wallyball2003;841947540 said:

---

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

---

The point was not about Maynard, the point was about the analysis. If someone does about average on roughly half the games against the toughest opponents, and we do not know what he did in the other half of the games against the weak opponents (but the presumption is he will have done better) then we can conclude the player is at worst average (if he only plays marginally better against weak opponents), but our "test" does not exclude the possibility of him being far above average overall (if he plays much better against weak opponents).

Playing near to the overall average against the good opponents is actually in of itself, above average.

SkyBear;841947594 said:

---

The problem with citing stats to show how good he is, is that there were an awful lot of short, easy passes in there. And the YPA is high because the receivers have broke some long plays after catching it.

Plus... we played Nevada and S. Utah. How do you think most PAC-12 QBs would have done?

---

There were a lot of short passes, but he actually completed a higher percentage of his long passes. He only threw one incomplete in the second half. You can't ask for more much more than that. He completed 17 of 19 to the WRs and TEs.

So what you are saying is "most Pac-10 QBs" would have completed 19 of 19? OK. Instead of 74% overall against S. utah, most Pac-10 QBs would be, what 90%? Can you see that is absurd?

Let's see across the Bay Stanford is starting Josh Nunes who is the [U]same[/U] year as Bridgford but was ranked [U]ahead[/U] of him in the same class coming out of high school. So far Stanford has played San Jose State and Duke, not exactly world beaters (Sagarin's Predcitor last year ranked Nevada #48, S. Utah #94, SJSU #95 and Duke #111 so Stanford has likely played weaker competition across the board than Cal). Nunes' QB's passing rating so far is 137 (same as Maynard's last year) and far lower than Maynard's 154 so far.

Here's the thing, if you want to say Maynard's good stats against weak competition are actually bad because they were against weak competition, how do you ignore the actual [U]bad[/U] stats our other units put up against that same weak competition in order to conclude Maynard is the main problem? How do you figure that Bridgford's 1 for 7 against the same weak competition is somehow good and he should therefore be the starter?

But again, if the guy ranked ahead of Bridgford coming out of high school is putting up a 137 against even weaker competition playing on a team that was BCS last year, maybe Maynard's 154 really is pretty good so far?

That doesn't mean he will do well in the future or that he is a good QB, it just means what it is, he has done well so far. Trying to say otherwise goes against the facts.

calumnus;841947472 said:

---

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.

---

calumnus;841947596 said:

---

The point was not about Maynard, the point was about the analysis. If someone does about average on roughly half the games against the toughest opponents, and we do not know what he did in the other half of the games against the weak opponents (but the presumption is he will have done better) then we can conclude the player is at worst average (if he only plays marginally better against weak opponents), but our "test" does not exclude the possibility of him being far above average overall (if he plays much better against weak opponents).

Playing near to the overall average against the good opponents is actually in of itself, above average.

---

His completion rates for ALL games (versus winning AND losing teams) are known and listed below. He is consistently right around that 57% mark taking into account ALL opposing teams, so that presumption does not hold; if anything, he might play down to lower competition. If, as you say, 60% is "average," then he has been consistently slightly below average. He has been consistent in his averageness or near averageness. Hence, he is not "at worst average"; he is AT BEST average.

2008: CMP% 33.3, RAT 52.9
2009: CMP% 57.5, RAT 125.0
2011: CMP% 57, RAT 127.0

calumnus;841947575 said:

---

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

---

There is a happy medium between the extremes of taking it out on the players, i.e. making personal attacks on them, and characterizing average play as "possibly far above average." That medium is to neither undervalue nor overvalue averageness.

Higher expectations for the program cannot ever be seriously enforced without accompanying higher expectations on the players, especially for the starting QB. Average play is not adequate, satisfactory, good enough play.

calumnus;841947602 said:

---

There were a lot of short passes, but he actually completed a higher percentage of his long passes. He only threw one incomplete in the second half. You can't ask for more much more than that. He completed 17 of 19 to the WRs and TEs.

So what you are saying is "most Pac-10 QBs" would have completed 19 of 19? OK. Instead of 74% overall against S. utah, most Pac-10 QBs would be, what 90%? Can you see that is absurd?

Let's see across the Bay Stanford has played San Jose State and Duke. Their QB's passing rating is 137 (same as Maynard's last year).

Here's the thing, if you want to say Maynard's good stats against weak competition are actually bad because they were against weak competition, how do you ignore the actual [U]bad[/U] stats our other units put up against that same competition in order to conclude Maynard is the problem?

