OK, we are now approaching March. Time to get on with real football topics,
No more recruiting news, no more To$hGate, no more best places to eat around Berkeley.

Let's talk football. And since the QB is the most important position. Let's talk Cal QB's.

When we last left this topic there had a been a huge hue and cry about ZM as Cal's starting QB. He has shown himself as a very mobile QB who can move out of the pocket and make some plays (see the QB run touchdown vs. ASU and the QB scramble touchdown pass vs. ASU).

BUT We all (even the sunshine pumpers) have seen a number of glaring inadequacies that he demonstrated. Inconsistent passing, INT's, fumbles, and the long passes that he can never seem to complete to a runner in stride (either they are short and the WR has to slow down to catch, or they or way too long, way too short or too far to the right of left).

OK I get that JT's strategy for 2011 was built on the assumption that our OL was too green; and that our runners were not spectacular; so JT wanted another running back on the field.
Presto - ZM is anointed QB (even though AB perfomed better as a pocket passer in the Spring and Summer camps).
[Notice how I am intentionally ignoring all the innuendo regarding KA's influence in the choice of QB).

But IMO ZM has hit his competence ceiling (he is not a young player and has been in CFB for 4 years). He is what he is; an average NCAA QB and a below average PAC12 QB. He cannot take Cal to the top of the PAC12. So what do we do [assuming my conclusions are borne out by Spring and Summer Camps].

1. Go with ZM because he has a year's worth of game experience as Cal's starting QB (and HOPE that he can get A LOT better as QB).

2. Go with AB (or Boehm or another non-rookie QB) because he is a better passer and is familiar with JT's playbook (and hope that the OL and RBs come along as expected).

3. Go with ZK as the future hope of Cal FB (and hope that he is a fast study and does not get hurt).

I am afraid that, knowing JT's proclivities and preference for a QB with actual game time experience, he will go with alternative #1. (Because of this I have cancelled my plans to travel to Columbus for the OSU game. No sense in blowing a lot of $$$ to see Cal get creamed. I have done that all too often as my wife has pointed out when she sees the Mastercard bill.)


IMO alternative #1 will get Cal to a low tier bowl game in late Dec 2012.
I would roll the dice and go with Alternatives #2 or #3.

OK Cal fans have I whetted your interest? What would you do? #1, #2,#3 or something else.

I think Tedford will go with ZM. I would agree with him, and bank on Kline being the great hope for 2013. However, it would be nice to see what Bridgford, Boehm, or Hinder can do. Please, PLEASE let a 2nd string get extened PT against Southern Utah!


:tedford

Unproven qb, receiver corps, o line, dbs, linebackers, special teams, running backs. A good d line but
A New Stadium!
:gobears:

Bobodeluxe;714229 said:

---

Unproven qb, receiver corps, o line, dbs, linebackers, special teams, running backs. A good d line but
A New Stadium!
:gobears:

---

why are you here ? dont you have somewhere else to be ? causing problems

Well no one has proven to my satisfaction that ZM is even gonna be eligible for the first four games. The rumors say that he may need to pass as many as 27 units in the spring and summer. That's a lot. So we may HAVE to go to option 2 or 3 for the first four games anyways

As for the backups....it would SEEM that the best "pro style" qb is AB. But if our OT play is poor he's gonna get killed back there.

That being said...if ZM isn't eligible for the first four games if someone (whichever) steps up and plays well then what????

68great;714202 said:

---

(Because of this I have cancelled my plans to travel to Columbus for the OSU game. No sense in blowing a lot of $$$ to see Cal get creamed. I have done that all too often as my wife has pointed out when she sees the Mastercard bill.)

---

Heh. I went through the same thought process. Would love to see the Horseshoe, would hate to see another Holiday Bowl-esque debacle.

On topic: I'd go with #2, barring an amazing spring from Kline. I agree that Maynard seems to have hit his ceiling, and that ceiling is just too low for a Pac-12 team.

No doubt Tedford will go with #1. Ah well.

68great;714202 said:

---

I am afraid that, knowing JT's proclivities and preference for a QB with actual game time experience.

---

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.

