throwing wounded ducks in 2007. Even when he threw into double coverage. The majority were actually thrown in the 4th quarter. Why would receivers run correct routes in the first three quarters, but then the wrong ones in the 4th quarter? Why did veteran future pro receivers run the correct routes in the first part of 2007, when Nate was healthy, but then somehow forget the plays in the second half of 2007 when Nate was playing with a serious injury? But they ran them correctly for Riley? <br /><br />The interceptions came mostly when Nate was injured and/or fatigued (second half 2007) and had nothing on his ball or when he was was a first year starter trying to force throws in tight games (see 2006 Arizona and USC). However the biggest factor is that fat too often on third down (with Nate, with Kevin, with Brock and now with Zach) we go to mass protect and send our two receivers out in predictable sideline patterns. Far too easy for a DB to jump that. If we keep doing that, people will be disappointed with the "development" of Bridgford and Kline too.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calumnus;676065 said:</div><hr>Nate threw 26 interceptions in 2006 and 2007. Seemingly every single one was blamed on the receivers. Even when he was throwing wounded ducks in 2007. Even when he threw into double coverage. The majority were actually thrown in the 4th quarter. Why would receivers run correct routes in the first three quarters, but then the wrong ones in the 4th quarter? Why did veteran future pro receivers run the correct routes in the first part of 2007, when Nate was healthy, but then somehow forget the plays in the second half of 2007 when Nate was playing with a serious injury? <br /><br />The interceptions came mostly when Nate was injured and/or fatigued (second half 2007) and had nothing on his ball or when he was trying to force throws in tight games (see 2006 Arizona and USC). Too often on third down (with Nate, with Kevin, with Brock and now with Zach) we go to mass protect and send our two receivers out in predictable sideline patterns. Far too easy for a DB to jump that. If we keep doing that, people will be disappointed with the "development" of Bridgford and Kline too.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Nate, prior to his injury, was an excellent QB. In fact, I believe ESPN had him as one of high draft potentials. After the injury, he was never the same, and he had a tendency to throw most of his interceptions during the 4th quarter. I don't know what percentage was caused by the WRs running the wrong routes and what percentage had to do with just poor throws. In any case, it was painful to watch at times. I hope he is doing well, and I hope his Cal degree takes him far.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Hail2Calif;675627 said:</div><hr>I actually did attend all 3 of the Spring public practices - and I will say after the 1st one, I thought Bridgeford was going to win the QB job for sure.<br /><br />After the 2nd one, I thought Maynard had improved quite a bit and could see some of his quickness and athleticism on display. (Yes, people can argue what they saw during the regular season - but I am just talking about Spring Ball). One play that stood out was a goal line snap that went to his right - he scrambled over, picked it up, and instead of throwing it away - scooted around the right end for a TD.<br /><br />After the 3rd one, I thought the QB battle was pretty much evened up - with each having a different style. I agree with all the Bridgeford pumpers that he seemed much more comfortable in the pocket and that his throws just looked better. On the other hand, I felt that Maynard's athleticism really did give us the chance to do some different things. I recall one play where he rolled out, chased by the rush, and just as he got to the sideline, managed to zing a pass to a well covered Jones on the sideline. My brother and I both looked at each other with that, "hmm, haven't seen THAT at Cal before" look.<br /><br />Must admit, I assumed that there would be additional competition prior to start of the season - but I certainly didn't feel that he was completely lost compared to Bridgeford - so I figured JT had seem more in practice than I had and felt (since neither had started or even really played in a game at Cal) someone was going to need as many snaps as possible to be ready by kickoff.<br /><br />Again, based on my small sample size (I only saw 3 practices), the impression I had was Maynard made up a lot of ground - and that demands for "fair competition" were more from fans upset "because my favorite didn't get selected".<br /><br />I'm not saying Maynard played well enough in 2011 to silence all critics (far from that) - but saying JT had somehow planned this all along as part of his recruiting of Allen seems pretty rediculous to me.<br /><br />I remember the endless debates prior to 2008 and so many on this board ready to burn down Tedford's home because he clearly had a man-crush on Longshore, that Riley wasn't being treated fairly and would NEVER get a fair look - and then announced Riley had won the starting job.<br /><br />His judgement may not be right 100% of the time, but I certainly don't believe he deliberately sits guys he is certain would help the team win more games in favor of guys he is certain can't cut the mustard.<hr></blockquote><br /><br /><br /><br />Thanks for your insights. It definitely sheds more clarifying light on the murky issue...or an issue deliberately made murky by some posters here. Appreciate it.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calbear93;676066 said:</div><hr>Nate, prior to his injury, was an excellent QB. In fact, I believe ESPN had him as one of high draft potentials. After the injury, he was never the same, and he had a tendency to throw most of his interceptions during the 4th quarter. I don't know what percentage was caused by the WRs running the wrong routes and what percentage had to do with just poor throws. In any case, it was painful to watch at times. I hope he is doing well, and I hope his Cal degree takes him far.