But many of Bridgford's attempts were in pass situations (Oregon) or at the end of games where he's in there to run the clock out. His attempts weren't the same as Maynard's. His stats may (or may not) look different from what they are now.

Hopefully we will get a chance to see Bridgford and Hinder play extended minutes in meaningful situations next season.

+1

"There is no way to know that until we have camp."

And, even then, the coaches are the ones who are best positioned to assess the complete picture.

stan.imal;714971 said:

---

Hopefully we will get a chance to see Bridgford and Hinder play extended minutes in meaningful situations next season.

---

That's a recipe for a rebuilding year and JT doesn't seem to believe in rebuilding years.

Calalmnus, you make some good points throughout this thread but I don't think practice reports were all that mixed...remember them being pretty heavily in favor of AB

Haashole;715157 said:

---

Calalmnus, you make some good points throughout this thread but I don't think practice reports were all that mixed...remember them being pretty heavily in favor of AB

---

That is the way I remember them. JT's explanation was that ZM's mobility and ability to escape gave him the edge over AB.

I was willing to give him a fair shot at the QB slot. I was also willing to overlook that first pick vs FSU as first game jitters and his first problems with the snap as problems with a brand new Center.
But as the games went on, ZM's short comings became clear. As we got into the 2nd half of the season, I hoped that ZM's problems were behind him; but it turned out that his "improvement" was in large part attributable to the fact that in the 2d half Cal faceed the weaker teams in the PAC12 (except Stanfurd).
I will attend all the home games and the LA trip; but I really do not relish the idea of a 2012 season very much like last year's; then having a rebuilding year in 2013.

Haashole;715157 said:

---

Calalmnus, you make some good points throughout this thread but I don't think practice reports were all that mixed...remember them being pretty heavily in favor of AB

---

Okanes, for one thought otherwise. On the end of Spring Practice:

Quote:

---

Of course, it was the quarterbacks that were on everyone's mind, and as I wrote on a post earlier today, junior Zach Maynard appears to getting a pretty firm grip on the job. He took all the first team reps today, and out of the open scrimmages, he had his best performance.


The most impressive thing about Maynard this spring has been his quick feet. The Bears haven't had a quarterback that quick with his feet in a long time. That not only gives Maynard a valuable escape dimension, but it allows Cal's offensive coaches to install designed plays to utilize Maynard's running talents.

The Bears used a lot of spread option today, but Jeff Tedford continues to say that the offense won't change that much even if Maynard gets the job. The Bears will simply add on to the base offense to make use of the quarterback's skills.

But Maynard impressed with more than his feet today. On what was arguably his most impressive play of the day, he made a quick escape out of pressure, rolled to his right and then made a nice pass to an open Marvin Jones. Remember: Maynard is left-handed, making the throw as he rolled right that much more impressive.

Immediately afterward, he zipped a strike down the field for a large gain perfectly to tight end Anthony Miller, who rumbled into the end zone for a touchdown.

"He's made a ton of progress," Tedford said of Maynard, who only enrolled at Cal this spring after transferring from Buffalo. "He has a good understanding of what's going on, he has a good feel, he's running the huddle well, he's communicating well, all of those things. We've increased his reps over spring so he could get a feel for that and I think that paid off. He's done a nice job of talking a leadership role in the huddle, which is part of the quarterback's job."

Maynard also had a few bad moments, although Tedford said he was more pleased with Maynard's strong plays than disappointed with his bad ones. Maynard tried to throw a fade to his half-brother Keenan Allen, but Allen was well-covered by C.J. Moncrease, who picked the pass off. Later, Myanrd made a bad read and threw a pass right to linebacker Nick Forbes for another interception.

Tedford said on one of the picks, it was a play the team just installed this morning. On another, he said Maynard was under pressure because someone failed on a blocking assignment.

"I'm thinking more about the other great plays that he made. That's what sticks out to me," Tedford said.

You'll read more about Maynard and the quarterbacks in tomorrow's paper, but Maynard generally said he feels good about the position that he's in and things are slowing down for him as he continues to digest the offense.

"It's slowed down a lot from the first two scrimmages to the last two," Maynard said. "Our defense runs a lot of blitzes. You have to know how to pick it up and that's been the hard part."

