grandmastapoop;841946759 said:

---

See your last post about calumnus.

Maynard isn't as bad as people think. Our problems are certainly not limited to him. I don't know why he's such a lightning rod. He's decent. Not great, not horrible. Worse QBs have done extremely well in college football when the team around them is better. Everything has to be so black and white here. "MAYNARD SUCKZZZZZZ!" When someone says, "He doesn't suck, he's not the whole problem, he's decent," they respond, "SUNSHINE PUMPER IDIOT MAYNARD SUCKS YOU SUCK!"

My point to him is - why waste your time with that?

---

It goes back to the Rodgers theory that you mentioned in 2005...haha Where every QB since Rodgers is being compared to Rodgers. When reality sets in after the first loss of the season, it is usually followed by the huge let down. Any poor play after that is just down right hostile crowds.

Boy, passive fandom ftw eh guys? Let's give our full support to whatever level of play thats produced on the field, keep the whining to a minimum and hope for the Rose Bowl sometime in the near future (as always). :sarc:

Sure the complaining and b*tching can be unbearable, but it sure beats a docile fan base that cuddles its players and coaches, even though it is now apparent that we're in full regression mode.

Btw, if anyone thinks Maynard is adequate/capable of leading a Tedford offense to the Rose Bowl, they must also believe there was no grade issue with a barely 2.0 transfer student from Buffalo.

grandmastapoop;841946759 said:

---

Maynard isn't as bad as people think. Our problems are certainly not limited to him. I don't know why he's such a lightning rod.

---

Maybe its because Mayanrd is the representative of a long and slow regression of QB play here at Cal, where the level of play keeps getting unimaginably worse from one starter to the next. Kind of parallels the program it self.

FremontBear;841946508 said:

---

Maynard hasn't played up to his late 2011 season form, but he hasn't been bad. The misses to wide open TB and FB out of the backfield has got to stop.

---

Unfortuneately the misses out of the backfield are critical parts to the game as well as the fumbles and the INT's.

1st Qtr.
1st possession
3d down. Way Overthrown to receiver.
Result: punt.

2d possession
3d down. Pass to KA way off target. KA reaches way out to make catch but is off balance and slips as brings in ball and tries to make a cut.
If the pass were on target, KA has a 1st down and maybe a lot more.
Result: punt

3d possession
INT (nuf said)

4th possession
Fumble (nuf said)

2d Qtr
1st possession
3d down. overthrown to receiver
Result: punt

2d possession
2d down: over thrown to Isi coming out of backfield. 1st down made on good run by ISI on 3d down.

4 possession
Fumble recovered (bad handoff)
3d down bad pass to KA in the endzone. way over KA's head.


3d Qtr.
1st possession:
sack and horrible pass attempt. (not necessarily ZM's fault)

4th Qtr.
3d possession
3d down and 4. Bad pass over the head of the back.

I counted 7 drives killed by ZM. Some of which resulted in punts and some resulted in FG's.
The passes WERE NOT BROKEN UP. They did not have to be.

How is this "not bad". How can this be justified.
It is my firm belief that JT and some of the people on this board have been taken over by the Pods (ala Invasion of the Bodysnatchers)
Wake up. You're next.
.........
Wait a minute. I take it all back. Maynard is doing great.
Maynard will be number one draft choice.
Isn't it wonderful. :cheer:bravo:woohoo

NYCGOBEARS;841946510 said:

---

Maybe Teddy's building up ZM's confidence for the OSU game so that he can point at that skinny arm again?

---

I have come around on that one. In fact, that's what I'm doing for Halloween walking with my kids. I will have a Cal uniform, long sleeve dri fit shirt, and point to my left arm for candy. People at the door may think I'm deaf and doing sign language asking for Red Vines, however.

Calntheplay;841946766 said:

---

It goes back to the Rodgers theory that you mentioned in 2005...haha Where every QB since Rodgers is being compared to Rodgers. When reality sets in after the first loss of the season, it is usually followed by the huge let down. Any poor play after that is just down right hostile crowds.