---

ZM may not be "the" problem, but he is certainly towards the top of the list. Throw stats out for a second and use your eyes. Do you see a good qb? How about even average? I asked in anotheR thrEad, but I'm curious to know what you think: Maynard has now played in 15 college games at Cal. How many of those other teams' starters would you trade for Maynard? 12? 13? Those other qb's are his peer group. The bottom line for me is that ZM isn't good enough to take Cal where we all want the team to go.

calumnus;841947602 said:

---

So what you are saying is "most Pac-10 QBs" would have completed 19 of 19? OK. Instead of 74% overall against S. utah, most Pac-10 QBs would be, what 90%? Can you see that is absurd?

---

It is not absurd to think that above average Pac-12 QBs would have completed better than 74% against S. Utah considering just the week before Utah State's QB (who was a 2-star out of high school according to rivals & 247, and is only in his 2nd year in the WAC, and is surrounded and aided by much lesser talent than ZM is) completed 88% of his passes versus S. Utah's defense.

calumnus;841947593 said:

---

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."

---

I respect your enthusiasm -- with no intended sarcasm. Butsos it possible that some fans' problem with Zach THIS year might be more related to perceived attitude than actual performance. Sure, he is inconsistent at times on the field. But the laughing and chatting on the sidelines, to say nothing of the arm pointing, might be pretty irritating to many. It's tough to get the benefit of the doubt.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841947362 said:

---

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

---

But, Buff was playing inferior teams. He should have shone. And, didn't Buff produce a RB who plays for the Packers? Also, a WR is in the League, too, but I can't recall his name.

Face it: he am what he am. And, as I have been saying for months, repeatedly, the vast majority of players don't improve much from their Jr to their Sr years (esp QBs). If anything, we might expect fewer INTs and a little tidier overall on-field performance, but that's about it. ZM is running true to form.

calumnus;841947596 said:

---

The point was not about Maynard, the point was about the analysis. If someone does about average on roughly half the games against the toughest opponents, and we do not know what he did in the other half of the games against the weak opponents (but the presumption is he will have done better) then we can conclude the player is at worst average (if he only plays marginally better against weak opponents), but our "test" does not exclude the possibility of him being far above average overall (if he plays much better against weak opponents).

Playing near to the overall average against the good opponents is actually in of itself, above average.

---

Here's all the analysis you need. Watch how opponents tackle ZM - wrap the ankles or knees and let him fall to the ground. No heavy shot. No extra-curricular activities.

They DON'T want him out of there. They are happy to have him stay in there. Even if opposing HCs don't give the order to go easy on him, the players are not dumb enough to take a chance on the #2 guy being better. They are perfectly happy with the way things are going with ZM.

Laugh if you want.

wallyball2003;841947608 said:

---

I respect your enthusiasm -- with no intended sarcasm. Butsos it possible that some fans' problem with Zach THIS year might be more related to perceived attitude than actual performance. Sure, he is inconsistent at times on the field. But the laughing and chatting on the sidelines, to say nothing of the arm pointing, might be pretty irritating to many. It's tough to get the benefit of the doubt.

---

Forgive me for saying this, but its attitudes like the one you display here that is a huge part of why Cal is perceived to have an extremely stupid fanbase.

Football is a game where emotion and intimidation matter. How often in the past few seasons have we heard of a team that folded almost before they stepped on the field because they were convinced they could not win?

And watch the Pac-12 play a bit more closely. You'll see players in every game acting up with the same types of antics you condemn Maynard for.

The pointing at his arm is a great exanple. Even fans on this board keep saying that Maynard is a weak QB who can't throw the long ball accurately. Yet, on that pay he threw a 35+ yard bomb to Treggs and dropped the ball between 2 defenders. His pointing at his arm was a way of saying "I can beat you with my arm." to the Nevada defenders. It's a subtle but often effective form of intimidation.

You see more of this on defense. I hate to trot out U$c as an example, but during the years Desean was at Cal, you might remember how the USC fans would always point out that one of the goals of the defense was to hit Desean very hard early in the game. They even bragged that the hits would take Desean out of the game and make him ineffective. And it worked. Desean never had a great game against USC.

But too many Cal fans actually whine when players for Cal show emotion on or off the field. It's like they want the team to be robots who somehow perform perfectly while not allowing any emotoin to intrude on their play.