---

calumnus;715412 said:

---

Maynard also had a few bad moments, although Tedford said he was more pleased with Maynard’s strong plays than disappointed with his bad ones. Maynard tried to throw a fade to his half-brother Keenan Allen, but Allen was well-covered by C.J. Moncrease, who picked the pass off. Later, Myanrd made a bad read and threw a pass right to linebacker Nick Forbes for another interception.

---

Those two instances cited by Okanes sure were indicative of how the year would go.

Even in this write up it shows how JT basically excused Maynard for lesser QB play. ZM got the job because he was more mobile. Tedford excused away a whole bunch of Maynard ints during spring ball where on any of the other QBs he would hold it against them. What happened to the days when JT treated all players equally and when you screwed up (bad pick or fumble) you got pulled or worked over (this mention comes from an added frustration of having Isi fumble a whole bunch of times yet he never got benched). All spring it sounded like ZM was getting the benefit of the doubt because he could run better yet that mobility never really made that much of an impact as far as I recall. A QB that can't hit wide open receivers does not deserve to be the starting QB at a division 1 program.

SonofBlue;715415 said:

---

Those two instances cited by Okanes sure were indicative of how the year would go.

Even in this write up it shows how JT basically excused Maynard for lesser QB play. ZM got the job because he was more mobile. Tedford excused away a whole bunch of Maynard ints during spring ball where on any of the other QBs he would hold it against them. What happened to the days when JT treated all players equally and when you screwed up (bad pick or fumble) you got pulled or worked over (this mention comes from an added frustration of having Isi fumble a whole bunch of times yet he never got benched). All spring it sounded like ZM was getting the benefit of the doubt because he could run better yet that mobility never really made that much of an impact as far as I recall. A QB that can't hit wide open receivers does not deserve to be the starting QB at a division 1 program.

---

Maynard also had a few bad moments, although Tedford said he was more pleased with Maynard's strong plays than disappointed with his bad ones. [U]Maynard tried to throw a fade to his half-brother Keenan Allen, but Allen was well-covered by C.J. Moncrease, who picked the pass off[/U]. Later, Myanrd [U]made a bad read and threw a pass right to linebacker Nick Forbes for another interception[/U].


Let me think,
ZM threw into coverage and got picked.
ZM then threw right to a defender.

yes, I think I saw more than one of such passes during the season.

Even from the Presby Defense. But we can excuse that particular game, we all know that the Presbyterian Blue Hose fields a super strong pass defense year after year. We all have heard the saying: "Don't Mess with Presby".

stan.imal;714971 said:

---

But many of Bridgford's attempts were in pass situations (Oregon) or at the end of games where he's in there to run the clock out.

---

I won't count Rodgers, because he was being groomed for the starting position, but Nate Longshore won back the starting position in a game where he came in to run out the clock in 2008. Steve Levy came in for Joe Ayoob in a passing situation at the end of the USC loss, went 4 for 4 and was made the starter the next week for Big Game. Riley pretty much won the starting job for the next year relieving Longshore in the AFB.

Here are our QB stats when coming in as a back-up:
2002 Robertson 2 of 2 (100% 64 yards 1 TD no INT 534 passing rating
2003 Rodgers (KSU, Southern Miss, Utah) 26 of 42 (62%) 360 yards 3 TDs no INTs 157 passing rating
2003 (SC) Robertson 9 of 12 (75%) 109 yards 1 TD no INT 179 passing rating.
2004 Robertson 6 of 9 (67%) 121 yards 1 TD no INT 216 passing rating
2005 (SC) Levy 4 of 4 (100%) 34 yards 0 TDs no INT 171 passing rating
2006 Ayoob 11 of 26 (42%) 205 yards 1 TD 1 INT 113 passing rating
2006 Levy 7 of 10 (70%) 66 yards 0 TD 0 INT 125 passing rating
2007 (Air Force) Riley 16 of 19 (84%) 269 yards 3 TDs 0 INT 255 passing rating
2009 Sweeney 5 of 9 (56%) 45 yards 0 TD 0 INT 98 passing rating
2010 Sweeney 6 of 8 (75%) 29 yards 0 TD 0 INT 105 passing rating
2010 (ASU, USC) Mansion 14 of 24 (58%) 138 yards 1 TD 0 INT 116 passing rating
2011 Bridgford 13 of 32 (41%) 184 yards 0 TD 0 INT 89 passing rating

As can be seen above, Bridgford's performance coming in as a backup was the worst of the Tedford era (not even counting the fumbles). The worst completion percentage. The worst QB rating. As can also be seen, he had more opportunity than many others and in similar situations. I am all for seeing more of him, believe he may have been rusty/hampered by his injury/rain, and believe he can do much better, quite possibly better than Maynard, but he has to [U]do[/U] something with his opportunities before you can say he is obviously our best QB, because at this point he is statistically our worst QB--not just last year, actually our worst period. So I'd like to see him get an opportunity to show he can do better, as I'd like to see Boehm, Hinder and Kline, but don't anoint him yet. Rodgers, Levy, Riley, and Longshore were all back-ups who won the starting position by proving themselves with their opportunities.