Youngbearcub89;714205 said:

---

I think Tedford will go with ZM. I would agree with him, and bank on Kline being the great hope for 2013. However, it would be nice to see what Bridgford, Boehm, or Hinder can do. Please, PLEASE let a 2nd string get extened PT against Southern Utah!

:tedford

---

Except I know Tedford's thinking, game three is at Ohio State, game 4 is at USC, and he is going to want the starting offense/QB to get as many reps as possible without getting worn down.

I do think Tedford should go with a version of a two QB system. He probably thinks he tried that in 2008, but he didn't, he had two QBs compete all season.

68great;714202 said:

---

(Because of this I have cancelled my plans to travel to Columbus for the OSU game. No sense in blowing a lot of $$$ to see Cal get creamed. I have done that all too often as my wife has pointed out when she sees the Mastercard bill.)

---

There is no way that I would even think of cancelling my plans to go see us play at the Horseshoe. This will seriously not happen again, and if it does, it won't be while I'm still young.

I'm going regardless. Damn right.

68great;714202 said:

---

I am afraid that, knowing JT's proclivities and preference for a QB with actual game time experience, he will go with alternative #1. (Because of this I have cancelled my plans to travel to Columbus for the OSU game. No sense in blowing a lot of $$$ to see Cal get creamed. I have done that all too often as my wife has pointed out when she sees the Mastercard bill.)

OK Cal fans have I whetted your interest? What would you do? #1, #2,#3 or something else.

---

I would go to Columbus.

Youngbearcub89;714205 said:

---

Please, PLEASE let a 2nd string get extened PT against Southern Utah!

---

1-2 pass plays and 6+ handoffs late in the 4th quarter.
"It was time to run down the clock," JT will explain. :tedford

68great;714202 said:

---

OK, we are now approaching March. Time to get on with real football topics,
No more recruiting news, no more To$hGate, no more best places to eat around Berkeley.

Let's talk football. And since the QB is the most important position. Let's talk Cal QB's.

When we last left this topic there had a been a huge hue and cry about ZM as Cal's starting QB. He has shown himself as a very mobile QB who can move out of the pocket and make some plays (see the QB run touchdown vs. ASU and the QB scramble touchdown pass vs. ASU).

BUT We all (even the sunshine pumpers) have seen a number of glaring inadequacies that he demonstrated. Inconsistent passing, INT's, fumbles, and the long passes that he can never seem to complete to a runner in stride (either they are short and the WR has to slow down to catch, or they or way too long, way too short or too far to the right of left).

OK I get that JT's strategy for 2011 was built on the assumption that our OL was too green; and that our runners were not spectacular; so JT wanted another running back on the field.
Presto - ZM is anointed QB (even though AB perfomed better as a pocket passer in the Spring and Summer camps).
[Notice how I am intentionally ignoring all the innuendo regarding KA's influence in the choice of QB).

But IMO ZM has hit his competence ceiling (he is not a young player and has been in CFB for 4 years). He is what he is; an average NCAA QB and a below average PAC12 QB. He cannot take Cal to the top of the PAC12. So what do we do [assuming my conclusions are borne out by Spring and Summer Camps].

1. Go with ZM because he has a year's worth of game experience as Cal's starting QB (and HOPE that he can get A LOT better as QB).

2. Go with AB (or Boehm or another non-rookie QB) because he is a better passer and is familiar with JT's playbook (and hope that the OL and RBs come along as expected).

3. Go with ZK as the future hope of Cal FB (and hope that he is a fast study and does not get hurt).

I am afraid that, knowing JT's proclivities and preference for a QB with actual game time experience, he will go with alternative #1. (Because of this I have cancelled my plans to travel to Columbus for the OSU game. No sense in blowing a lot of $$$ to see Cal get creamed. I have done that all too often as my wife has pointed out when she sees the Mastercard bill.)


IMO alternative #1 will get Cal to a low tier bowl game in late Dec 2012.
I would roll the dice and go with Alternatives #2 or #3.

OK Cal fans have I whetted your interest? What would you do? #1, #2,#3 or something else.