The game doesn't work that way.

Maynard is definitely a different personality type than Tedford, Longshore or Riley. It's obvious that he plays a bit more relaxed and open than the others. It's equally obvious that his emotions are far more visible. But condemning him for that is wrong. How he psychs himself up for a game or to recover from a bad play is something he had to deal with. As fans we need to recognize that emotions matter in football, and that we want our players to be jazzed after making good play. It might be the first good one of the game and occur in the thrid quarter, but if the emotion is there, better play often follows.

That's why momentum is often considered a huge part of games. The team that can build up the emotional edge tends to win. Cal has done this terribly in the last 6 years. Maybe we need players like Maynard who don't go into a funk when things get tough to help the rest of the team keep their emotoinal edge. We sure know that Riley never managed to bring the team back from down 14-0 to tie the game up at 24-24 (as happened at Nevada. The loss was not on Maynard, but on the defense failing to stop Nevada.)

MV makes a good point: the Nevada games was not lost by Maynard. The defense lost it... yes, I think this is undeniable. We've all seen the defense WIN games too, and WRs, and RBs, and even the K has won a game or two.

But when is the last time a Cal QB put the team on his shoulders, and WON a game? Rodgers certainly, Riley did it in the AFB (and not much else that I can remember), Longshore once or twice. Not much since then. I think the closest Maynard has come to this is Colorado last year.

We have high expectations of the QB position. When he plays well, he is the de-facto leader. Cal has been wandering in the wilderness for a long time... it's time for someone, ANYONE to stand up and be a leader at this position!

Rushinbear;841947626 said:

---

Here's all the analysis you need. Watch how opponents tackle ZM - wrap the ankles or knees and let him fall to the ground. No heavy shot. No extra-curricular activities.

They DON'T want him out of there. They are happy to have him stay in there. Even if opposing HCs don't give the order to go easy on him, the players are not dumb enough to take a chance on the #2 guy being better. They are perfectly happy with the way things are going with ZM.

[COLOR="Blue"]Laugh if you want.[/COLOR]

---

:rollinglaugh:

ducktilldeath;841947384 said:

---

He's a weak link....

---

That's why I want your High School Offense at Cal. It can make any QB look good....including Maynard.

socaliganbear;841947355 said:

---

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

---

Bobby: I'd like an omelet, plain, and a chicken salad sandwich on wheat toast, no mayonnaise, no butter, no lettuce. And a cup of coffee.

Waitress: A #2, chicken salad sand. Hold the butter, the lettuce, the mayonnaise, and a cup of coffee. Anything else?

Bobby: Yeah, now all you have to do is hold the chicken, bring me the toast, give me a check for the chicken salad sandwich, and you haven't broken any rules.

Waitress: You want me to hold the chicken, huh?

Bobby: I want you to hold it between your knees.

TarzanaBear;841947674 said:

---

Perceived by whom to have a stupid fan base? Ted miller has reguraly said we have the smartest fans in the PAC 12.


And Maynard doesn't go into funks? :rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:

---

You obviously don't visit the boards for the other Pac-12 schools very often. the Cal fanbase is openly mocked on most of the other boards. This is also common with any of our major OOC opponents. We are considered to be overly critical of emotional play and far to quick to be harshly judgemental of the play of the team. At the same time few Cal fans appear to have the ability to realistically compare our teams play to that of other teams in the conference. We (as a fanbase) have a reputation for "woofing" when the team is not playing well.

Now Ted Miller might say otherwise, but he mostly deals with the writers for California Golden Blogs, who run one of the fan analysis sites I've seen for pro or college football. Obviously if he's using this as his benchmark, he's going to find the Cal fanbase to be smarter than average.

---
As for my comment about going into a "funk". Maybe you aren't realizing what i'm saying.

I remember watching Riley in the away game against Nevada. He had a pass picked after it bounced off the hands of a receiver when he threw a deep crossing route. After that his accuracy dropped.

Longshore also went through extended periods of play that was clearly poor due to mental and emotional reasons. In his case the best example is in 2008 when Tedford tried to give him playing time. The formerly accurate and confident Longshore was horrible. In the first game of the season he came in to replace Riley and quickly ended the next 2 drives by throwing interceptions that make Maynard's one against Southern Utah to appear benign.

