I wanted to see if maybe some of us are being too harsh on Maynard, and perhaps our best QB is actually average despite the overall struggles of the team.

So I checked out Maynard's career stats against above average/good competition, specifically Div I FBS teams that finished the year above .500, to see if Maynard was indeed a decent game manager.

I expected ho-hum numbers, but I was a bit shocked...


[U]Maynard is 1-11 when facing Div I FBS schools that finished .500 or higher, 244/423 completions with a 57.5% completion rate, 15 TDs/13 Ints.[/U]

edit: My mistake: UCLA finished with a losing record, and was taken out. Utah finished with a winning record, has been added. Stats adjusted accordingly


So our best QB has won one game against a good team, possess a below average completion rate (I believe the average % in college is above 60%??), I don't know about you, but this doesn't look good for the next couple weeks.


Against 2011 DivI FBS opponents with above .500 records:

CMP ATT YDS CMP% LNG TD INT RAT

L - Oregon : 20 41 218 48.8 28 1 0 101.5
L - Washington : 23 43 349 53.5 90 1 0 129.3
L - Stanford : 20 29 280 69.0 42 2 0 172.8
L - USC : 25 43 294 58.1 27 0 3 101.6
W - Utah : 19 29 255 65.5 44 1 0 150.8
L - Texas : 19 33 188 57.6 21 0 1 99.4

Against 2009 DivI FBS opponents with above .500 records:

CMP ATT YDS CMP% LNG TD INT RAT

L - Pitt : 24 35 400 68.6 67 4 1 196.6
L - UCF : 22 35 184 62.9 25 1 1 110.7
L - Temple : 26 41 281 63.4 28 1 4 109.5
L - Central Michigan : 16 31 210 51.6 28 1 1 112.7
L - Bowling Green : 13 27 149 48.1 30 1 0 106.7
L - Ohio : 17 36 230 47.2 32 2 2 108.1

......and if you'll do a similar analysis of his performances against less than .500 finishers, he'd look pretty good. Like I pointed out last season (without stats), Cal's quarterback reflects Tedford and his staff record of being a good middle-of-the-road football team. for example, wherein it may have been possible for Holmoe-coached team to lose to a non-D1 team or C-level D1 team, such wouldn't be expected for a Tedford-coached team. Tedford, like Maynard, just can't get to the next level, but they are probably performing to the best of their collective abilities.

SnoozerBear;841947326 said:

---

I wanted to see if maybe some of us are being too harsh on Maynard, and perhaps our best QB is actually average despite the overall struggles of the team.

So I checked out Maynard's career stats against above average/good competition, specifically Div I FBS teams that finished the year above .500, to see if Maynard was indeed a decent game manager.

I expected ho-hum numbers, but I was a bit shocked...


[U]Maynard is 0-12 when facing Div I FBS schools that finished .500 or higher, 239/424 completions with a 56% completion rate, 14 TDs/17 Ints.[/U] :eek:


So our best QB has never won a game against a good team, possess a below average completion rate (I believe the average % in college is above 60%??), and threw more interceptions than touchdowns! I don't know about you, but this doesn't look good for the next couple weeks.


Against 2011 DivI FBS opponents with above .500 records:

CMP ATT YDS CMP% LNG TD INT RAT

L - Oregon : 20 41 218 48.8 28 1 0 101.5
L - Washington : 23 43 349 53.5 90 1 0 129.3
L - Stanford : 20 29 280 69.0 42 2 0 172.8
L - USC : 25 43 294 58.1 27 0 3 101.6
L - UCLA : 14 30 199 46.7 38 0 4 75.7
L - Texas : 19 33 188 57.6 21 0 1 99.4

Against 2009 DivI FBS opponents with above .500 records:

CMP ATT YDS CMP% LNG TD INT RAT

L - Pitt : 24 35 400 68.6 67 4 1 196.6
L - UCF : 22 35 184 62.9 25 1 1 110.7
L - Temple : 26 41 281 63.4 28 1 4 109.5
L - Central Michigan : 16 31 210 51.6 28 1 1 112.7
L - Bowling Green : 13 27 149 48.1 30 1 0 106.7
L - Ohio : 17 36 230 47.2 32 2 2 108.1

---

Now take away the first half of the 2011 season, bold his game against stanford, and remove Texas, and he looks "good".