---

Ignore AR. Just compare his game performance on the field (not just his stats) to Boller as a SR, or Robertson or Riley or Longshore. ZM is woefully inadequate.
Any bets on how many games Cal is going to win with ZM.
At the start of the season I thought 7 best case. Unfortunately I was counting Nevada and Oregon State and ASU in that mix. Now my estimate is down to 4-5.
Believe me I hope I am wrong since I will attend each of the Cal home games regardless of Cal's record or who is QB. But I will not be happy. And if my projections prove correct, I will join those calling for "Regime Change."
[I am not there yet, but with each passing game, i am getting closer.]

mechaniCAL;841946732 said:

---

I watched that play again and yes Maynard saw the DE, but if you goto to ~1:39-1:40 you see the DE falling/losing balance and Maynard has a clear shot to Bigelow... but hopefully he learns from that and knows to pull it down

---

Darn, I wish he had gotten it to Bigelow. I want to see Bigelow in space, flying down into the 2nd and 3rd level like DeAnthony Thomas. We haven't given him an opportunity like that. They finally set it up.

BerlinerBaer;841946765 said:

---

The QB of a struggling team will always be a lightning rod, and his backup will be the most popular player on the team, in the eyes of fans who fail to see the forest from the trees.

---

How about those fans who see neither the forest nor the trees but only amber waves of grain rolling off into the distant golden sunset where all the men are handsome, all the women are beautiful and all the QB's are above average.

TheSouseFamily;841946498 said:

---

From today's press conference. Turns out we were all wrong and that Maynard is doing great!

* * *

"Zach's done very well. He hasn't forced the ball."

"Last week's interception was a total fluke. You never see that happen on a wide screen. You're supposed to cut the (defensive) end. It's a blind throw, really, for the quarterback. The end didn't get cut. You never expect that. You're not reading the defensive end on a wide screen."

"For the most part, Zach has done a nice job of not forcing the football. Has made some plays with his legs. When he's got outside the pocket, he's been accurate with his throws. I think his managemenet of the game and protecting the ball has been good."

---

And little black specks are good for you. Another example of someone trying to talk us into disbelieving our senses in favor of their self interests.

grandmastapoop;841946759 said:

---

Our problems are certainly not limited to him... Everything has to be so black and white here... he's not the whole problem...

---

I don't think anyone's said our problems are limited to him, that he's the whole problem. That would be a pretty stupid thing to believe because we have several other problems. But, saying that someone who is not the whole problem cannot still be part of the problem might also be an example of black-and-white thinking.

grandmastapoop;841946759 said:

---

Maynard... He's decent. Not great, not horrible... He doesn't suck... he's decent...

---

Maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate, specifically one of disagreement over the connotation of the word "decent." Whenever you or calumnus say ZM is "decent," I and many others cringe and involuntarily gag reflex. Why?

DECENT:

Quote:

---

good: above average in quality or quantity: one of the few decent restaurants around here.

---

Quote:

---

meeting accepted standards; adequate: a decent salary.

---

Quote:

---

fairly good : adequate, satisfactory: decent wages

---

Quote:

---

of a good enough standard or quality: a decent meal/job/place to live. I need a decent night's sleep.

---

Is ZM an "above average" Pac-12 QB? Can we truly call a QB "adequate" and "satisfactory" and "good enough" when he is a 5th year senior still completing ~57% when facing merely average Ds (Nevada), still missing wide on short passes to WRs/RBs/TEs, still causing open receivers to adjust/slow down for most of his passes, still failing to see some wide open receivers, and still causing his coaches to limit his number of passes even against substandard Ds (23 attempts vs S. Utah)? Last year, he had several outings in the "horrible" category, one or two outings in the "decent" category, and most of the rest were "average" performances against average Ds where he was asked to manage an offense geared toward the run. This year, against an average opponent (Nevada's D) and a horrible opponent (S. Utah's D), he still hasn't had a truly decent, above average outing. Unless he shows improvement in the next few weeks, ZM will probably have a few "decent" outings (like Furd and Utah last year) but most probably will still average out to "average."

10 - great; elite
09 - great
08 - real decent; very good
07 - decent; good; above average
06 - average
05 - average; mediocre
04 - average; mediocre
03 - below average
02 - horrible
01 - horrible; putrid

No one is saying he is THE problem, but he is A problem. He is consistently inconsistent, and that's a problem. Of course, people's general take on ZM is only exaggerated with his other antics( poor academics + lack of field leadership + sideline demeanor + embarrassing arm point bragging in the face of a loss to a superior QB from a mid major etc). He is a public figure, and a representative of this university so everything is taken into account.