Thank ls for stats. Not anointing him at all. But I really believed after Maynard's god-awful performance in the USC game by halftime JT would going to give AB a shot. Just want to see him, bc we know what we have in ZM. And it ain't good enough.

but I am certain ZM will not be taking us to the "level" that the team may deserve next season..I was at, or watched every game last season and with one year left for him, I don't see it happening..I had a ton more confidence in KR for example. Mobility alone does not make a great leader or QB..Our receivers were acrobats for many of the passes he did complete, and I can't get over his deer-in-the-headlights general performance in big games..

Haashole;715432 said:

---

Thank ls for stats. Not anointing him at all. But I really believed after Maynard's god-awful performance in the USC game by halftime JT would going to give AB a shot. Just want to see him, bc we know what we have in ZM. And it ain't good enough.

---

As I said earlier in this thread (I think it was this thread?), I am a big proponent of bringing in the back-up when the starter is struggling. Before and during the season, I was also advocating playing both quarterbacks, but in distinctly different offenses--Maynard spread, Bridgford pro-set, and then let success on the field dictate which offense/QB gets the most minutes. I still think, going into the season, having a "change of pace" offense that would be run by the back-up makes sense and I think Maynard really is the logical candidate to run either the starting offense, or eventually the change of pace, depending on the results of Spring and Fall camps and the early games.

What I don't think makes any sense is advocating summarily dropping Maynard and installing Bridgford as the starter last year or now before Spring practice based on what we have seen. Sure Bridgford might play better going forward, but so might Boehm, Hinder, Kline or yes, Maynard for that matter. You can't just say "Riley sucks, so play Mansion, he couldn't be worse and was more highly rated in high school" when Mansion didn't put up good numbers when he had his opportunities--because, as much as people here hated Riley, it turns out Mansion was worse. However, if you come in and do well, like Rodgers, Levy, Riley and Longshore, then you make an argument that you should be given a chance to start--and they got that chance.

Again, I think the real problem is the all or nothing thinking, both Tedford's and those advocating dropping Maynard altogether in favor of Bridgford or Kline. I do think we should give the back-up more opportunity to show what they can do when the starter is struggling. I think that is good for the starter, good for the back-up and good for the team.

Moreover, I'd like to see the back-up running a change of pace offense that can be brought in periodically, just to confuse the defense, even when the starter is not struggling (but especially when they are). That would also mean developing an offense around Maynard's (and Sofele's) stengths, more spread, option, QB rollouts and a more pro-style offense around (Bridgford, Boehm's?) strengths, with CJ Anderson at RB.

calumnus;715421 said:

---

As can be seen above, Bridgford's performance coming in as a backup was the worst of the Tedford era (not even counting the fumbles). The worst completion percentage. The worst QB rating. As can also be seen, he had more opportunity than many others and in similar situations. I am all for seeing more of him, believe he may have been rusty/hampered by his injury/rain, and believe he can do much better, quite possibly better than Maynard, but he has to [U]do[/U] something with his opportunities before you can say he is obviously our best QB, because at this point he is statistically our worst QB--not just last year, actually our worst period. So I'd like to see him get an opportunity to show he can do better, as I'd like to see Boehm, Hinder and Kline, but don't anoint him yet. Rodgers, Levy, Riley, and Longshore were all back-ups who won the starting position by proving themselves with their opportunities.

---

I'm pretty sure we all agree that the job should not just be handed to someone. I think most of believe that if it were a real competition that Maynard would not be the winner and just skim over that fact by saying name someone else the starter. As someone pointed out: we know what Maynard is and it has been proven that, barring some great improvement on his part, he is not the QB who can carry Cal to the promised land on his back. If our D will be as good as I think it can be then he may be enough to get us there (run first offense, utilize his running a lot more, don't depend on him for the win).

