So I downloaded the torrent (thanks to whoever put it up) and just watched the few series Allan Bridgford played in and given the circumstances, particularly the team not knowing that he would start until the day before, I think he did decently. His two deep passes had some nice touch too them (first one was a bit overthrown but not by much), and maybe KA would have caught the first pass if he were faster (flame on). He only had seven attempts so you can't exactly evaluate him fairly with such limited data, but I would not mind having him start a game at all. Yes, he is a bit statue-esque out there and his timing was off, but again, JT didn't exactly give him the best chance to succeed by giving Maynard most of the practice time with the starters. I wanted to see Bridgford play last season and I would love to see him start (and play) a few games this season before we chalk him up as yet another one of Tedford's QB busts.

OskiMD;841938138 said:

---

So I downloaded the torrent (thanks to whoever put it up) and just watched the few series Allan Bridgford played in and given the circumstances, particularly the team not knowing that he would start until the day before, I think he did decently. His two deep passes had some nice touch too them (first one was a bit overthrown but not by much), and maybe KA would have caught the first pass if he were faster (flame on). He only had seven attempts so you can't exactly evaluate him fairly with such limited data, but I would not mind having him start a game at all. Yes, he is a bit statue-esque out there and his timing was off, but again, JT didn't exactly give him the best chance to succeed by giving Maynard most of the practice time with the starters. I wanted to see Bridgford play last season and I would love to see him start (and play) a few games this season before we chalk him up as yet another one of Tedford's QB busts.

---

Unfortunately, the only time we'll see Bridg is if we're up big next week. Even if he does come in at that point, it'll just be to hand off the ball since Tedford will be too worried about running up the score.

Start Kline, Start Riley, oh no hes not Rodgers so lets start Mansion or Sweeney, eewww, ok change plans, start Fortt, put Bigs in more, start Moala, oh way wait no lets get a new hc, lets get pete carroll he can fix anything, lets throw to rodgers more, throw on third down always regardless of down distance and field position, use the hurry up, use the spread, use the wild cat, never kick a field goal even when clearly a 30 yarder isnt a gimme, ......how about we get a grip?

If only he was able to hook up on this play............

OskiMD;841938138 said:

---

...I wanted to see Bridgford play last season and I would love to see him start (and play) a few games this season before we chalk him up as yet another one of Tedford's QB busts.

---

If we're going to start AB, it better be this week against an FCS school. Might as well get it over with now and not later in the season. The schedule gets brutal afterwards.

ZM can come off the bench....again....and get used to it. Become a 3rd Down specialist, change-of-pace kind of QB.

OskiMD;841938138 said:

---

So I downloaded the torrent (thanks to whoever put it up) and just watched the few series Allan Bridgford played in and given the circumstances, particularly the team not knowing that he would start until the day before, I think he did decently. His two deep passes had some nice touch too them (first one was a bit overthrown but not by much), and maybe KA would have caught the first pass if he were faster (flame on). He only had seven attempts so you can't exactly evaluate him fairly with such limited data, but I would not mind having him start a game at all. Yes, he is a bit statue-esque out there and his timing was off, but again, JT didn't exactly give him the best chance to succeed by giving Maynard most of the practice time with the starters. I wanted to see Bridgford play last season and I would love to see him start (and play) a few games this season before we chalk him up as yet another one of Tedford's QB busts.

---

You are either kidding of need glasses! Bridgford is slow, a statue, doesn't look anybody off and throws a SLOW, soft ball that better db's will eat for lunch! Bridgford = Manson, i.e. they won't see the field as seniors and I hope to hell they go to class!

I completely disagree with the title of this thread. However, I will concede that the receivers, particularly KA, were woefully unprepared to play with Bridgford. No chemistry whatsoever.