I haven't seen that with Maynard. I have seen him start forcing the ball when the team is behind and he tries to carry them to victory, but he doesn't appear to mentally close up and lose the game. Riley did, and the defense noticed. Other than the Armed Forces Bowl game against Air Force, Riley never lead the team to a comeback. And in 2009 and 2010 the defense regularly gave up if we got too far behind because they knew he wasn't capable of doing it.

Now, if Cal falls apart on defense against Ohio State and USC I'll be more inclined to accept the attacks on Maynard, even though both teams have offenses with very good reputations. But until then, I'm not willing to condemn Maynard.

Besides who else is ready? You seem to like to talk Maynard down, but can you talk any of the others up or are you just demanding any change?

mvargus;841947633 said:

---

Forgive me for saying this, but its attitudes like the one you display here that is a huge part of why Cal is perceived to have an extremely stupid fanbase.

Football is a game where emotion and intimidation matter. How often in the past few seasons have we heard of a team that folded almost before they stepped on the field because they were convinced they could not win?

And watch the Pac-12 play a bit more closely. You'll see players in every game acting up with the same types of antics you condemn Maynard for.

The pointing at his arm is a great exanple. Even fans on this board keep saying that Maynard is a weak QB who can't throw the long ball accurately. Yet, on that pay he threw a 35+ yard bomb to Treggs and dropped the ball between 2 defenders. His pointing at his arm was a way of saying "I can beat you with my arm." to the Nevada defenders. It's a subtle but often effective form of intimidation.

You see more of this on defense. I hate to trot out U$c as an example, but during the years Desean was at Cal, you might remember how the USC fans would always point out that one of the goals of the defense was to hit Desean very hard early in the game. They even bragged that the hits would take Desean out of the game and make him ineffective. And it worked. Desean never had a great game against USC.

But too many Cal fans actually whine when players for Cal show emotion on or off the field. It's like they want the team to be robots who somehow perform perfectly while not allowing any emotoin to intrude on their play.

The game doesn't work that way.

Maynard is definitely a different personality type than Tedford, Longshore or Riley. It's obvious that he plays a bit more relaxed and open than the others. It's equally obvious that his emotions are far more visible. But condemning him for that is wrong. How he psychs himself up for a game or to recover from a bad play is something he had to deal with. As fans we need to recognize that emotions matter in football, and that we want our players to be jazzed after making good play. It might be the first good one of the game and occur in the thrid quarter, but if the emotion is there, better play often follows.

That's why momentum is often considered a huge part of games. The team that can build up the emotional edge tends to win. Cal has done this terribly in the last 6 years. Maybe we need players like Maynard who don't go into a funk when things get tough to help the rest of the team keep their emotoinal edge. We sure know that Riley never managed to bring the team back from down 14-0 to tie the game up at 24-24 (as happened at Nevada. The loss was not on Maynard, but on the defense failing to stop Nevada.)

---

You spoke of SC intimidating DJ and Cal with hard hits not with pointing to body parts. Maynard did make a nice throw to Treggs for the TD. That is what 'speaks' not the pointing to the arm. If anyone is intimidated or motivated by Maynard's stupid arm pointing then they are the weak link on the field.

82gradDLSdad;841947719 said:

---

You spoke of SC intimidating DJ and Cal with hard hits not with pointing to body parts. Maynard did make a nice throw to Treggs for the TD. That is what 'speaks' not the pointing to the arm. If anyone is intimidated or motivated by Maynard's stupid arm pointing then they are the weak link on the field.

---

Did ZM point to his arm in our last game? NO. It seemed he was too enthusiastic about coming off the bench and playing Nevada and it was a one-time thing.

I bet the typical Cal Fan will exaggerate the "arm-pointing game" for decades to come. That's Cal.

TarzanaBear;841947728 said:

---

...Riley brought us back against nevada too....

---

Riley's PICK-6 against Nevada @ Reno sank Cal and yes, he was up-and-down since the infamous Oregon State game.

Being a typical Cal Fan here, you'll no doubt mythologize all the QBs between Rodgers and Maynard and give them super-heroic status.

Rushinbear;841947626 said:

---

Here's all the analysis you need. Watch how opponents tackle ZM - wrap the ankles or knees and let him fall to the ground. No heavy shot. No extra-curricular activities.

They DON'T want him out of there. They are happy to have him stay in there. Even if opposing HCs don't give the order to go easy on him, the players are not dumb enough to take a chance on the #2 guy being better. They are perfectly happy with the way things are going with ZM.

Laugh if you want.