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Longshore was a great QB pre his second injury...He also was doing it against better teams than Rodgers saw in 2004 (2004 was the easiest schedule under Tedford, and 2006 was one of the hardest - as judged by the number of wins the teams we played had at the end of the year, as well as avg PF and PA).<br /><br />After the injury he was very suspect. <br /><br /><br />Anyway, I still think if Rodgers had stayed, he would be just as good in the NFL today, he would have won a Rose Bowl in 2005, and in 2006 we would have gone to a RB under Longshore (who would spent 2005 backing up Rodgers instead of rehabbing a "preseason" game injury). <br /><br />Also, In 2007 we would have won the MNCG, and in 2008 we would have been back to back National Champions.<br />In 2009 we would be rebuilding and likely settle for a Rose Bowl, and in 2010 we are National Champions again. By 2011, We have to settle for another Rose Bowl.<br /><br /><br /><br />Damn Rodgers.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Hail2Calif;675665 said:</div><hr>Yes.<br /><br />While I can understand the choices he has made in terms of starters (for instance, was Riley THAT much better than Longshore in 2008 after all the gnashing of teeth amongst fans - some were sure Mansion didn't get a fair shot against Riley in 2009 and it turns out maybe he wasn't "the answer" - and it is far from certain Bridgeford would have been CLEARLY superior to Maynard last season) I have never understood how poorly developed our back ups seem to be.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />2008 was the one year Tedford had an "open competition" going into the actual season (though some might argue 2003, I am pretty sure Tedford's plan all along was to eventually start Rodgers when he was ready). Longshore "lost" that 2008 competition with his two interceptions in two series/5 passes against MSU as much as Riley "won" it and Tedford reversed that decision following a blowout victory over Colorado State.<br /><br />I too would like to see us develop more than one QB at a time. In 2007 and 2008 I think the team would have benefited from "the baseball model"--having Longshore as the starter who we hope can pitch a complete game, but if he looks fatigued or is struggling we could bring in Riley as the reliever, even if just for a series or two while the starter gets coached up. Rather than having the two compete with each other and divide the team and fanbase, have them work together to defeat opponents. I think both quarterbacks would have benefited greatly from that.<br /><br />If you think about it, that is how we beat SC in 2003. Robertson came in early in the second half with the scored tied and the momentum clearly on SC's side. If we did the same the following week with Rodgers struggling against OSU, or the OT loss to UCLA the following week, maybe we go to the Rose Bowl. <br /><br />Similarly, 2005, Levy clearly should have made an appearance earlier in relief of Ayoob.<br /><br />Last year, Mansion reportedly did great running the Nevada pistol for our scout team--so why not use that as our change of pace offense? If Riley struggled, bring in Mansion and the pistol. Then when Riley was hurt, you keep running Mansion and the pistol and develop Bridgford as the reliever and change of pace as a pocket passer. <br /><br />Going into this season you would have Maynard challenging Mansion for the QB of the pistol offense while continuing to develop Bridgford as a pocket passer, with one as the designated starter and the other as the reliever (depending on which offense appeared to be the most effective). <br /><br />Going into next year you would have Maynard as the pistol QB and Bridgford as the (more experienced than now) pocket passer. Again, the starter/reliever designation would depend on which offense was the most effective for us (the development of the OL is a major factor). The other QBs (including Kline) would practice and compete in whichever offense best suits them.<br /><br />While some might object to the complexity of running two offenses, note that we do that today with one hybrid offense. I think it simplifies things considerably if the offenses are distinct and the quarterbacks work with the one they are best suited for. Their time is limited, coaches' time is not. Let the players focus on mastering what they do best. <br /><br />I also think it would be possible we get to a point where the OL is dominant enough and our top two QBs are clearly best in the pro-style (or our top two QBs are best in a spread style), so our starter and reliever would both be in the same style of offense. Flexibility in dealing with what we have available is critical in the college game.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;676160 said:</div><hr>Longshore was a great QB pre his second injury...He also was doing it against better teams than Rodgers saw in 2004 (2004 was the easiest schedule under Tedford, and 2006 was one of the hardest - as judged by the number of wins the teams we played had at the end of the year, as well as avg PF and PA).<br /><br />After the injury he was very suspect. <br /><br /><br />Anyway, I still think if Rodgers had stayed, he would be just as good in the NFL today, he would have won a Rose Bowl in 2005, and in 2006 we would have gone to a RB under Longshore (who would spent 2005 backing up Rodgers instead of rehabbing a "preseason" game injury). <br /><br />Also, In 2007 we would have won the MNCG, and in 2008 we would have been back to back National Champions.