Bridgford throws with the ones every week in practice. Not as much as the starter, but enough to not go 1 for 8. People act like you can't be expected to complete 25% of your passes against a MWC team unless you've been the only guy playing with the 1's all week. Brock Mansion went 60% off the bench against Oregon State after Riley got injured. He completed his first four passes. In 2008 no one ever knew who the starter was going to be. Neither guy ever started 1 for 8. Bridgford had more PBU's against him in one quarter than Maynard did the entire game. Go ahead and make the joke that that's because Maynard missed by more, but he also completed 17/30 for 2 TD's: 0 INT's. Why weren't DB's making "great" plays on those 17 passes? Because Maynard is better than Bridgford. His reads are better or his ball placement is better, but either way Maynard is better than Bridgford, and it's not close.

BTW-Maynard's passer efficiency rating is #37 in the country. Our offense is #68 in the country. We passed for 15 first downs on Saturday, which ties us for 15th in the country. If Maynard had played the first quarter (a failing which IS his fault), I think it's safe to say he would've thrown for at least two more, which would've given us top-10 numbers in passing first downs. Maynard is not great, but he's not the reason our team is what it is. People just see the fumble and the bounce pass (ugly, but no worse than any other incompletion for your offense), provide a perfect example of confirmation bias, and bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.

He looked better than Ayoob against Sac St., but not by much.

I Bear;841938179 said:

---

You are either kidding of need glasses! Bridgford is slow, a statue, doesn't look anybody off and throws a SLOW, soft ball that better db's will eat for lunch! Bridgford = Manson, i.e. they won't see the field as seniors and I hope to hell they go to class!

---

He's slow, a statue and doesn't look anybody off (lol like Maynard does). I disagree about the slow, soft ball part. It looks like he was trying to put too much touch this game. If you've seen him warming up, in practice, or hell, even the Oregon game last year, you can tell he's got a pretty good arm (far stronger than Maynard's noodly appendage)... his motion is awkward and painfully elongated though.

I'd much rather Bridgford start than Maynard at this point, because AB has a higher ceiling as a passer and another year. Maynard shortarming a 10 yard throw is just unbearable to watch.

pappysghost;841938251 said:

---

He looked better than Ayoob against Sac St., but not by much.

---

Didn't ayoob go 0-10 against sac state?

berk18;841938243 said:

---

Why weren't DB's making "great" plays on those 17 passes? Because Maynard is better than Bridgford. His reads are better or his ball placement is better, but either way Maynard is better than Bridgford, and it's not close.

---

Watch the game again. Bridgford isn't the one making Ayoob-ish throws 25% of the time. I'm not a Bridgford fan/friend/family member, but to say that Maynard is better than Bridgford and that it's not even close based on 8 pass attempts by Bridgford, many of which were very "catchable" throws, doesn't say a whole lot about your judgement. Statue-esque, yes. A bit "floaty" of a long ball, sure. But not even close to Maynard, with poorer reads and BALL PLACEMENT than Maynard? Lol... okay.

OskiMD;841938256 said:

---

Watch the game again. Bridgford isn't the one making Ayoob-ish throws 25% of the time. I'm not a Bridgford fan/friend/family member, but to say that Maynard is better than Bridgford and that it's not even close based on 8 pass attempts by Bridgford, many of which were very "catchable" throws, doesn't say a whole lot about your judgement. Statue-esque, yes. A bit "floaty" of a long ball, sure. But not even close to Maynard, with poorer reads and BALL PLACEMENT than Maynard? Lol... okay.

---

Compare him to Brock Mansion, then. Mansion, as a junior, came in cold off the bench for an injured Kevin Riley and threw for 60%. You have to complete passes sometimes to be a good QB. Maynard's shitty incompletions are no worse for the offense than close calls that get knocked away by the DB. His completions are better than when Bridgford has a pass broken up. 57%, 255 yards, 2 TD's, 0 INT's vs. 12.5%, 8 yards, 0 TD's, 0 INT's. Maynard was 5-8, 61 yards on his first eight passes. His 9th pass was a 37 yard TD. Now, maybe Bridgford would've hit a 50 yard TD on his next opportunity to even things up, but I doubt it. Production makes better quarterbacks. Excuses don't.