The only issue I have with your two offense idea is that it is hard enough for the players to learn JT's system as is. By running two completely different systems for the two quarterbacks the other players would have to learn more plays/calls/etc. and that is probably asking a bit much.

"The only issue I have with your two offense idea is that it is hard enough for the players to learn JT's system as is. By running two completely different systems for the two quarterbacks the other players would have to learn more plays/calls/etc. and that is probably asking a bit much."

Imagine what that play card would look like on the sideline!

:tedford:tedford:tedford:tedford:tedford:tedford:tedford:tedford:tedford:tedford

There are multiple ways to define accuracy.

One is completion percentage.

Another is putting the ball where you want it (which means a low completion percentage is not knowing where to put the ball, or recievers dropping a ball).

And a third is throwing a catch-able ball.

I think that Bridgford is clearly the better candidate, based on reports and what I saw in games, at putting the ball where he wants it. However, he is lacking in knowing where he should put the ball and throwing a catch-able ball. Maynard is the reverse, though he does have lapses in judgement where he seems to just throw the ball anywhere.

All I want this year is a true competition that puts the best QB on the field. Last year my desires were different (I was more worried about 2012 than 2011 in both cases, and would have preferred the QB with the best upside than the QB with the best possibility of winning right now). I have no reason to believe Tedford won't go with the QB that gives us the best opportunity to win (right now).

~MrGPAC

IMO with more roll outs and options ZM could get the job done well. Keep forcing him to stay in the pocket and we've all seen what happens. I personally liked him a lot more than Riley. Despite his inconsistency, I think he's relatively the most clutch QB we've had in some time. He did win and nearly win a few close games for us. When did we ever win a game with Riley when we didn't dominate in all facets of the game?

MrGPAC;715969 said:

---

There are multiple ways to define accuracy.

One is completion percentage.

Another is putting the ball where you want it (which means a low completion percentage is not knowing where to put the ball, or recievers dropping a ball).

And a third is throwing a catch-able ball.

I think that Bridgford is clearly the better candidate, based on reports and what I saw in games, at putting the ball where he wants it. However, he is lacking in knowing where he should put the ball and throwing a catch-able ball. Maynard is the reverse, though he does have lapses in judgement where he seems to just throw the ball anywhere.

All I want this year is a true competition that puts the best QB on the field. Last year my desires were different (I was more worried about 2012 than 2011 in both cases, and would have preferred the QB with the best upside than the QB with the best possibility of winning right now). I have no reason to believe Tedford won't go with the QB that gives us the best opportunity to win (right now).

~MrGPAC

---

The problem with completion percentage is that it depends so much on the skill of the receivers. IMO KR was a much better passer than ZM but ZM happend to have 2 of the best wR's Cal has had in some time Jones and Allen who could get separation and could go up an get the ball. KR had some of the WORST Cal WR's of all time who could not get separation and who could not hang on to the ball even when it hit them in the numbers.

The other problem with completion percentage is the fact that it also depends on the OLine's performance. There again KR was unfortunate to have one of the Crappiest OLines in JT's tenure as Cal Coach. The OLine in 2011 was not up to Coach M's usual standards but it was much better than the OLines of 2009 and 2010.

Maybe a better statistic is the number of INTs (if you could eliminate from the stats INT's that were caused by receivers who could not hang on to the ball and the ball glanced off the receivers hands).

57% comp. %
17 TD
12 Int

As was noted earlier, with another year in the system to learn the playbook, work with receivers, etc. I would expect Maynard's numbers to improve slightly.
If he went 60% with 20 TDs and 10 Ints (slight improvement in those categories) I could live with it, and the Kline Era would begin in 2013

SonofBlue;715860 said:

---

I'm pretty sure we all agree that the job should not just be handed to someone. I think most of believe that if it were a real competition that Maynard would not be the winner and just skim over that fact by saying name someone else the starter.

---

That is the problem. I point to facts, Bridgford did not play well when he had the chance. Those that are sure he is better have their "belief."

SonofBlue;715860 said:

---

As someone pointed out: we know what Maynard is and it has been proven that, barring some great improvement on his part, he is not the QB who can carry Cal to the promised land on his back. If our D will be as good as I think it can be then he may be enough to get us there (run first offense, utilize his running a lot more, don't depend on him for the win).

---

He may improve greatly, who knows? Here is Maynard as a junior:
57% completion 17 TD 12 INT 2,990 yards 127 passing rating

Here is another Cal QB as a junior:
49% completion 12 TD 10 INT 1,741 yards 110 passing rating
His freshman and sophomore years were similar.

