So much talk and analysis. I think it's much simpler. See the data closely. Here's my take on what the first 2 nonconf games say:

1. ZM would be a mediocre QB in the WAC.
2. ZM would be a good QB in an FCS conf.

Of course it depends on how good those teams are within their conf/division but I think thats a pretty good approximation.

Of course it's not definitive how he'll perform against stronger confs but based on his (lack of) performance against teams from weaker confs it's highly likely he'll do significantly worse.

I hope I'm wrong.

Using straight completion % is not a great indicator this early. I'm sure his season % will fall greatly on these next 2 games (unless the games are totally run-dominated).

freshfunk;841947922 said:

---

So much talk and analysis. I think it's much simpler. See the data closely. Here's my take on what the first 2 nonconf games say:

1. ZM would be a mediocre QB in the WAC.
2. ZM would be a good QB in an FCS conf.

Of course it depends on how good those teams are within their conf/division but I think thats a pretty good approximation....

---

If you promoted ZM for QB like you do for Ron Gould as the next Cal HC, poor ZM would be a bonafide Heisman Candidate by now.

calumnus;841947888 said:

---

Tedford, in the quotes that kicked off this thread, was clearly evaluating Maynard's performance in our most recent game.

Maynard, by most objective measures, played well in this game. Tedford thought he played well.

This thread has gone to 16 pages because several people apparently cannot handle the idea that Maynard played well in this game and feel the need to argue a 74% completion percentage is bad because of the opponent, the plays, or what he did last year or at Buffalo or anything else they can think of.

Instead wouldn't it be easier just to admit he had a good game against a weak opponent and express doubt but hope that he can do the same this week against an excellent opponent?

---

Not that it matters a whole heck of a lot but the context in which Tedford made those comments was Maynard's performance so far this year, not just the Southern Utah game.

Our Domicile;841947934 said:

---

If you promoted ZM for QB like you do for Ron Gould as the next Cal HC, poor ZM would be a bonafide Heisman Candidate by now.

---

Promoted? I just put the idea fwd to see what people thought based on someone else's comment regarding this. I wouldn't call it stamp of approval. The biggest contrast I highlighted was his enthusiasm and how he connected with players on a visibly emotional level.

Anyway, you seem to have misunderstood my post in this thread. I'm saying is that his performance can only be taken in the context of the quality of opponents he's played and he's not actually that good. The overall completion % / rating is very misleading.

freshfunk;841947964 said:

---

...Anyway, you seem to have misunderstood my post in this thread....

---

No, I understood it perfectly.

I've watched (and still watch) a lot of WAC Football (Hawaii Fan since beginning of the June Jones Era) and FCS football (Montana, UC Davis, etc) over the years and, unlike your "approximations" above about those two levels of Ball, I say ZM would be [U]good[/U] in the WAC and [U]very good[/U] in FCS...which I'm guessing would make him about [U]average[/U] for the more ballyhooed PAC-12 as Cal's QB...and could be [U]above average[/U] if Chip Kelly and Mike Leach were his QB teachers.

It sounds like you're the one who wants to give ZM the Heisman more than me.

You are absolutely right, Snoozer, just because we have problems in other areas does not mean we don't have problems at QB. We have multiple problems, starting with the head coach ("The buck stops here," according to Harry Truman).

CalBearz02;841948350 said:

---

It's not all on Maynard. But a more fundamentally sound QB (one that can simply read a defense and is accurate from 0-15 yards consistently) could make up for A LOT of the deficiencies elsewhere, much more than the other way around.

---

You act as if these QBs grow on trees. Most successful QBs in college are at best one-read, and many of them just have designated hot routes.

Pro-style QBs take a lot longer to develop, and a lot longer to grow into being able to scout multiple reads.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841948415 said:

---

You act as if these QBs grow on trees. Most successful QBs in college are at best one-read, and many of them just have designated hot routes.

Pro-style QBs take a lot longer to develop, and a lot longer to grow into being able to scout multiple reads.

---

You mean to tell me all these kids don't run NFL playbook multiple read offenses in high school? What is wrong with our educational system these days?!!!

LessMilesMoreTedford;841948415 said:

---

You act as if these QBs grow on trees. Most successful QBs in college are at best one-read, and many of them just have designated hot routes.

Pro-style QBs take a lot longer to develop, and a lot longer to grow into being able to scout multiple reads.

---

One reads and designated hot routes are what Harbaugh has done for Alex Smith.

freshfunk;841948254 said:

---

It sounds like you're the one who wants to give ZM the Heisman more than me.

---

Since I believe ZM would have been very good at the FCS level, yes, I might have considered him as an Walter Payton Award candidate, sure, why not. Unlike you pulling something out of your behind, at least I've seen games in person at this level over the years.

At the FBS level, no, he's no where near Heisman material. He's just another average QB to me....which is still way better compliment than your judgement of him.

You stick to promoting Ron Gould for Cal's next HC and I'll stick to promoting ZM to "average QB" level, nothing more, nothing less. Deal?

Our Domicile;841948803 said:

---

Since I believe ZM would have been very good at the FCS level, yes, I might have considered him as an Walter Payton Award candidate, sure, why not. Unlike you pulling something out of your behind, at least I've seen games in person at this level over the years.

At the FBS level, no, he's no where near Heisman material. He's just another average QB to me....which is still way better compliment than your judgement of him.

You stick to promoting Ron Gould for Cal's next HC and I'll stick to promoting ZM to "average QB" level, nothing more, nothing less. Deal?

---

I don't know why you have beef with me. Did I insult ZM? Are you named Zack or Keenan?

I simply said that overall completion percentage and QB rating of this year is useless because it lacks the context of who our opponents are. The true rating of him should be based on who we played and that's all that can be taken from it. And I noted which confs/divs those teams came from.

Is this so bad that it gets your panties in a twist?

And why do you hate Coach Gould so much?

freshfunk;841948811 said:

---

...I simply said that overall completion percentage and QB rating of this year is useless because it lacks the context of who our opponents are. The true rating of him should be based on who we played and that's all that can be taken from it....

---

You based ZM's projected career in the WAC and FCS based on a mere 2 nonconference games of this year and said he would be "mediocre" in the WAC and "good" in FCS. I then gave my projections based on personal observations of the WAC and FCS.

Hell, I could just look at Fresno State and Presby of last year, add it to this year's games, make my observations and come to better outcomes (ZM would be good in the WAC and very good in FCS) than your more limited projection.

You went on 2 OOC games and that's a very small sample size. Anybody with a brain could look at last years OOC games, double that sample size, and say with most certainty that ZM would NOT be "mediocre" in the WAC -- he would at least be "good" in the WAC and possibly "very good" in FCS.

So stop patting yourself on the back. ESPN or FOX ain't calling you anytime soon for your in-depth analysis.

Our Domicile;841948824 said:

---

You based ZM's projected career in the WAC and FCS based on a mere 2 nonconference games of this year and said he would be "mediocre" in the WAC and "good" in FCS. I then gave my projections based on personal observations of the WAC and FCS.

Hell, I could just look at Fresno State and Presby of last year, add it to this year's games, make my observations and come to better outcomes (ZM would be good in the WAC and very good in FCS) than your more limited projection.

You went on 2 OOC games and that's a very small sample size. Anybody with a brain could look at last years OOC games, double that sample size, and say with most certainty that ZM would NOT be "mediocre" in the WAC -- he would at least be "good" in the WAC and possibly "very good" in FCS.

So stop patting yourself on the back. ESPN or FOX ain't calling you anytime soon for your in-depth analysis.

---

What's your major malfunction?