Even in contrast to our other (bigger) problems, with few exceptions, our lines are riddled with youth, inexperience, and injuries. Many people here expected growing pains (maybe not so many) from those units. ZM is a fully healthy 5th year senior. More is, and should be, expected from him. No one is expecting him to walk into the Shoe or the Coilseum and pass at 75%. But he could at the very least get the other factors in order and represent Cal well.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841946807 said:

---

I don't think anyone's said our problems are limited to him, that he's the whole problem. That would be a pretty stupid thing to believe because we have several other problems. But, saying that someone who is not the whole problem cannot still be part of the problem might also be an example of black-and-white thinking.

---

Nicely put.

KoreAmBear;841946790 said:

---

I have come around on that one. In fact, that's what I'm doing for Halloween walking with my kids. I will have a Cal uniform, long sleeve dri fit shirt, and point to my left arm for candy. People at the door may think I'm deaf and doing sign language asking for Red Vines, however.

---

I love Red Vines. Thanks KoreAm

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841946807 said:

---

I don't think anyone's said our problems are limited to him, that he's the whole problem. That would be a pretty stupid thing to believe because we have several other problems. But, saying that someone who is not the whole problem cannot still be part of the problem might also be an example of black-and-white thinking.
Maybe what we have here is a failure to communicate, specifically one of disagreement over the connotation of the word "decent." Whenever you or calumnus say ZM is "decent," I and many others cringe and involuntarily gag reflex. Why?

DECENT:Is ZM an "above average" Pac-12 QB? Can we truly call a QB "adequate" and "satisfactory" and "good enough" when he is a 5th year senior still completing ~57% when facing merely average Ds (Nevada), still missing wide on short passes to WRs/RBs/TEs, still causing open receivers to adjust/slow down for most of his passes, still failing to see some wide open receivers, and still causing his coaches to limit his number of passes even against substandard Ds (23 attempts vs S. Utah)? Last year, he had several outings in the "horrible" category, one or two outings in the "decent" category, and most of the rest were "average" performances against average Ds where he was asked to manage an offense geared toward the run. This year, against an average opponent (Nevada's D) and a horrible opponent (S. Utah's D), he still hasn't had a truly decent, above average outing. Unless he shows improvement in the next few weeks, ZM will probably have a few "decent" outings (like Furd and Utah last year) but most probably will still average out to "average."

10 - great; elite
09 - great
08 - real decent; very good
07 - decent; good; above average
06 - average
05 - average; mediocre
04 - average; mediocre
03 - below average
02 - horrible
01 - horrible; putrid

---

OK, using your scale:

Right now, this season, he is #35 in the country. That qualifies as "decent" or even "very good" on your scale. His quarterback rating of 154 is equal to the best any Tedford starting QB has put up in any season (Robertson 2003, Rodgers 2004), that would qualify as "great, elite" within the context of Tedford QBs.

Will it hold up? We can all speculate. We all have our doubts. Some hope those doubts will be unfounded. Some see some positives. But is it really so difficult for you to acknowledge he has played "decently so far" even if you continue "but I fear for the future with him..."? That at least would be factual and honest. Why so many threads attacking him for his play when he has played "decently" so far? Do you really have to contort yourselves to show that his 74% last week really was "horrible"? What is the obsession?

If Sofele ran for a "decent" 150 yards or "good" 200 yards, wouldn't you acknowledge he had a "decent" or "good" game, even if against "weak" competition, and congratulate him, even while we can acknowledge that he has limitations and is not likely to be an NFL back? After a 200 yard game, would you come on this board and heap insults on him and then dissect every run to find the times when he could have done something better and dismiss the times that he did something good as "a routine play, he had good blocking." No you wouldn't because you haven't.

That is my point. Maynard has played decently so far. He has not been bad. Speculate about the future all you want, but he does not deserve the amount of criticism he has received after each of our last two games.