---

Yes, I'm laughing at you.

mvargus;841947714 said:

---

Now Ted Miller might say otherwise, but he mostly deals with the writers for California Golden Blogs, who run one of the fan analysis sites I've seen for pro or college football. Obviously if he's using this as his benchmark, he's going to find the Cal fanbase to be smarter than average.

---

LOL... golden blogs is pretty worthless unless you're a sunshine pumper and need a support group.

SkyBear;841947739 said:

---

Emotion is important in a football game, but not the type where you are yelling at your own coach.

---

As much as Cal Fans whine on the Internet, I found ZM's reaction to be positively normal.

SkyBear;841947739 said:

---

Emotion is important in a football game, but not the type where you are yelling at your own coach.

---

Nor the yucking it up on the sidelines during a game in which he played poorly and the team he is supposedly leading is getting hammered and humiliated on TV (multiple times last year). The mediocre QB play doesn't bother me half as much as Maynard's apparent lack of real desire or passion for the game or for winning. He doesn't need to have the ultra intense drive of Peyton Manning or Kobe Bryant, but he needs to have show some intensity out on the field, especially when he's on a televised game.

OskiMD;841947758 said:

---

Nor the yucking it up on the sidelines during a game in which he played poorly and the team he is supposedly leading is getting hammered and humiliated on TV (multiple times last year). The mediocre QB play doesn't bother me half as much as Maynard's apparent lack of real desire or passion for the game or for winning. He doesn't need to have the ultra intense drive of Peyton Manning or Kobe Bryant, but he needs to have show some intensity out on the field, especially when he's on a televised game.

---

Wow. A psychologist?

Give me examples of intensity, real desire and passion. I'm serious. Post some pictures of QBs in the act of demonstrating those traits.

(This ought to be a hoot!)

TarzanaBear;841947768 said:

---

Of course you did. Has he done anything in his time at cal you find objectionable?

---

He draws the ire of whiny fans like you, that's what I find objectionable. Thanks for asking though.

OMG! Twins ^

SkyBear;841947776 said:

---

Yelling at your own coach is positively normal?

---

SkyBear;841947784 said:

---

Seriously, you're getting desperate.

---

You don't know what was exactly said between ZM and Tedford (only those two know) and the correct context it took place in, that's why you [U]have[/U] been desperate in this regard.

You're just a witness to an event, not a participant. Put down your popcorn, noob, and go find out from the participants themselves. I'm curious too.

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/

Our Domicile;841947770 said:

---

Wow. A psychologist?

Give me examples of intensity, real desire and passion. I'm serious. Post some pictures of QBs in the act of demonstrating those traits.

(This ought to be a hoot!)

---

Gee, I guess I should feel lucky that you didn't resort to your usual name calling.

You definitely win the "Most Angry/Hostile BI Poster" award though.

I definitely wouldn't want to be your psychologist... I don't need or want to know why you're so angry.

TarzanaBear;841947792 said:

---

I know you probably listen to starky on your transistor radio, but we have this thing called video now.

---

Well noobie -- do your fancy video thingy and some lip-reading. I say either you or your twin SkyBear can do it. Post your results here. Humor me.

Finding out Tedford's thoughts about the incident would be far easier...but this ought to be a blast!

OskiMD;841947794 said:

---

Gee, I guess I should feel lucky that you didn't resort to your usual name calling....

---

No, I resorted to making a very simple request of you -- Give me examples of intensity, real desire and passion by posting some pictures of QBs in the act of demonstrating those traits.

If you can't do that, I can think of names to call you.

mvargus;841947633 said:

---

Forgive me for saying this, but its attitudes like the one you display here that is a huge part of why Cal is perceived to have an extremely stupid fanbase.

Football is a game where emotion and intimidation matter. How often in the past few seasons have we heard of a team that folded almost before they stepped on the field because they were convinced they could not win?

And watch the Pac-12 play a bit more closely. You'll see players in every game acting up with the same types of antics you condemn Maynard for.

The pointing at his arm is a great exanple. Even fans on this board keep saying that Maynard is a weak QB who can't throw the long ball accurately. Yet, on that pay he threw a 35+ yard bomb to Treggs and dropped the ball between 2 defenders. His pointing at his arm was a way of saying "I can beat you with my arm." to the Nevada defenders. It's a subtle but often effective form of intimidation.