I'm sorry you don't like my attribution of Maynard's completion % vs. Bridgford's to reads and ball placement. My suspicion is that you're attaching disproportionate value to the misses and ignoring the passes that were completed. What is it that let Maynard go 6-9 for 1 TD, 98 yards and 4 first downs in his first nine passes, while Bridgeford couldn't complete two passes? Bad luck? Wide receiver conspiracy? Our WR's just can't catch balls from a guy if they only throw with him for 25% of their practice reps?

berk18;841938266 said:

---

Compare him to Brock Mansion, then. Mansion, as a junior, came in cold off the bench for an injured Kevin Riley and threw for 60%. You have to complete passes sometimes to be a good QB.

---

Why compare him to Mansion? You're the one who wanted to compare Bridgford, who had never previously started a collegiate game and has thrown probably fewer than two dozen passes at Cal to Maynard, who started 13 games at Cal last season and 11 at Buffalo (and played in another). You're the one who asserted that, based on that fine comparison, that Bridgford was not even close to Maynard.

But anyway, your point is that Mansion is a good QB because he threw for 60% after coming in cold when Riley went down? Nice logic there.

Seriously stop it with Maynard's stats. It's so obviously misleading. There were maybe 2 of his 30 throws that were actually decent, well-placed balls. He is simply not a P12 caliber QB, and we know enough to know his ceiling is not high.

Tedford would do far more for the team and for his credibility by NOT starting Maynard going forward. It's embarrassing.

OskiMD;841938279 said:

---

Why compare him to Mansion? You're the one who wanted to compare Bridgford, who had never previously started a collegiate game and has thrown probably fewer than two dozen passes at Cal to Maynard, who started 13 games at Cal last season and 11 at Buffalo (and played in another). You're the one who asserted that, based on that fine comparison, that Bridgford was not even close to Maynard.

But anyway, your point is that Mansion is a good QB because he threw for 60% after coming in cold when Riley went down? Nice logic there.

---

I've revised my post, although everything you've quoted is still there. I compared him to Mansion so that the "He came in cold without all the practice time of a starter and didn't even know he was starting until Friday!" excuse wouldn't work for Bridgford. I agree, Mansion wasn't good. Bridgford is worse.

Haashole;841938281 said:

---

Seriously stop it with Maynard's stats. It's so obviously misleading. There were maybe 2 of his 30 throws that were actually decent, well-placed balls. He is simply not a P12 caliber QB, and we know enough to know his ceiling is not high.

Tedford would do far more for the team and for his credibility by NOT starting Maynard going forward. It's embarrassing.

---

I don't understand how someone is not a P12 caliber QB when they've thrown for 3,000 yards in the PAC12. "Looking pretty" and "completing passes" aren't the same thing. Being a "P12 QB" and being Andrew Luck are not the same thing. Maynard isn't great. He also isn't what's wrong with our team. His ball-placement and reads might not be great, but they let him go 6-9, 4 first downs, 98 yards and a TD in less time than Bridgford went 1-8 for 8 yards, one first down and zero TD's (this is a start Bridgford thread, right?). If this were statistical nit-picking I could understand the frustration with my points, but the difference between the two is obvious. One produces, one doesn't. It doesn't take P12 QB's more than a quarter to complete two passes.

berk18;841938286 said:

---

I compared him to Mansion so that the "He came in cold without all the practice time of a starter and didn't even know he was starting until Friday!" excuse wouldn't work for Bridgford.

---

So you really believe that Bridgford and the rest of the team not knowing that he was going to start the game and practicing minimally with the starters the week before the game has no bearing at all on his and their performance just because Brock Mansion came in cold and threw for 60% a couple years ago? So every quarterback should be able to come in cold and throw well in less than a quarter of play because even Brock Mansion, apparently the lowest measure of quarterback play possible, did it once?