Blueblood;841947350 said:

---

......and if you'll do a similar analysis of his performances against less than .500 finishers, he'd look pretty good. Like I pointed out last season (without stats), Cal's quarterback reflects Tedford and his staff record of being a good middle-of-the-road football team. for example, wherein it may have been possible for Holmoe-coached team to lose to a non-D1 team or C-level D1 team, such wouldn't be expected for a Tedford-coached team. Tedford, like Maynard, just can't get to the next level, but they are probably performing to the best of their collective abilities.

---

Well, at the BEST of Tedford's abilities (2004, 2006), we WERE able to beat winning teams. Something, obviously, has happened since then.

Blueblood;841947350 said:

---

......and if you'll do a similar analysis of his performances against less than .500 finishers, he'd look pretty good. Like I pointed out last season (without stats), Cal's quarterback reflects Tedford and his staff record of being a good middle-of-the-road football team. for example, wherein it may have been possible for Holmoe-coached team to lose to a non-D1 team or C-level D1 team, such wouldn't be expected for a Tedford-coached team. Tedford, like Maynard, just can't get to the next level, but they are probably performing to the best of their collective abilities.

---

This is the most straightforward and serious sounding post I've ever read from Blueblood.

UCLA finished 6-8 last year dude. If you're going to include them, include ASU (a win).

And the Buffalo stats mean absolutely nothing. The Bulls were an inferior football team to almost everyone on their schedule.

ducktilldeath;841947363 said:

---

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vjzb94x_Os&t=2m40s

^

The only thing anyone needs to know about Maynard.

---

How do you perceive Maynard? I think 1BigTroyFan said something in the order of "our problem is Maynard." As an outsider observer with no horse in the race, what do you think of Maynard (since we have a fan base that is conflicted about him and both sides use stats to back up their claim).

StillNoStanfurdium;841947357 said:

---

This is the most straightforward and serious sounding post I've ever read from Blueblood.

---

I believe losing has really worn BB down...we're all Cal fans afterall.

StillNoStanfurdium;841947357 said:

---

This is the most straightforward and serious sounding post I've ever read from Blueblood.

---

Thank god you said this ^^^. I thought I was tripping.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841947362 said:

---

UCLA finished 6-8 last year dude. If you're going to include them, include ASU (a win).

And the Buffalo stats mean absolutely nothing. The Bulls were an inferior football team to almost everyone on their schedule.

---

You're right, i was looking at conference standings. Corrections were made.

But I disagree Buffalo stats mean nothing, all football stats are relative but we are looking at Maynard's individual stats.

ducktilldeath;841947384 said:

---

He's a weak link. I don't really see how it could be soundly argued otherwise. OL play and play calling aside, he's wildly inaccurate. You simply can't have a QB who fails to make routine plays several times a game and expect to be good. Unforced errors at the QB position are a killer.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vjzb94x_Os&t=3m20s

Every QB has throws that get away. But with ZM these are not flukes, they are almost routine. If a QB is so wildly inconsistent with routine throws, he shouldn't be a QB. I would be hard pressed to think of a worse performance than what he had vs Oregon last year. Throw after throw after throw to wide open receivers in the flat on 3rd down and they were in the dirt or 4 yards wide or 4 yards high. Just awful.

---

There you have it. This makes me not feel so good going into Columbus.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841947362 said:

---

UCLA finished 6-8 last year dude. If you're going to include them, include ASU (a win).

And the Buffalo stats mean absolutely nothing. The Bulls were an inferior football team to almost everyone on their schedule.

---

That might be true but I just don't think he has improved much since Buffalo... I can't blame him for losses at Buffalo if his defense stunk up the place but here is what they said about Maynard in 2009 after he played in some games in 2008....this sounds very familiar, at least to me...

Quote:

---

2009 will determine whether the limited reps Maynard received were sufficient enough to make his progression into a starting quarterback relatively painless.

History tends to predict some rough patches for Maynard and the Bulls next season.

Early last season, word came to me that Maynard’s arm was very strong – even stronger than Willy’s. He impressed coaches and teammates with his speed and ability to throw on the run.

What Maynard lacked was accuracy. His inconsistent arm led to incompletions during practices.