<br />In 2009 we would be rebuilding and likely settle for a Rose Bowl, and in 2010 we are National Champions again. By 2011, We have to settle for another Rose Bowl.<br /><br />Damn Rodgers.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Damn Niners! <br /><br />Yes, if Rodgers stays in 2005, everything changes. Given the success in 2005, 2006 and 2007, consider the amazing recruiting classes we would have brought in. Maybe Tedford doesn't question things so we still have Cortez and bring in huge OLs and just run power football forever.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">calumnus;676165 said:</div><hr>2008 was the one year Tedford had an "open competition" going into the actual season (though some might argue 2003, I am pretty sure Tedford's plan all along was to eventually start Rodgers when he was ready). Longshore "lost" that 2008 competition with his two interceptions in two series/5 passes against MSU as much as Riley "won" it and Tedford reversed that decision following a blowout victory over Colorado State.<br /><br />I too would like to see us develop more than one QB at a time. In 2007 and 2008 I think the team would have benefited from "the baseball model"--having Longshore as the starter who we hope can pitch a complete game, but if he looks fatigued or is struggling we could bring in Riley as the reliever, even if just for a series or two while the starter gets coached up. Rather than having the two compete with each other and divide the team and fanbase, have them work together to defeat opponents. I think both quarterbacks would have benefited greatly from that.<br /><br />If you think about it, that is how we beat SC in 2003. Robertson came in early in the second half with the scored tied and the momentum clearly on SC's side. If we did the same the following week with Rodgers struggling against OSU, or the OT loss to UCLA the following week, maybe we go to the Rose Bowl. <br /><br />Similarly, 2005, Levy clearly should have made an appearance earlier in relief of Ayoob.<br /><br />Last year, Mansion reportedly did great running the Nevada pistol for our scout team--so why not use that as our change of pace offense? If Riley struggled, bring in Mansion and the pistol. Then when Riley was hurt, you keep running Mansion and the pistol and develop Bridgford as the reliever and change of pace as a pocket passer. <br /><br />Going into this season you would have Maynard challenging Mansion for the QB of the pistol offense while continuing to develop Bridgford as a pocket passer, with one as the designated starter and the other as the reliever (depending on which offense appeared to be the most effective). <br /><br />Going into next year you would have Maynard as the pistol QB and Bridgford as the (more experienced than now) pocket passer. Again, the starter/reliever designation would depend on which offense was the most effective for us (the development of the OL is a major factor). The other QBs (including Kline) would practice and compete in whichever offense best suits them.<br /><br />While some might object to the complexity of running two offenses, note that we do that today with one hybrid offense. I think it simplifies things considerably if the offenses are distinct and the quarterbacks work with the one they are best suited for. Their time is limited, coaches' time is not. Let the players focus on mastering what they do best. <br /><br />I also think it would be possible we get to a point where the OL is dominant enough and our top two QBs are clearly best in the pro-style (or our top two QBs are best in a spread style), so our starter and reliever would both be in the same style of offense. Flexibility in dealing with what we have available is critical in the college game.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I don't believe there is a need for all that. Just simplify the plays, master those plays, and have everyone ready. Oregon doesn't do anything special. They just practice the limited number of plays until everyone knows exactly what to do, exploit mismatches (there is a reason why that offense would never work in the NFL...fewer mismatches), and get the athletes in the open field. With the type of playbook that we have, there is no way Oregon would be able to line up, look to the sideline and have everyone know what to run. With a simplified playbook, the backup QB will be better prepared to run the offense when needed. Sometimes we just look so clueless out on the field and completely unable to run a non-huddle or 2-minute offense.<br /><br />What Tedford seems to want to avoid is having a QB controversy that could divide the team and hurt the starter's confidence (maybe Nate and Riley situation was unique, but I think Tedford is trying extremely hard to avoid that).

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>I also think it would be possible we get to a point where the OL is dominant enough and our top two QBs are clearly best in the pro-style (or our top two QBs are best in a spread style), so our starter and reliever would both be in the same style of offense. Flexibility in dealing with what we have available is critical in the college game.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />This is what I'm looking for. I'd like to see the team try to establish it's identity back. Go back to running the pro-style, power running game we used to, that Stanford's been so successful with. Let's get back to building that, getting to the point where seniors have 4-5 years of practicing that offense, so they know exactly what their assignments are all the time...we've had personnel issues with establishing that identity lately, but I'd like to see the program make a big time effort to get back to that. Install it, teach it, practice it, recruit for it...get really good at the system we've been most successful with on offense.