---

Each Saturday JT will play the QB that he thinks gives us the best chance to win that day. If Zach Kline looks like the second coming of Aaron Rodgers, he may not get the nod vs. Nevada, but he'll probably get worked into the rotation and may eventually start.

moonpod;714279 said:

---

Well no one has proven to my satisfaction that ZM is even gonna be eligible for the first four games. The rumors say that he may need to pass as many as 27 units in the spring and summer. That's a lot. So we may HAVE to go to option 2 or 3 for the first four games anyways

As for the backups....it would SEEM that the best "pro style" qb is AB. But if our OT play is poor he's gonna get killed back there.

That being said...if ZM isn't eligible for the first four games if someone (whichever) steps up and plays well then what????

---

If ZM, for some reason, cannot play the first four games, and someone else steps up and plays well, that will be a good "problem" to have, and I think JT will continue to go with the hot hand. The vexing issue will be what to do if the new QB is only so-so.

calumnus;714285 said:

---

I do think Tedford should go with a version of a two QB system. He probably thinks he tried that in 2008, but he didn't, he had two QBs compete all season.

---

That may have possibilities. Combine a drop back QB like Bridgford with a scrambler like ZM and it would give defenses a lot to think about. One issue is ZM is awfully streaky, so ideally he'd be in during his hot streaks. Well, one can always dream.

My gut feeling is that ZM gets better in his 2nd year as a starter. 1st: He has had a year to adjust to the Pac 12 season. 2nd: He has seen the Pac 12 defenses thrown at him. 3rd: He has had more time with Teddy and the offense. 4th: He has had time to work on his deficiencies. Hopefully all of the above leads to better play at the QB position. If not, Teddy's seat will start to heat up and force a change at the QB position. 1st year in the new stadium, the fans and alumni will want wins.

UrsusTexicanus;714346 said:

---

That may have possibilities. Combine a drop back QB like Bridgford with a scrambler like ZM and it would give defenses a lot to think about. One issue is ZM is awfully streaky, so ideally he'd be in during his hot streaks. Well, one can always dream.

---

If you are playing two, and one is playing so well you have to leave him in...:beer:

The thing that is avoided is leaving in a QB who is falling apart, hoping he will turn it around on the field. Usually, though, bad follows bad. There are days in sports when a player just has a bad outing. A Cy Young pitcher gets rocked. Even Rodgers had a few games like that in 2003. The problem is that in college football, you play so few games, you can't afford to just let a QB work out his kinks in one. The one time Tedford brought in the reliever early is the only time he has beaten USC. If he had done the same against OSU and then either UCLA or Oregon, we probably go to the Rose Bowl. If we had done that in 2005, maybe we figure out Levy is passable. In 2007 we avoid the second half meltdown and in 2008 we avoid the QB controversy and win a few more games. In 2010, we have a back-up with experience....

UrsusTexicanus;714346 said:

---

One issue is ZM is awfully streaky, so ideally he'd be in during his hot streaks. Well, one can always dream.

---

"Streaky" is probably not the right term. That would imply he is hot and cold regardless of who the opponent is. He tends to play consistently well against average to lower half Ds, and then against good D's he usually either falls apart mentally with multiple boneheaded turnovers or pulls a K. Riley with multiple 3-and-outs.

So, bring in Bridgf/Hinder/Boehm for the entirety of the OhSt, SC, Oregon, Ucla games and have ZM play the other 8 reg season games??? Ideally, JT would have one of those 3 alts ready by Sept to take over the starting role for ALL games.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;714408 said:

---

"Streaky" is probably not the right term. That would imply he is hot and cold regardless of who the opponent is. He tends to play consistently well against average to lower half Ds, and then against good D's he usually either falls apart mentally with multiple boneheaded turnovers or pulls a K. Riley with multiple 3-and-outs.

So, bring in Bridgf/Hinder/Boehm for the entirety of the OhSt, SC, Oregon, Ucla games and have ZM play the other 8 reg season games??? Ideally, JT would have one of those 3 alts ready by Sept to take over the starting role for ALL games.

---

I think the problem for years has been that our offense works fine for teams that our OL can dominate and we get good yardage on our first down runs, if not, we get into too many third and longs, where we always go max protect with our two receivers, which is too easy to defend = fail.

The major difference with Maynard was that initially, he actually completed those third and longs by just tossing the ball up for Allen and Jones who could beat the DBs for the ball--a play Riley had stopped trying to make.

However, against better defenses, once opponents knew what he/we do, those third and long desperation throws turned into turnovers (the lesson Riley had learned).