These descriptions were revealed true during the Blue and White Spring Game in April. The lefty displayed a rocket arm that delivered the ball with some power. At the same time, Maynard missed targets, completed 15-of-35 passes and threw for an interception.

What does it mean? Not too much really. It did show that Maynard had a lot of work to do, but the sophomore admitted that anxiousness hindered his peformance.

Despite inaccuracy, Maynard did show the ability to scramble for yards.

---

He is a bit better now I'll agree, but you can see his problem areas seem to be similar if he throws further down field than 5 yards. Of course he'll complete some, usually when he is rolling out, but I see him as pretty much the guy who can win if we play well and he doesn't give the ball away. Not a guy who is a great leader who will command our team down the field against a better team...he did however do that against the Furd last year, but that was the only one

One fans opinion upon ZM leaving Buffalo. No, one fan doesn't mean a thing except it sound a lot like what many BI's say...

Quote:

---

Jessie Rack, Naaman Roosevelt, and Brett Hameline all graduated. Losing his top three targets, Maynard would be in for a rough year considering he's not that good to begin with. He was mediocre at best with the weapons he had last year. He had a rocket arm but was inaccurate and made poor decions behind decent pass protection.

---

ducktilldeath;841947384 said:

---

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vjzb94x_Os&t=3m20s

Every QB has throws that get away. But with ZM these are not flukes, they are almost routine. If a QB is so wildly inconsistent with routine throws, he shouldn't be a QB.

---

On the next play, Maynard almost got his receiver killed, nothing new since Buffalo.

That's not a Maynard thing. Riley, Mansion, and Bridgeford all do that too.

This can be explained easily in a few sentences.

Teams above .500 have average/above average defenses, and above average DBs.

These DBs will turn those underthrown passes that Kennan and Isi pulled in into incompletions.

These DBs will turn those pass into coverage (i remember one where Keenan was covered by 4 DBs, yes you know which one I am talking about) into interceptions.

Horrible decision making and inconsistent accuracy can be hidden when we play a bad team, but they come back and bite your butt when we play a good team


EDIT: Our best chance for this Saturday is if the "2011 Stanfurd Maynard" shows up, but clearly that has been the outlier rather than the mean

sycasey;841947356 said:

---

Well, at the BEST of Tedford's abilities (2004, 2006), we WERE able to beat winning teams. Something, obviously, has happened since then.

---

Yes, but not by a huge amount. The OskiMD data showed that in both 2004 and in 2006, we went 2-1 against teams with winning conference records.

Cal_Fan2;841947387 said:

---

He is a bit better now I'll agree, but you can see his problem areas seem to be similar if he throws further down field than 5 yards. Of course he'll complete some, usually when he is rolling out, but I see him as pretty much the guy who can win if we play well and he doesn't give the ball away. Not a guy who is a great leader who will command our team down the field against a better team...he did however do that against the Furd last year, but that was the only one

---

Daunte Culpepper was better with Randy Moss lol. But you're spot on about Maynard otherwise.

Arcadiabear;841947390 said:

---

This can be explained easily in a few sentences.

Teams above .500 have average/above average defenses, and above average DBs.

These DBs will turn those underthrown passes that Kennan and Isi pulled in into incompletions.

These DBs will turn those pass into coverage (i remember one where Keenan was covered by 4 DBs, yes you know which one I am talking about) into interceptions.

Horrible decision making and inconsistent accuracy can be hidden when we play a bad team, but they come back and bite your butt when we play a good team


EDIT: Our best chance for this Saturday is if the "2011 Stanfurd Maynard" shows up, but clearly that has been the outlier rather than the mean

---

Exactly, it's painfully obvious Maynard's flaws will hurt the team when the competition is good.

What was their record when they played? Keep in mind, each of those wins on those "winning" teams came from a cal or buffalo loss.

A couple of points:

1. Most everyone will struggle against winning teams. They are winning, for the most part, because they are better.

2. There are 21 others players on the field. (Well there are more than that counting special teams....

What a disingenuous pile of crap! You think we're all stupid enough believe you were "curious" that maybe he did well against above .500 teams? Nope, you're the only one idiotic enough to believe in your quest for "truth".

Oh, and by the way, there are 21 other players that start each game and a few coaches that play a big role as well.