Think about it just a little. If Maynard's good stats against weak competition are to be discounted, what do we make of the units that have actually put up [U]bad[/U] stats against the same competition? Why so much negativity singularly directed towards him?

SkyBear;841946887 said:

---

Sorry but the sunshine pumpers quoting Maynard's stats are willfully misleading.

First, these games were against Nevada and S. Utah.

Second, the yards per completion include the yards ran by the receiver after the catch. I believe we saw that most of his passes were thrown roughly 5 yards beyond the LOS. The receiver (often KA) catches it and runs the additional yards.

---

Shhh. The numbers say he's decent. Nothing else matters.

calumnus;841946884 said:

---

OK, using your scale.

Right now, this season, he is #35 in the country. That qualifies as "decent" or even "very good" on your scale. His quarterback rating of 154 is equal to the best any Tedford Cal QB has put up in any season (Robertson 2003, Rodgers 2004), that would qualify as "great, elite" within the context of Tedford QBs.

Will it hold up? We can all speculate. We all have our doubts. Some hope those doubts will be unfounded. Some see some positives. But is it really so difficult for you to acknowledge he has played "decently so far" even if you continue "but I fear for the future with him..."? That at least would be factual and honest. Why so many threads attacking him for his play when he has played "decently" so far? Do you really have to contort yourselves to show that his 74% last week really was "horrible"? What is the obsession?

If Sofele ran for a "decent" 150 yards or "good" 200 yards, wouldn't you acknowledge he had a "decent" or "good" game, and congratulate him, even while we can acknowledge that he has limitations and is not likely to be an NFL back? After a 200 yard game, would you come on this board and heap insults on him and then dissect every run to find the times when he could have done something better and dismiss the times that he did something good as "a routine play, he had good blocking." No you wouldn't because you haven't.

That is my point. Maynard has played decently so far. He has not been bad. Speculate about the future all you want, but he does not deserve the amount of criticism he has received after each of our last two games.

Think about it just a little. If Maynard's good stats against weak competition are to be discounted, what do we make of the units that have actually put up [U]bad[/U] stats against the same competition? Why so much negativity singularly directed towards him?

---

:facepalm

calumnus;841946884 said:

---

OK, using your scale.

Right now, this season, he is #35 in the country. That qualifies as "decent" or even "very good" on your scale. His quarterback rating of 154 is equal to the best any Tedford starting QB has put up in any season (Robertson 2003, Rodgers 2004), that would qualify as "great, elite" within the context of Tedford QBs.

Will it hold up? We can all speculate. We all have our doubts. Some hope those doubts will be unfounded. Some see some positives. But is it really so difficult for you to acknowledge he has played "decently so far" even if you continue "but I fear for the future with him..."? That at least would be factual and honest. Why so many threads attacking him for his play when he has played "decently" so far? Do you really have to contort yourselves to show that his 74% last week really was "horrible"? What is the obsession?

If Sofele ran for a "decent" 150 yards or "good" 200 yards, wouldn't you acknowledge he had a "decent" or "good" game, and congratulate him, even while we can acknowledge that he has limitations and is not likely to be an NFL back? After a 200 yard game, would you come on this board and heap insults on him and then dissect every run to find the times when he could have done something better and dismiss the times that he did something good as "a routine play, he had good blocking." No you wouldn't because you haven't.

That is my point. Maynard has played decently so far. He has not been bad. Speculate about the future all you want, but he does not deserve the amount of criticism he has received after each of our last two games.

Think about it just a little. If Maynard's good stats against weak competition are to be discounted, what do we make of the units that have actually put up [U]bad[/U] stats against the same competition? Why so much negativity singularly directed towards him?

---

He has played decently so far. He is not a good QB. Both can be true.

TarzanaBear;841946801 said:

---

What a ridiculously arrogant comment. When people point out his QB rating is similar to Rodgers don't you think that just maybe the stats are lying here? He's a terrible qb. Polish the turd all you like, but put Maynard on Alabama and he's not going to start being accurate or playing smart.

---

NFL scouts convinced themselves that Kyle Boller's completion percentage stats were a lie, damn that worked out well.

beelzebear;841946539 said:

---

+1

If there's anything worst than complaining, it's doing so without knowledge.