The thing that made me optimistic during the season is that we then started mixing up our plays better and getting the ball to Sofele outside on the pitch, and letting Maynard roll out or run, and the result was that we moved the ball and had a lot fewer third and long situations.

I thought in the Holiday Bowl it seemed like we forgot everything we learned and we reverted to predictable play calling and running up the gut against a very good defense resulting in third and longs with the same result as when we did the same thing earlier in the season against good defenses.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;714408 said:

---

"Streaky" is probably not the right term. That would imply he is hot and cold regardless of who the opponent is. He tends to play consistently well against average to lower half Ds, and then against good D's he usually either falls apart mentally with multiple boneheaded turnovers or pulls a K. Riley with multiple 3-and-outs.

So, bring in Bridgf/Hinder/Boehm for the entirety of the OhSt, SC, Oregon, Ucla games and have ZM play the other 8 reg season games??? Ideally, JT would have one of those 3 alts ready by Sept to take over the starting role for ALL games.

---

I wish he would "pull a K. Riley". KR was a superior QB to ZM.

calumnus;714439 said:

---

I think the problem for years has been that our offense works fine for teams that our OL can dominate and we get good yardage on our first down runs, if not, we get into too many third and longs, where we always go max protect with our two receivers, which is too easy to defend = fail.

The major difference with Maynard was that initially, he actually completed those third and longs by just tossing the ball up for Allen and Jones who could beat the DBs for the ball--a play Riley had stopped trying to make.

However, against better defenses, once opponents knew what he/we do, those third and long desperation throws turned into turnovers (the lesson Riley had learned).

The thing that made me optimistic during the season is that we then started mixing up our plays better and getting the ball to Sofele outside on the pitch, and letting Maynard roll out or run, and the result was that we moved the ball and had a lot fewer third and long situations.

I thought in the Holiday Bowl it seemed like we forgot everything we learned and we reverted to predictable play calling and running up the gut against a very good defense resulting in third and longs with the same result as when we did the same thing earlier in the season against good defenses.

---

That is what I thought also but it turned out that ZM's improved play was mostly againt the weaker PAC12 teams.

calumnus;714439 said:

---

.....

The thing that made me optimistic during the season is that we then started mixing up our plays better and getting the ball to Sofele outside on the pitch, and letting Maynard roll out or run, and the result was that we moved the ball and had a lot fewer third and long situations.

I thought in the Holiday Bowl it seemed like we forgot everything we learned and we reverted to predictable play calling and running up the gut against a very good defense resulting in third and longs with the same result as when we did the same thing earlier in the season against good defenses.

---

Agree, a QB who can run not only causes the defense problems just for that, but also can change the game largely because what was doomed as a failed play can suddenly turn into a somewhat-undeserved first down (and momentum swing). Problem is, such a player can also get hurt. Looks like we wanted to preserve the health of the QB (or thought what was working before might not against them for some reason?). But if you want to win, you have to go with what works. Is it worth it to design a few good QB-draws or other rollout/option/running plays? Don't know that ZM is best described as "rugged," but if QB #2 is more effective this year (which he/they should be), then more risk-taking with ZM on the fly (in the running sense) could be very effective, maybe "dangerous, but worth the risk".?

Consider that Maynard only has one season in the Cal system. He is NOT that much of a veteran.

Maynard seemed to play better as the season went along.

Yeah, yeah, Tedford will give lip service to all the QBs having a shot at starting, but unless someone else plays really well this spring, Maynard will probably be at the controls next season. I won't consider it that much of a surprise, and if he continues to improve I won't be too bothered about it.

GivemTheAxe;714488 said:

---

That is what I thought also but it turned out that ZM's improved play was mostly againt the weaker PAC12 teams.

---

I agree that there was some confluence of different factors. Seems crazy that we play conservative and try to run up the middle against good defenses and then use a better mix of plays and better use of our speed and quarterback's mobility against weak teams, but that is more or less what we did.

I am really tired of our last decade of conservative game plans against USC and now Oregon. If we are going to beat the top dog in our conference, we need to be more creative and take a few chances.

Same with Texas in the Holiday Bowl. Maybe Tedford didn't hold a grudge, but the fan base sure did.