You see more of this on defense. I hate to trot out U$c as an example, but during the years Desean was at Cal, you might remember how the USC fans would always point out that one of the goals of the defense was to hit Desean very hard early in the game. They even bragged that the hits would take Desean out of the game and make him ineffective. And it worked. Desean never had a great game against USC.

But too many Cal fans actually whine when players for Cal show emotion on or off the field. It's like they want the team to be robots who somehow perform perfectly while not allowing any emotoin to intrude on their play.

The game doesn't work that way.

Maynard is definitely a different personality type than Tedford, Longshore or Riley. It's obvious that he plays a bit more relaxed and open than the others. It's equally obvious that his emotions are far more visible. But condemning him for that is wrong. How he psychs himself up for a game or to recover from a bad play is something he had to deal with. As fans we need to recognize that emotions matter in football, and that we want our players to be jazzed after making good play. It might be the first good one of the game and occur in the thrid quarter, but if the emotion is there, better play often follows.

That's why momentum is often considered a huge part of games. The team that can build up the emotional edge tends to win. Cal has done this terribly in the last 6 years. Maybe we need players like Maynard who don't go into a funk when things get tough to help the rest of the team keep their emotoinal edge. We sure know that Riley never managed to bring the team back from down 14-0 to tie the game up at 24-24 (as happened at Nevada. The loss was not on Maynard, but on the defense failing to stop Nevada.)

---

Grover Cleveland Alexander (or someone of that era) said, "It ain't braggin' if you done it." Well, ZM ain't done it. And, he didn't do it vs Nevada. So, we had adolescent braggadoccio.

When he beats tOSU by taking over the game/threading one through there into the end zone at the last second for the win, then he'll have the first bit of evidence which could lead to a justification for a little chest pumping (much as I hate it, even by superstars). Until then, he needs to keep his head down and work harder. And his mouth shut.

Our Domicile;841947799 said:

---

Give me examples of intensity, real desire and passion by posting some pictures of QBs in the act of demonstrating those traits.

---

Yessir, let me get right on that! Lol...

SkyBear;841947801 said:

---

Again.

Answer my question.

If I have to know what was said between Tedford and Maynard to call it yelling and therefore not the right emotion a QB needs to show, then what do you know that makes it okay for you to say it was positively normal?

---

[SIZE="7"]I made a [U]comparison[/U] between ZM's incident with Tedford and whiny Cal Fans on the Internet and called it positively normal. Answer my question -- do you know what a comparison is?[/SIZE]

SkyBear;841947822 said:

---

Now you're straight-up [SIZE="3"][COLOR="Red"]lying[/COLOR][/SIZE].

I said in response to another poster, who was posting about emotion, that Maynard's emotion was the wrong type...

---

Your post (#61) seems to be addressed to no one in particular and it does NOT reference another Poster or another quote so I replied to it. Go see for yourself. It seemed like a stand-alone observation made by some random poster.

SkyBear;841947822 said:

---

...You responded to me that it was positively normal. You're "whiny" comment was directed at a different poster and not part of the discussion between you and me. There was nothing in the context of our discussion that would lend to the belief that you were comparing a yelling QB to a fanbase. Nor is there any logic behind it that would be relevant to my comment that you were responding to. You were clearly trying to refute my claim that it was an inappropriate emotion, not comparing anything. Now you're trying to muddy your own words in an attempt to hide your hypocrisy. You're easily the most dishonest and worst poster on this board. Why don't you just do us all a favor and stop posting?

---

[SIZE="7"]OMG! See all that emotion pouring out of you? That's what I was talking about! Oh my.....you're acting just like our starting QB! What an explosion by a typical Cal Fan! I rest my case -- the comparison fits. Thanks! [/SIZE]

SkyBear;841947776 said:

---

Yelling at your own coach is positively normal?

---

Did you see cullen jenkins yell at Andy Reid? That's passion.

ZM wanted to go for it on 4th and goal at the 1 yard line, and so did 99% of the fans. JT called for the field goal. He was frustrated, and so was you and I. Admitted, you were screaming at JT too at home.

Before you point out the miss pass to stevens on 3rd down, check out the DE on that play and how high he jumped. Maynard had to get it over the DE hence the high angle of the throw.

Our Domicile;841947684 said:

---

:rollinglaugh:

---

.. just 8 more posts and your left boundary poster attribution spelling changes from "Real bear" to "Loyal bear" for being > 2499 yackety yackets.

hmmm, you've pretty much done 8 in this thread alone, probably break thru by lunchtime. (in my experience flame threads work best)

#that is all