Maynard is clearly better, yet as a senior, Kyle Boller turned into a first round draft choice.

Thus, I wouldn't write off anybody. Maynard could be a lot better. If he just played like he played against Stanford--20 of 29 (69%) 280 yards 2 TDs and 0 INT, 173 passing rating, every game, wouldn't you be happy? We know he is capable of that because he did that. He did that in a big game, on the road against a BCS opponent. If he did that every game, it would be the best season ever for a Cal quarterback. Not saying he will, but definitely within his capability.

SonofBlue;715860 said:

---

The only issue I have with your two offense idea is that it is hard enough for the players to learn JT's system as is. By running two completely different systems for the two quarterbacks the other players would have to learn more plays/calls/etc. and that is probably asking a bit much.

---

What we have right now is all the plays for both offenses, but [U]everyone[/U] has to know them and execute them all. I am talking about separating them and simplifying two different offenses. Nothing would be more complicated for any player than it is now. However, for the QB and RBs especially, things would be more simple as they would focus on their offense only, the one best suited for them. Maynard and Sofele would get a lot of reps on pitches and read option exchanges. Bridgford (or the top pro-style QB) and Anderson would get a lot of practice with handoffs and effective play-action fakes. Maybe we have different centers so the can be proficient in the shotgun snap and center exchange (a problem last year)? More repetition with fewer plays should lead to better accuracy, execution, fewer fumbles, less playing in "their head" and more instinctual reactions, making throws, making plays.

The likelihood is that, based on effectiveness, one offense and QB would emerge as our primary/starting offense with the other being the relief or change of pace offense. For most of our players, things would be simpler than they are today. Defenses would have more to worry about as the would still have to prepare for the other offense, because if they focus on our primary offense and shut it down, we will put in the other offense and QB.

Looking back, one thing stands out in my mind. That is JT's decision to name Maynard as the starter very early. I wonder if this was the best thing to do.

Was he really so much better that he earned the starting job above others? This seems dubious based on reports that Bridg looked good too. So maybe it was because he wanted Maynard to have that confidence going into the season. If that's the case, was it worth it? Dude he perform better than he would have if the position were not secured?

I think Maynard has more upside but it is limited and it will take too long to get there. Taking into account that he has one more year of eligibility, I don't think he should be playing as much next season as he did last season.

Maynard deserves credit as an adequate game manager and the ability to do well enough to beat weaker opponents. He's made some incredible plays that were kept alive with his feet. He's shown to be a fighter and his game experience does have value.

So, what I would do is this:

1. Reduce the reps Maynard gets with the 1's. Without having seen the other QBs, the best one (not named Maynard) should be groomed to take over this season. This person should get significant time with the 1's (closer to the 50% that JT mentioned that Bridg was getting post-UCLA disaster).

2. In the 1st half of our season, any game that has us with a significant lead should result in the backup QB to come in even if it's the 2nd quarter (although realistically around half time). Not just garbage time. Let the backup QB get a real chance to manage the game.

I complained last season that JT didn't put Bridg in games where we were totally dominating. After seeing how Mansion looked so unprepared, I thought we would take a different approach on this. Instead of worrying about running up the score, let's let our backup QB run the game like we're behind. Let him run 2-min drills, let him pass it, let him throw it deep. Let's NOT just run it up the gut for a 1-yard gain.

3. If the QB that's being groomed shows significant progress and maturity, put him in if Maynard is struggling. Even if (or especially if) the opponent is tOSU, USC, Oregon, whatever. If we're getting our asses kicked, why not put the backup QB in? The game is lost anyway and we can see how the kid performs under pressure.

4. If the backup QB shows competence and is on par with Maynard by the midpoint of the season, make him the starter. All else being equal, we should invest in someone who will be back next year.

calumnus;716399 said:

---

That is the problem. I point to facts, Bridgford did not play well when he had the chance. Those that are sure he is better have their "belief."



He may improve greatly, who knows? Here is Maynard as a junior:
57% completion 17 TD 12 INT 2,990 yards 127 passing rating

Here is another Cal QB as a junior:
49% completion 12 TD 10 INT 1,741 yards 110 passing rating
His freshman and sophomore years were similar.

Maynard is clearly better, yet as a senior, Kyle Boller turned into a first round draft choice.