---

This site wouldn't exist if knowledge were a requirement.

these arguments are futile. if he struggles against ohio state, people will just blame it on the oline's failures.

here's my test...a good quarterback hits wide open receivers, nearly every time, just like a good basketball player hits his wide open jumpers nearly every time.

with maynard, most of his incompletions are bad passes. some of them are REALLY bad passes. many of a good quarterback's incompletions are balls purposefully thrown away because nobody's open and he doesn't want to take a sack. they count the same in the stats.

CalBarn;841946723 said:

---

Let me be more specific and spell it out for you, UCB....I'm talking about the frustration of Maynard (and recent Cal QBs of the past) failing to hit those 7-yard FLARE passes to running backs.....the type where the RB is all alone behind the line of scrimmage and looks to make an easy 5-15 yards upon completion.....the type of pass that Southern Utah scored a couple TDs against us. We often fail at these on third down or key situations---frankly, there is no excuse why we continue to miss those easy passes.
Maynard made a couple of excellent throws downfield for key gains.....again, not sure
why those little flares are (and have been) so difficult for us. Hope this helps clarify for you.....didn't know my original statement would be so hard to figure out.

---

Yes He misses easy passes (so does every QB in College and NFL, even AR [less frequently]), but he also makes difficult ones when he's scrambling (ones that standard pocket passers can't make). Not every QB plays like Aaron Rodgers, if you are looking for an AR every single year, then you're wasting your time.

How many elite QB's can you name in College? Not many, most are Mediocre to Above Average and Maynard falls in that list.

Teams that consistently win does not do so with Great QB's in every cycle. Look at Stanford, their QB right now is a lot worse than Maynard, but they are winning due to their run game and defense.

Point is, our problems are the running game and the defense right now, if we pick it up there and Maynard puts up the same numbers as he did in the first two games. We will be at least a 7-8 win team with a few surprise wins.

SkyBear;841946911 said:

---

Do you think that every time scouts think the completion stats are not an accurate descriptor of a QB's accuracy, the scouts are wrong?

---

In most cases. Feel free to provide names for the rebuttal.

socaliganbear;841946897 said:

---

He has played decently so far. He is not a good QB. Both can be true.

---

This. I think the problem is context. We know that he's capable of putting up decent numbers. He did so against lesser competition last season. I think many of us were hoping, in the first two weeks we would see the "night and day" contrast that JT kept referring to in fall camp. We haven't. We all wanted to see him sharp, doing things better than last season. The reason is we had good performances against lesser teams, meltdowns against athletic teams. So while hasn't looked horrible and his stats are good against inferior talent, we a mortified that the pattern looks to be the same. If Zach steps up and plays confident, efficient and mistake-free ball in Columbus I think he'll start to win people over that he is better this year.

bearsandgiants;841946914 said:

---

these arguments are futile. if he struggles against ohio state, people will just blame it on the oline's failures.

here's my test...a good quarterback hits wide open receivers, nearly every time, just like a good basketball player hits his wide open jumpers nearly every time.

with maynard, most of his incompletions are bad passes. some of them are REALLY bad passes. many of a good quarterback's incompletions are balls purposefully thrown away because nobody's open and he doesn't want to take a sack. they count the same in the stats.

---

If you actually watch the games in College and NFL (not selective vision), you would know that good QB's makes bad passes as well, see Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.

Most great QB's completion percentage is around 60-70%, so you are basically saying that they throw away, doesn't want to take a sack, or receivers dropping the ball, 30-40% of the time?

Hilarious.

One thing is still true about Maynard, he is money when scrambling to his left. I remember 2 distinct passes--one to KA21 for a TD and one to IS20 to set up a TD.

bearsandgiants;841946914 said:

---

these arguments are futile. if he struggles against ohio state, people will just blame it on the oline's failures...

---

If ZM is sacked multiple times (5+) under 3-4 seconds, yes, I will blame the Oline and praise OSU's talented and fast Dline.

This isn't you playing Madden with Michael Vick as your QB.

bearsandgiants;841946914 said:

---

here's my test...a good quarterback hits wide open receivers, nearly every time, just like a good basketball player hits his wide open jumpers nearly every time....

