Masau80;720403 said:
You are absolutely correct... Couple that with AB's less than mediocre performance when he did play last season... and ZM isthe guy... barring any injuries or other exceptional events.
LafayetteBear;720534 said:
Masau: Spoken like someone who is satisfied with Cal's QB play over the last five years. I, for one, am not, and Kline is already MUCH better than Maynard. He also comes in with a higher pedigree than any of the other QB's in the Cal program. (And anyone with a pair of functioning eyeballs can see why that is so.) Hinder was labeled a "project" from they day he gave Cal his verbal. (I'll bet he is still a beanpole.) Boehm is the closest thing to Kline, but no one rated him as Kline's equal. But if it meant not having Maynard back there, i would LOVE to see Boehm get a chance.
You DO realize, don't you, that plenty of QB's, particularly the elite ones, have played (and even started at) QB as true freshmen. Not that JT will allow it, which is the problem. I believe it means, as someone else already posted on this thread, "another year of Tedfordian mediocrity" at QB. I fully expect it.
KoreAmBear;720145 said:
I think that notion has sailed. Maynard is now the incumbent whereas he wasn't last year and the running element helped him win the job. Also I have to believe that JT thought Maynard did have some FBS experience and had a bond with KA so he went with that as Maynard seemed to be equal with Bridgeford according to that insider guy's summer and fall reports (forgot his handle). Now with a full year of experience, it's his job to lose. Our BCS chances live and die with Maynard, I'm pretty convinced.
LafayetteBear;720600 said:
OK, I'd be glad to name some guys who played QB as true freshmen. Tell me if any of these names rings a bell: Kellen Moore, Colt McCoy, Colt Brennan, Tim Tebow, Jimmy Clausen, Matt Barkley. Every one of these guys played QB as a true freshman. Moore, McCoy, Brennan and Barkley started. Clausen started for awhile, but had a bumpy freshman year because his offensive line sucked ballz. Tebow played sparingly, but he played. ALL of those guys are recent college QB's, so playing as a true freshman can hardly be described as a novelty, as Masau would have you believe.
I don't think I need to provide the stats for the above-named QB's. You know they were successful, because they are all either playing in the League or awaiting the upcoming draft. Except Barkley, that is, who is still at SC.
As for Cal, our list of elite qb's is relatively short: Kapp, Morton, Bartkowski, Roth, and Rodgers. I do not believe that any of them played as a freshman. I also do not believe than ANY of them were preceded by a five year run of quarterbacking as lamentable as we have seen this last five years.
If you took a poll of Cal fans as to whom - Maynard or Kline - they believed more capable of leading the Bears next fall, Kline would win that poll EVERY TIME. Unfortunately, Tedford's vote is the only one that counts, and he has already telegraphed that he intends to sit Kline and start Maynard. Being a Cal fan, I hope Maynard shows a quantum leap in improvement, but I think it verges on the irrational to expect it. If he continues to make bad decisions and inaccurate throws, not only will he and the team suffer, but Tedford (who apparently wants to go all in with Maynard) will see his seat go from hot to empty.
Masau80;720615 said:
You kind of prove the point.... you cite 6 QBs over the last 8 or so years.... that is out of say 600 DI QBs over that time... With the exception of Brennan - all are or soon will be pro QBs... meaning they were the cream of the crop... and if you look at their frosh stats ... they were pedestrian... Tebow was strictly a runner so he doesn't count... and Moore played in the WAC...
If Kline is as good as Barkley... he could play.. but he will be better NEXT year and the 3 years after that.... remember, he has NEVER played college football...
A better argument for you would be to cite all the true freshmen QBs that beat out the incumbent starter.... then I'll consider your arguments.
StillNoStanfurdium;720618 said:
You and the people arguing with you seem to be on two different tracks. You're saying that Kline is not exceptional and therefore won't win the starting job. Other people are saying that if Kline is exceptional there's certainly a precedent for him to win the starting job and furthermore it is possible to be good enough to win the job out of high school.
Everyone agrees that an exceptional QB will win the starting job. The only thing at question is whether or not Kline will be that exceptional and nothing you're asking for is really relevant to that.
LafayetteBear;720600 said:
OK, I'd be glad to name some guys who played QB as true freshmen. Tell me if any of these names rings a bell: Kellen Moore, Colt McCoy, Colt Brennan, Tim Tebow, Jimmy Clausen, Matt Barkley. Every one of these guys played QB as a true freshman.