I pretty much agree with everything you write about Cal football.

I will be disappointed if ZM is our starter..I don't trust his ability or instincts at our level of competition. Has anyone ever got a feeling of "confidence" with him at QB - even during his "good games?" He is shakey and unreliable - inconsistent. I welcome a hard fought competition and truly hope someone emerges to replace him on merit. Even though Tedford's history in this regard is debatable, I believe he was as frustrated as we were last season with ZM's performance and should open the door in the spring.

GldnBear71;714517 said:

---

Consider that Maynard only has one season in the Cal system. He is NOT that much of a veteran.

Maynard seemed to play better as the season went along.

Yeah, yeah, Tedford will give lip service to all the QBs having a shot at starting, but unless someone else plays really well this spring, Maynard will probably be at the controls next season. I won't consider it that much of a surprise, and if he continues to improve I won't be too bothered about it.

---

He has had TWO years in the Cal system. One year he had to sit out after transferring.

68great;714626 said:

---

He has had TWO years in the Cal system. One year he had to sit out after transferring.

---

Note: he wasn't here in the Fall of 2010, he was at Contra Costa. Came to Cal in the Spring of 2011.

EchoOfSilence;714715 said:

---

Note: he wasn't here in the Fall of 2010, he was at Contra Costa. Came to Cal in the Spring of 2011.

---

Enough with the EXCUSES already.
He was not a true freshman last year.
He was not a red shirt freshman last year.
He was not a true or redshirt Sophmore.
He did not cut it.
How many posters were ragging on AB for fumbling several times in the RAIN.
And in my opinion those fumbles were much less of a problem than the inconsistent performance of ZM or than his own fumbles or than his own throwing INT's directly into the arms of a DB who should have been obvious to the QB.

As my drill sargeant was wont to say to anyone who tried to come up with an excuse: "I ain't your mama, kid. I don't want to hear excuses. Just Do It!"

68great;714750 said:

---

Enough with the EXCUSES already.
He was not a true freshman last year.
He was not a red shirt freshman last year.
He was not a true or redshirt Sophmore.
He did not cut it.
How many posters were ragging on AB for fumbling several times in the RAIN.
And in my opinion those fumbles were much less of a problem than the inconsistent performance of ZM or than his own fumbles or than his own throwing INT's directly into the arms of a DB who should have been obvious to the QB.

As my drill sargeant was wont to say to anyone who tried to come up with an excuse: "I ain't your mama, kid. I don't want to hear excuses. Just Do It!"

---

First, let's be clear, it is not Maynard who is making excuses. Second, it is one thing to say no excuses, but then you make excuses for Bridgford.

Maynard completed 57% of his passes and had a 127 QB rating.

Bridgford completed 40.6% of his passes and had an 89 QB rating.

Bridgford had his chances to show he should be the starter in practice and in games. He didn't. If you are going to win the starting position you actually have to DO better than the other guy when you are in. No excuses.

calumnus;714761 said:

---

First, let's be clear, it is not Maynard who is making excuses. Second, it is one thing to say no excuses, but then you make excuses for Bridgford.

Maynard completed 57% of his passes and had a 127 QB rating.

Bridgford completed 40.6% of his passes and had an 89 QB rating.

Bridgford had his chances to show he should be the starter in practice and in games. He didn't. If you are going to win the starting position you actually have to DO better than the other guy when you are in. No excuses.

---

Calumnus you are on fire lately. Bravo

calumnus;714546 said:

---

I agree that there was some confluence of different factors. Seems crazy that we play conservative and try to run up the middle against good defenses and then use a better mix of plays and better use of our speed and quarterback's mobility against weak teams, but that is more or less what we did.

I am really tired of our last decade of conservative game plans against USC and now Oregon. If we are going to beat the top dog in our conference, we need to be more creative and take a few chances.

Same with Texas in the Holiday Bowl. Maybe Tedford didn't hold a grudge, but the fan base sure did.

---

calumnus, you might have previously addressed yourself why there was this conservative lack of creativity and risk-taking against the better Ds.

calumnus;714439 said:

---

I think the problem for years has been that our offense works fine for teams that our OL can dominate and we get good yardage on our first down runs, if not, we get into too many third and longs, where we always go max protect with our two receivers, which is too easy to defend = fail.