Thus, I wouldn't write off anybody. Maynard could be a lot better. If he just played like he played against Stanford--20 of 29 (69%) 280 yards 2 TDs and 0 INT, 173 passing rating, every game, wouldn't you be happy? We know he is capable of that because he did that. He did that in a big game, on the road against a BCS opponent. If he did that every game, it would be the best season ever for a Cal quarterback. Not saying he will, but definitely within his capability.



What we have right now is all the plays for both offenses, but [U]everyone[/U] has to know them and execute them all. I am talking about separating them and simplifying two different offenses. Nothing would be more complicated for any player than it is now. However, for the QB and RBs especially, things would be more simple as they would focus on their offense only, the one best suited for them. Maynard and Sofele would get a lot of reps on pitches and read option exchanges. Bridgford (or the top pro-style QB) and Anderson would get a lot of practice with handoffs and effective play-action fakes. Maybe we have different centers so the can be proficient in the shotgun snap and center exchange (a problem last year)? More repetition with fewer plays should lead to better accuracy, execution, fewer fumbles, less playing in "their head" and more instinctual reactions, making throws, making plays.

The likelihood is that, based on effectiveness, one offense and QB would emerge as our primary/starting offense with the other being the relief or change of pace offense. For most of our players, things would be simpler than they are today. Defenses would have more to worry about as the would still have to prepare for the other offense, because if they focus on our primary offense and shut it down, we will put in the other offense and QB.

---

your faith in ZM is endearing but off the mark.

Comparing ZM to KB is similarly off the mark. KB had effectively NO competent coaching at QB before JT arrived. He admitted as much, when at the end of his SR year he said that he had learned so much in just half a year with JT as coach who corrected some basic bad mechanics in his throwing style and made other improvements.

ZM has had all that JT can give him. ZM is what he is. And we have seen him at his best and at his worst. JT is to be credited for improving ZM's play. BUT -- Too bad -- he just is not good enough to play at a level which is in the top half of the PAC12.

68great;716605 said:

---

your faith in ZM is endearing but off the mark.

Comparing ZM to KB is similarly off the mark. KB had effectively NO competent coaching at QB before JT arrived. He admitted as much, when at the end of his SR year he said that he had learned so much in just half a year with JT as coach who corrected some basic bad mechanics in his throwing style and made other improvements.

ZM has had all that JT can give him. ZM is what he is. And we have seen him at his best and at his worst. JT is to be credited for improving ZM's play. BUT -- Too bad -- he just is not good enough to play at a level which is in the top half of the PAC12.

---

I don't have "faith" in that I don't KNOW Maynard will improve, you are actually the one that has (negative) faith in that (you think) you KNOW that he will NOT improve. All I am saying is it is very possible Maynard improves. Many QBs have great senior years after mediocre previous years, even under the same coach.

Moreover, I don't need faith to know that Maynard can play well, I saw it with my own eyes--he outplayed Andrew Luck, almost certainly the #1 pick in the NFL draft, in the Big Game (and Luck had a good game). I also know that he can play poorly, I saw that too. However, the fact that he has played at a high level before means that he can again. I don't need faith to know that. If Maynard plays more of his best games (like Big Game) and eliminates the bad games (like SC) that will be a [U]massive[/U] improvement overall. That is [U]definitely[/U] possible. Do I know that will happen? Of course not. Am I willing to write off the possibility? Of course not.

Does that mean I think Maynard should definitely be the starter next year? Of course not. I'd love to see someone beat him out. However, saying he should definitely NOT be the starter is nuts.

Sure, but JT made it a self fulfilling proclivity by never giving anyone a chance except those few plays when ZM was hurt. Players improve most AFTER they get a chance to play. They improve relatively little if all they get is practice, especially qbs.
UOTE=calbearo;714284]This is the type of stuff that is posted here that is an unfair rhetorical flourish.

Name one sane football person who does not prefer to have a player with actual game experience?

Here we are talking about the most complicated position on the field and we have a player who has a full season at Cal (an what another 1+ full season elsewhere?) at the position, knows the full play book and most of the current personnel. I think any coach would have a strong proclivity to play that player unless there was unquestionably a more able alternative.

There is no way to know that until we have camp.