Californication;841947450 said:

---

What a disingenuous pile of crap! You think we're all stupid enough believe you were "curious" that maybe he did well against above .500 teams? Nope, you're the only one idiotic enough to believe in your quest for "truth".

Oh, and by the way, there are 21 other players that start each game and a few coaches that play a big role as well.

---

The issue was where to draw the line to distinguish good QBs from bad ones, and I felt taking a look at Maynard's stats againast above .500 teams may offer clues.

How is that disingenuous or a quest for some truth?

Yeah, I realize football is a team sport, but the stats become less relative when analyzing a QB's career numbers, don't you think?

1-11 record and 57% completion rate against .500 + teams is not average, and far from it. This was worth finding out for me as it came as a surprise.

Cal Geek;841947428 said:

---

A couple of points:

1. Most everyone will struggle against winning teams. They are winning, for the most part, because they are better.

2. There are 21 others players on the field. (Well there are more than that counting special teams....

---

1. Sure, that's why a .500 team is considered good/above average. But there is value in looking at a QB's stats in those games in it self.

2. Hard to argue that football is a team sport, but a QB's career numbers decrease the degree of relativity, and speaks more about that individual player than his team.

SnoozerBear;841947326 said:

---

[U]Maynard is 1-11 when facing Div I FBS schools that finished .500 or higher, 244/423 completions with a 57.5% completion rate, 15 TDs/13 Ints.[/U]

So our best QB has won one game against a good team, possess a below average completion rate (I believe the average % in college is above 60%??),

---

You are really reaching now.

I'm actually surprised. 57.5% completion against the best opponents (roughly 50%) is not bad at all. It is slightly below, but close to the average (roughly 60%). Depending on how well he did against the teams with losing records you may have just made a case for him being at worst average or possibly far above average.

Elway never had a winning season in four years at Stanford. Not just against teams with winning records, all teams. It was not because he was a bad quarterback. Football is not 1 on 1.

Tedford's Cal teams have never had a good record against teams with winning records. It isn't all of the quarterbacks and it especially isn't any one quarterback.

QB peformance is not "inate." Look at Alex Smith at Utah, Alex Smith with the Niners up until last year and then Alex Smith last year.

calumnus;841947472 said:

---

QB peformance is not "inate." Look at Alex Smith at Utah, Alex Smith with the Niners up until last year and then Alex Smith last year.

---

Amazing what coaching can do. Unfortunately, this kind of miraculous growth has never happened under Tedford.

calumnus;841947472 said:

---

QB peformance is not "inate." Look at Alex Smith at Utah, Alex Smith with the Niners up until last year and then Alex Smith last year.

---

This isn't entirely true either. This doesn't really refute your point that performance isn't entirely innate, but it does make you wonder whether the light came on for Smith or it was just a matter of improved playcalling. Look at the last six games of Alex Smith's 2010 season - all of which was after the niners fired Jimmy Raye and elevated Mike Johnson (who I think would be a good OC for Cal) to OC. In Smith's last 6 games, he averaged about 7.5ypa with an 8/1 TD to INT ratio for a QB rating of 95. That's pretty similar to what he did over the full year in 2012. You could say the light came on for him or that the playcalling improved dramatically.

Smith has a few limitations as a passer and some offsetting strengths. It certainly looks like the niners have done a better job showcasing his strengths and avoiding his weaknesses after the first third of the 2010 season but it's entirely possible I suppose that he just figured it out.

Maynard is not the problem.

Coaching is the problem.


Otherwise we would not have these breakdowns every season about every QB.

calumnus;841947472 said:

---

You are really reaching now.

I'm actually surprised. 57.5% completion against the best opponents (roughly 50%) is not bad at all. It is slightly below, but close to the average (roughly 60%). Depending on how well he did against the teams with losing records you may have just made a case for him being at worst average or possibly far above average.

Elway never had a winning season in four years at Stanford. Not just against teams with winning records, all teams. It was not because he was a bad quarterback. Football is not 1 on 1.

Tedford's Cal teams have never had a good record against teams with winning records. It isn't all of the quarterbacks and it especially isn't any one quarterback.

QB peformance is not "inate." Look at Alex Smith at Utah, Alex Smith with the Niners up until last year and then Alex Smith last year.