---

When the OL doesn't dominate by establishing the run early on, an offense without an accurate passer necessarily gets much more predictable, third downs get longer, and the blocking is lacking for Maynard runs. After last spring camp, JT made the calculation that ZM had the feet and cool head to make plays even when the run-blocking and pass-pro were lacking, but that calculation was in error (the Utah game being the interesting exception).

A JT system simply does not work without a dominant line, or an exceptional tackle-busting tailback who makes up for line deficiencies, or an exceptional passer who carries his struggling teammates to victories. Given his system, his top priorities for offensive-side recruiting EVERY SINGLE YEAR should be first the OLine, and then big RBs (stay away from 170-185 lb backs no matter how fast and eye-popping their stats may be) and a passer proven to be highly accurate at the hs level with superior pocket sense. Everything else is tertiary and counter-productive to his system.

calbearo;714284 said:

---

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.

---

Spot on analysis... unless something happens that takes ZM out of the picture ... he is the starter and will take every meaningful snap all year... Platooning QBs is a losing practice... The Freshman redshirts and gets a year to prepare to excel (if he is really that good)... If ZM can improve his accuracy... and rid himself of the self-inflicted INTs... he has another 3K+ passing season and we run the ball for another 2.5K...

There is only one option (#1) until that is no longer an option... its pretty simple.

Whereas past and present QB's suggest that JT's playbook is too complicated, check out the game plan of the "genius" Hall of Fame former coach from The City:
Plan the first 25 to 35 plays, come hell or high water (absent punts or field goals).
Then, to steal from another Niner playbook, alternate QB's. Remember Kilmer, Brodie and Waters? Forget, with love, ZM. Alternate Kline with either Hinder or AB.
Previous playing time is a questionable criterion. How long should a player be allowed to "learn the system"? I've named my ulcer Reilly.

Looking forward to a great season.

GO BEARS

NYCGOBEARS;714768 said:

---

Calumnus you are on fire lately. Bravo

---

Bridgford had his chances to show he should be the starter in practice and in games. He didn't. If you are going to win the starting position you actually have to DO better than the other guy when you are in. No excuses.

Hah!
All reports from the practices were that AB was the better passer but ZM was more mobile.
The very few passes I saw showed AB was an accurate passer.
There were a few fumbles on a very rainy day. ZM had as many or more fumbles on both rainy AND sunny days.
And the amount of time that ZM had on the field showed that the fumbles and bad passes were typical of ZM's overall performance.

GivemTheAxe;714960 said:

---

Bridgford had his chances to show he should be the starter in practice and in games. He didn't. If you are going to win the starting position you actually have to DO better than the other guy when you are in. No excuses.

Hah!
All reports from the practices were that AB was the better passer but ZM was more mobile.
The very few passes I saw showed AB was an accurate passer.
There were a few fumbles on a very rainy day. ZM had as many or more fumbles on both rainy AND sunny days.
And the amount of time that ZM had on the field showed that the fumbles and bad passes were typical of ZM's overall performance.

---

Practice reports were mixed and we certainly did not have reports from every practice. What we know (apart from Tedford's judgement) is what we saw in the games. Thus, how can you say Bridgford was "more accurate" when he only completed 40% of his passes? Now, I agree I wanted to see more of Bridgford and see if he can show us something, but those of you who are saying that based on what we have seen, Maynard should be benched in favor of Bridgford are not basing it that on anything tangible. Even Ayoob and Mansion were able to complete 49% in 2005 and 2010. Riley was never close to having that low a completion percentage or QB rating. In 2010, despite Riley's 140 passing rating, many wanted him benched, and someone even wanted him injured, just so that Tedford would be forced to start Mansion who was adored on this board despite any actual evidence. They got their wish and Mansion turned out to not be better than Riley.

The best we can say about Bridgford is we want Bridgford to be given more opportunities to show what he can do. However, I'd just as soon see what Boehm, Hinder and Kline can do too. Maynard's 127 may be a low hurdle, but someone has to actually beat it (or whatever Maynard's 2012 level is) to win the starting job and it makes less sense for fans to anoint a successor sight unseen (or with only unfavorable evidence) than anything anyone is accusing Tedford of doing.