ZM was obviously not one of the top QBs in the conference, but in spite of that, it will be a difficult task for one of the other QBs on the roster to outperform him IMO. My reasoning here is that none of the other QBs could do it last year and the only addition to the roster has no college experience at all. If JT ends up picking ZM, I will assume it is because he has demonstrated that in practice he has the best handle on the offense and provides the best opprotunity for the team to be successful. Some conspiratorial folks here will suggest otherwise or suggest that we should play somebody who gives the team less of a chance of winning games in order to season them for future success. This is typically from people who suggest that 5 loss seasons are an abject failure.

---

freshfunk;716477 said:

---

2. In the 1st half of our season, any game that has us with a significant lead should result in the backup QB to come in even if it's the 2nd quarter (although realistically around half time). Not just garbage time. Let the backup QB get a real chance to manage the game.

I complained last season that JT didn't put Bridg in games where we were totally dominating. After seeing how Mansion looked so unprepared, I thought we would take a different approach on this. Instead of worrying about running up the score, let's let our backup QB run the game like we're behind. Let him run 2-min drills, let him pass it, let him throw it deep. Let's NOT just run it up the gut for a 1-yard gain.

---

The only game from the first half of last year that meets these qualifications was the Presbyterian game, and AB played almost the entire second half of that game.

TorBear;716677 said:

---

The only game from the first half of last year that meets these qualifications was the Presbyterian game, and AB played almost the entire second half of that game.

---

Fresno St. 33-14 in the 3Q although you can say that Maynard needed all the time he could get.

The game I noticed this the most was against Utah. 20-0 at the half. Bridg should've been put in to play the second half of the game. Instead he came in somewhere in the 4th but all we did was run it up the gut anyway. That's what I was speaking too.

But some others:
- Against WSU 23-0 at the half (AB did come in somewhere in the 3rd or 4th after Maynard took a ****. Not an excuse but there was a torrential downpour if people don't remember).
- Against OSU 20-6 in the 3rd.

Also, I said that it's worth trying the backup QB is the starter is totally struggling and, especially in Maynard's case, becoming a turnover machine particularly when they seem mentally defeated. In the case of our bowl game, it probably makes even more sense to tryout the backup QB since it's an extra game.

calumnus;716657 said:

---

I don't have "faith" in that I don't KNOW Maynard will improve, you are actually the one that has (negative) faith in that (you think) you KNOW that he will NOT improve. All I am saying is it is very possible Maynard improves. Many QBs have great senior years after mediocre previous years, even under the same coach.

Moreover, I don't need faith to know that Maynard can play well, I saw it with my own eyes--he outplayed Andrew Luck, almost certainly the #1 pick in the NFL draft, in the Big Game (and Luck had a good game). I also know that he can play poorly, I saw that too. However, the fact that he has played at a high level before means that he can again. I don't need faith to know that. If Maynard plays more of his best games (like Big Game) and eliminates the bad games (like SC) that will be a [U]massive[/U] improvement overall. That is [U]definitely[/U] possible. Do I know that will happen? Of course not. Am I willing to write off the possibility? Of course not.

Does that mean I think Maynard should definitely be the starter next year? Of course not. I'd love to see someone beat him out. However, saying he should definitely NOT be the starter is nuts.

---

I cannot say it is NUTS to want to start someone other than ZM.
We have seen enough of ZM to have a fairly good idea of what he can do (both good and bad). IMO it is not enough.

We have NOT seen enough of the back-ups to have any reliable idea of what they can do with some REAL playing time.

I really like JT as the HC but the characteristic that drives me crazy sometimes is his reluctance to try something new; and the fact that he values playing time so highly.

He has admitted at alumni meetings that he needs to give the back-up QB more playing time (even long before ZM was even on the horizon) and needs to get them in the game to do more than just hand off the ball.

But even with this admission he passed up so many opportunities last year to give AB any REAL playing time to show what he can do.

How can any back up show what he can do unless he is given playing time.

Don't tell me that AB had his shot. For every fumble that AB had, I can point to 3 or 4 by ZM. For every bad pass (and there were only a few) I can show you 7 or 8 by ZM. A QB has to get REAL playing time to show what he can do. He has to get into the rhythm of the game.

But all we can do is now wait to see if there is a real open competition for the starting QB slot. I just hope that JT doesn't finish the Spring and Summer Camps praising ZM for his "escapeability". I want Cal's starting QB to be head and shoulders ahead of all the others in passing accuracy and fewest INT's.

Since Cal does not play the "spread" offense, complementing a Cal QB for his "escapeabity" is like your best friend describing your blind date as having a "wonderful personality."