---

Strive on, brother. Your effort is commendable.
" far above average". That's funny.

wallyball2003;841947540 said:

---

Strive on, brother. Your effort is commendable.
" far above average". That's funny.

---

"Far above average." Priceless.

What's the winning % of ALL QB's when playing teams above .500 W/L? I don't see any way that this % can approach 50%, because the starting conditions limit it to 50%. Likewise ALL QB's when playing teams below .500 W/L must always look pretty good (and certainly well above 50%, because the lower bounds is .500). As a statistic, I just don't think this kind of thinking tells us very much. Almost nothing, as a matter of fact.

Hey, missing wide open receivers, making poor reads, under-throwing long passes... these all tell us all we need to know. The W/L vs. teams with > .500 win % -- not so much.

BearGeorge;841947565 said:

---

Hey, missing wide open receivers, making poor reads, under-throwing long passes... these all tell us all we need to know. The W/L vs. teams with > .500 win % -- not so much.

---

Yeah, you're probably right, but for some reason Maynard's 1-11 just came as a shock to me. But then I realized the problem was my own expectations for the level of QB play at Cal, and the program as a whole.

SnoozerBear;841947572 said:

---

Yeah, you're probably right, but for some reason Maynard's 1-11 just came as a shock to me. But then I realized the problem was my own expectations for the level of QB play at Cal, and the program as a whole.

---

Our expectations for the program SHOULD be higher. I am just saying don't take it out on the players.

ducktilldeath;841947384 said:

---

He's a weak link. I don't really see how it could be soundly argued otherwise. OL play and play calling aside, he's wildly inaccurate. You simply can't have a QB who fails to make routine plays several times a game and expect to be good. Unforced errors at the QB position are a killer.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vjzb94x_Os&t=3m20s

Every QB has throws that get away. But with ZM these are not flukes, they are almost routine. If a QB is so wildly inconsistent with routine throws, he shouldn't be a QB. I would be hard pressed to think of a worse performance than what he had vs Oregon last year. Throw after throw after throw to wide open receivers in the flat on 3rd down and they were in the dirt or 4 yards wide or 4 yards high. Just awful.

---

Agree, Agree, Agree

calumnus;841947575 said:

---

Our expectations for the program SHOULD be higher. I am just saying don't take it out on the players.

---

I do not see how pointing out a player's failure to perform is "taking it out on the player".

GivemTheAxe;841947578 said:

---

I do not see how pointing out a player's failure to perform is "taking it out on the player".

---

Do you honestly think that is all that it has been?

You missed all the personal attacks? Saying he is "lazy" and "stupid"? Saying he should be kicked out of school? Blaming him for a loss after we actually won and scored 50 points (with another 7 taken back)?

When the claims of his "failure to perform" were countered by the fact that, as measured by his passing rating of 154, so far he is actually performing well, equal to Rodgers in 2004. people went insane. When the claims that he played horribly against S. Utah and should be benched were countered with the fact that he completed 74% of his passes. People bent all over themselves to scrutinize those completions and discount them or find other facts to PROVE he did not belong in D1. It seems really, really important to some people that Maynard be considered a horrible QB.

In this thread alone, going back to Buffalo's W/L record 4 years ago to try to show he is a bad QB in 2012? Really?

So far this year, by any objective measure, he has performed more than adequately. I agree that people's doubts about him for the future are not unwarranted, but if you can't congratulate a Cal QB after a game he completes 74% of his passes and only throws only one incomplete in the entire second half, at least hold back your incessant over the top criticism of him for a week.

People are upset at the state of the program, they are upset that we lost to Nevada in our home opener wearing white helmets our band isn't allowed to play fight songs during breaks and instead we watch stupid videos with somber music, all while paying twice as much as we used to, they are upset that we still haven't learned how to defend the read option, they are upset that we gave S. Utah's receivers cushions like they were SC, they are upset with what happened with Tosh, they are upset that the believed in magical power of the new facilities isn't working, they are upset that it has been 8 seasons since we had a QB that would be drafted into the NFL, and that even though Maynard is putting up stats better than any of those others, his play is still a long way from what we would need to overcome all the other issues this program has and compete for the Rose Bowl. This program has had problems for years, long before Maynard arrived here. Cal fans are not happy, but thread after thread points at Maynard, who so far is doing reasonably well, as the main problem with the program. THAT is "taking it out on a player."