---

How come the average NBA field goal percentage for the top-20 players are all around 50%?

bearsandgiants;841946914 said:

---

...with maynard, most of his incompletions are bad passes. some of them are REALLY bad passes. many of a good quarterback's incompletions are balls purposefully thrown away because nobody's open and he doesn't want to take a sack. they count the same in the stats.

---

Sometimes when I watch other games, both NFL and College, and see a bad pass by a good QB, I ask myself "I wonder what those clowns at BI would say about THAT pass? Or that QB?" and I chuckle.

SkyBear;841946938 said:

---

Do you believe Maynard is a good QB?

---

I think he has the potential to have good to outstanding games this year. While he might not have put together an "A" game for the first two games, it doesn't count him out for the rest of the season. Remember, arguably his best game last year was against the furd.

I would take Maynard over AB, AH or ZK right now in a heart beat.

TheSouseFamily;841946498 said:

---

From today's press conference. Turns out we were all wrong and that Maynard is doing great!

* * *

"Zach's done very well. He hasn't forced the ball."

"Last week's interception was a total fluke. You never see that happen on a wide screen. You're supposed to cut the (defensive) end. It's a blind throw, really, for the quarterback. The end didn't get cut. You never expect that. You're not reading the defensive end on a wide screen."

"For the most part, Zach has done a nice job of not forcing the football. Has made some plays with his legs. When he's got outside the pocket, he's been accurate with his throws. I think his managemenet of the game and protecting the ball has been good."

---

He hasn't been great with his accuracy and he's locked on to some receivers but generally Tedford's comments on these specific characteristics seem accurate to me. Non story.

TarzanaBear;841946924 said:

---

Please list your football credentials. Thanks much. I assume you are an offensive coordinator at a major div 1a program at least.

---

Women's Huddle, Summer Meeting, Tarzana CA.

SkyBear;841946928 said:

---

I don't know if you're right or wrong, so I don't know why you're asking for a rebuttal. But since you made the assertion, feel free to provide a significant number of names enough to prove your point.

---

Here is a couple that comes to mind, Jake Locker, Kyle Boller, Tim Tebow, Vince Young, Kellen Clemens, Jason Campbell (another one who consistently misses easy passes) etc....

These are all early round picks who had lower than elite completion percentages (or was considered inaccurate), and see how they are doing now.

There are a lot more but its too lengthy to publish.

Davidson;841946937 said:

---

One thing is still true about Maynard, he is money when scrambling to his left. I remember 2 distinct passes--one to KA21 for a TD and one to IS20 to set up a TD.

---

Well, he does throw left handed after all.

SkyBear;841946938 said:

---

Do you believe Maynard is a good QB?

---

Definition of good QB (not great QB) in a BCS conference.

- Above 63% Completion Percentage
- TD to Int Ratio above 2
- Average above 200 yards per game

Last Year: No, he was not a good QB, just average.
This year so far: Yes, but small samples with no conference games so not fairly certain, but he doesn't deserve the criticism yet.

socaliganbear;841946897 said:

---

He has played decently so far. He is not a good QB. Both can be true.

---

True, depending on your definition of "good." It is also true that he can simultaneously be our best QB at this point. All three can be true.

TarzanaBear;841946924 said:

---

Please list your football credentials. Thanks much. I assume you are an offensive coordinator at a major div 1a program at least.

---

Given the nature of your posts against the football program and JT in general, we would assume that you are tosh.

To the other posters discussing how good Maynard is...

I don't know what "good" means to you. Maynard is certainly not great and he's not horrible either. He's somewhere in that 3rd quadrant, between the two. I don't know what word to use that we might agree on to describe that space. He clearly isn't the worst QB I've seen at Cal (Vedder, Justin???) and he won't be the best.

Virtually every QB has limitations. Aside from Rodgers we can go down the list and find faults. One thing with Maynard that gets under people's skin is that his limitations are generally in areas where you might expect people to improve. He doesn't improve and that lack of improvement is compounded by the perception that he isn't a worker / leader. Especially at Cal where people are accustomed to working extremely hard and holding themselves to a very high standard, this is a tough pill to swallow (in contrast, Vedder, Longshore and Robertson had certain physical limitations which were more palatable because a) there was nothing they could do about it and b) we had the perception they were working hard enough and cared enough to get the most out of what they had).