CalBeast;720674 said:
What's the...deal...with all the...extraneous...ellipses?
bearwithfangs;720656 said:
FWIW, Moore, McCoy, and Brennan all redshirted their freshmen years, so that run counter to your argument.
Jimmy Clausen and Matt Barkley are probably the best examples of QBs who started as true freshmen.
Golden One;719512 said:
Absolutely zero. Regardless of performance in spring practice or training camp, Maynard will be the starting QB in the season opener. That's just Tedford's way.
Masau80;720651 said:
All I am saying is that as of today.. Kline is just an exceptionally successful high school QB... to assume he is anything else until he actually steps on the field and performs in college (practice is OK)... is simply wishful thinking. He is simply potential.... comparing HS to college QBs is a crap-shoot that just doesn't have any merit.
LafayetteBear;721311 said:
And Tedford has done so remarkably well over the last five years with that "strategy" of his....
LafayetteBear;721603 said:
One starting QB plays lousy for two consecutive seasons, but he gets virtually all of the game snaps, so we have no backup with game experience. The starter must, therefore, stay in, because "no one else is ready."
Starting QB graduates. So JT puts in the Kid from Buffalo because he has more game experience and (arguably) more mobility than anyone else. More lousy play. But, since none of the backups have gotten any game snaps, "they are not ready," and therefore do not play. Net result; the same losing "strategy" is repeated, and we STILL have no one prepared to take over in case the starter is injured.
How could the fans do worse than THAT?
TorBear;721646 said:
Fans who don't understand that there's this thing called "practice" which is used by pretty much every football team on Earth to determine who starts and who stays on the bench could easily do worse than that. Fans who don't understand that, when a sub does get a chance to play, he needs to make the most of his opportunity if he wants to make a case for more PT, also could do worse than that.
CalReason;719380 said:
what is weight and muscle going to do for his poor quarterbacking ability?
Masau80;721684 said:
Correct. Virtually every football program on earth does not make it a practice of gettting back-up QBs significant game snaps - never have, never will. It is not a "losing strategy." Practice is THE place to break out. Experience, rhythm, and synergy - it is why you never rotate out the front 5 and the QB.
heartofthebear;723384 said:
All this talk about the fans vs. JT on who should be QB.
Until the fans, JT, Michalczich, Blasquez or anybody else for that matter can produce a consistent and effective OL, the QB question is moot.
Riley never had time.
Maynard occasionally.
So let's throw a young talent like Kline to the wolves as well. What the hell.
It's precisely Kline's talent that is the best argument for keeping him off the field next year.
Many true freshmen that started either replaced injured incumbents or got injured themselves. The rest were playing behind solid and experienced OLs.
My vote is for Bridgeford, whose stature speaks to his ability to take hits and get up afterwards. He's also the most accurate passer with college experience in the depth chart.
heartofthebear;726184 said:
Masau we're basically in agreement. The point is that the competition this spring is between Bridgeford and Maynard and not between Kline and Maynard. I'm just saying that if we want someone other than Maynard, Bridgeford makes more sense than anybody. I would disagree that the 40% is an appropriate stat. He was not getting the same reps and game prep that Maynard was and was forced to come in at bad times. If we go back to last spring, most observers from the media thought that Bridgeford was more accurate than Maynard but that Maynard was chosen for the "added dimension".
TorBear;726240 said:
Bridgford didn't get the same game prep because he wasn't the starter. That's how football teams operate. And he played pretty much the entire second half vs. Presbyterian, and most of the 4th quarter vs. Oregon. In both cases, the game was pretty much already decided when he came in. That's pretty much a low pressure situation, so how were those bad times?
heartofthebear;726263 said:
Bad snaps and rain against Utah.
Playing in Autzen against Oregon for injured Maynard
He played well against Presbyterian but who wouldn't.
Playing behind a less than stellar OL during the early part of the year.
I understand the realities of being a back-up QB, which is why we shouldn't judge his performance.
I don't think anyone would agree that there is a big enough sampling size to assume that he would only complete 40% as a starter.
Do you really think that he was given a real chance to win the starting job last year?
Did he ever get a chance to start a game?
I'll make my judgement after seeing the statistics from one full game start to finish.
Edit: apparently Bridgeford has corrected the hitch in his throwing motion as well.
heartofthebear;726263 said:
Bad snaps and rain against Utah.
Playing in Autzen against Oregon for injured Maynard
He played well against Presbyterian but who wouldn't.
Playing behind a less than stellar OL during the early part of the year.
I understand the realities of being a back-up QB, which is why we shouldn't judge his performance.
I don't think anyone would agree that there is a big enough sampling size to assume that he would only complete 40% as a starter.