Again, nice logic.

Haashole;841938281 said:

---

Seriously stop it with Maynard's stats. It's so obviously misleading. There were maybe 2 of his 30 throws that were actually decent, well-placed balls. He is simply not a P12 caliber QB, and we know enough to know his ceiling is not high.

Tedford would do far more for the team and for his credibility by NOT starting Maynard going forward. It's embarrassing.

---

I often do not agree with you Hasshole but this time you are spot on.

Forget about starting ZM for the next game.

Of course Cal will win. If Cal does win with ZM at the helm, we are stuck with his erratic performaces (too short passes, too long passes, open receivers who are not see, fumbles, INTs - yes there were at least 3 passes that should have been picked and by a better team would have been picked - and overall terrible play) for the rest of the season.
Give the ball to someone who might actually improve with game time experience.

berk18;841938291 said:

---

I don't understand how someone is not a P12 caliber QB when they've thrown for 3,000 yards in the PAC12. "Looking pretty" and "completing passes" aren't the same thing. Being a "P12 QB" and being Andrew Luck are not the same thing. Maynard isn't great. He also isn't what's wrong with our team. His ball-placement and reads might not be great, but they let him go 6-9, 4 first downs, 98 yards and a TD in less time than Bridgford went 1-8 for 8 yards, one first down and zero TD's (this is a start Bridgford thread, right?). If this were statistical nit-picking I could understand the frustration with my points, but the difference between the two is obvious. One produces, one doesn't. It doesn't take P12 QB's more than a quarter to complete two passes.

---

Well I am sorry. If someone could watch yesterday's garbage performance by ZM (against a less than stellar UN team) and still think that ZM belongs as the starting QB on a Pac12 team, we must be on different universes. His tunnel vision, his lack of accuracy, his poor decision making. Of course he was no worse than AB. But that was his 14th game and he should have been a heck of a lot better than AB. He made the same mistakes and there were the same problems with his play as last year. His performance last year was horrid despite the fact that he had 3000 yards. Any posters out there who want to trade for ZM on their fantasy football league? Give me a break.

GivemTheAxe;841938319 said:

---

Well I am sorry. If someone could watch yesterday's garbage performance by ZM (against a less than stellar UN team) and still think that ZM belongs as the starting QB on a Pac12 team, we must be on different universes. His tunnel vision, his lack of accuracy, his poor decision making. Of course he was no worse than AB. But that was his 14th game and he should have been a heck of a lot better than AB. He made the same mistakes and there were the same problems with his play as last year. His performance last year was horrid despite the fact that he had 3000 yards. Any posters out there who want to trade for ZM on their fantasy football league? Give me a break.

---

First, the title of the thread is "Start Bridgford!" not "Zach Maynard is a great QB," so that's where my posts are coming from. Maynard was a heck of a lot better than AB (low bar), but no one seems willing to acknowledge that, so forget about it.

I agree that Maynard isn't good. I also think that if Maynard were playing for say, Oregon State 2007-2010, he would've beaten us every year and we'd be saying "I wish we could have a gamer like that instead of all these Elite-11 guys who can't get it done." Maynard gets the ball to our receivers. He has two major weaknesses in production, which are TD's and turnovers, but with a better coaching staff we'd win 8-9 games with him. The first of what will be many examples this season, Maynard was good enough for us to beat Nevada (Saturday was as close to the coveted "4th Quarter Comeback" as Cal's gotten in recent years). Complaining about QB choice obfuscates the real problems with the team, which are shitty QB coaching, shitty offensive scheme/play-calling, and a few other mediocre assistants. Teams win with mediocre QB's all the time. Maynard isn't what's holding us back.

berk18;841938286 said:

---

I've revised my post

---

Lol... you've revised every single one of your posts. Maybe you should think about what you want to say before posting, so you don't have to keep revising every post multiple times.