Do you really think that he was given a real chance to win the starting job last year?
Did he ever get a chance to start a game?
I'll make my judgement after seeing the statistics from one full game start to finish.
Edit: apparently Bridgeford has corrected the hitch in his throwing motion as well.
TorBear;726380 said:
If you understand the realities of being a backup QB, then you understand that a QB has to outperform his competition whenever he gets a chance if he wants to replace him on the depth chart, and this his chances are mostly only going to happen in practice. You ask me if I think he was given a real chance to win the starting job last year? Why wouldn't he be given a real chance? How could it be in Tedford's interest not to get as good a look as he could at all of his QB's?
TorBear;726380 said:
How could it be in Tedford's interest not to get as good a look as he could at all of his QB's?
TorBear;726380 said:
If you understand the realities of being a backup QB, then you understand that a QB has to outperform his competition whenever he gets a chance if he wants to replace him on the depth chart, and this his chances are mostly only going to happen in practice. You ask me if I think he was given a real chance to win the starting job last year? Why wouldn't he be given a real chance? How could it be in Tedford's interest not to get as good a look as he could at all of his QB's?
Rushinbear;726491 said:
Surely you jest.
Tell me that it has never crossed your mind that JT might have made a deal with the devil.
Or, that maybe his command to the team before last summer that ZM is the leader and that they must follow him meant nothing to you.
Or, the reports from spring camp that AB was at least more accurate/a better passer, if not outplaying ZM altogether.
And, by the way, it is common practice among coaches to pull a struggling QB for a while to give him a chance to see what is going on on the field.
No coach (virtually) wants a 2 QB system (triple option teams may have been the exception), but history is rife with examples of the #2 going in for a struggling #1 and outperforming him, despite initial struggles.
Reggie Robertson presumably had been outperforming AR in practice, otherwise, he wouldn't have been starting. Reggie was doing pretty well, but JT put in AR and, despite his struggles, took over the job.
Say what you will about Rich Rod, but Forcier was playing about as well as ZM and presumably had outperformed the other kid (whose name suddenly escapes me) in practice (otherwise the other kid would have started, according to your lights). RR put in the other kid and, after some struggles, outperformed Forcier.
Need I go on?
TorBear;726897 said:
Has it ever crossed your mind that it was NOT in JT's interest to make a "deal with the devil"? No receiver, no matter how good, is worth the price of having to play a bad QB. And what kind of deal would this be? That Keenan Allen would transfer the minute his brother is no longer the starter? Is that in KA's interest?
As for reports that AB outperformed ZM, in my recollection, these reports were not universal; moreover, AB clearly did not outshine ZM when he did take the field in real games.
And the Aaron Rodgers-Reggie Robertson situation is unusual in that AR was an abnormally gifted talent, and JT clearly recognized this. He got significant PT from the very first game and played very, very well, despite having put on pads as a Cal player for the first time mere weeks before. The "struggles" to which you refer did not actually happen until AFTER he'd won the starting job, and were pretty much limited to the the second half, or so, of the USC game, when he was injured, and the following week vs. Oregon State.
heartofthebear;726528 said:
I don't want to have to keep saying this.
Bridgford did outperform according to many inside observers.
But the "extra dimension" factor was more important last year because of concerns about the OL.
Let's just agree to disagree if I have to keep making the same points over and over again.
calumnus;727239 said:
The objection is to the frequent use of "outperform."
Some posters on this board saw some of the practices and thought Bridgford was the "more accurate" passer--and for the sake of argument, let's assume that Bridgford was the more accurate passer last Spring. There is far more that goes into a QB's performance than just being an accurate passer--ask Joe Kapp or Mike Pawlawski.
Several observers, including in the media, said Maynard did a better job moving the team up the field and scoring TDs (certainly one measure of "outperform") and in fact [U]said[/U] Maynard outperformed Bridgford last Spring.
Bearclawz;719546 said:
I think this depends on how much Tedford and the other coaches go back and review the game film from this season, specifically USC, UCLA and Oregon. Not only was ZM terribly inaccurate, but he continually forced balls to well covered wide outs when rb's and TE's were ignored. ZM's play alone may have been the difference in both the UCLA and SC games, and he killed us against Texas as well. You just cannot continue to play a QB that kills your chances that many times.
GoBears58;727561 said:
he sucked versus Washington too..
heartofthebear;727636 said:
you're joking right.
349 yards passing
0 ints
1 TD
23/43 passing
It was his best game statistically including setting a record for the longest pass play of 90 yards to Keenan Allen.
