Career numbers can be misleading in the sense that wins/losses may turn on a handful of plays and, in the final analysis, a superior W/L record covers a multitude of sins. The fact that our QB play ever since Longshore did his turnaround from future HOF (Cal version) QB to goat has produced more memorable face plants than inspiring victories renders the stats rather meaningless. Statistically, Riley was a pretty decent QB, Maynard average or a bit below but neither has a surplus of transcendent wins over disappointing losses. IMO, losing games you should win carries more weight than winning when you should lose so you'd better be on the good side of an upset more often than not. And style points count; Longshore's horrible effort against UCLA has become the hallmark of his career.

GivemTheAxe;841984400 said:

---

Disagree BIG TIME. (How quickly the posters on this board forget.)

KR had a terrible OLine blocking for him. Equal to this year's. (why was KR injured his senior year; he had a front line that could not block one bit.

BUT in addition --- KR had terrible receivers who could not catch (except his first year).
jones and Allen last year and this year's receivers all make incredble catches making ZM look a heck of a lot better than he really is.

As for his running, he was a little mobile and could get first downs with his feet -- on occasion. And he had a vision that allowed him to hit an open receiver after shaking off a tackle.

The only passes he had trouble with were the short pass to the RB coming out of the backfield or short screen pass. But he got better over time. Something that cannot be said of ZM.

KR was far from perfect. NL was a much more accurate passer until his injury vs. Oregon. But KR was clearly a PAC 10 caliber QB. Nothing like this can be said about ZM.

---

You are air-brushing the past. In 2008, KR had a very good Oline, headlined by Alex Mack and Mitchell Schwartz. He also had Jahvid Best, Shane Vereen, and Will Ta'ufo'ou in the backfield. He also had Cameron Morrah, Verran Tucker, Jeremy Ross, and Nyan Boateng to throw to. 3 of those guys have gotten extended sniffs in the NFL. Still, KR's stats were terrible: 50.7 (Cmpl Pct), 6.15 (Y/Att), 14 (TDs), 6 (Ints), 117.8 (Rating). Maynard has never had numbers that bad.

Let's compare their junior numbers.

KR: 54.7 (cmpl pct), 2850 (yds), 7.46 (YPA), 18 (TDs), 8 (Ints), 30 (sacks), 128.7 (rating)
Maynard: 57.0 (cmpl pct), 2990 (yds), 7.38 (YPA), 17 (TDs), 12 (Ints), 27 (sacks), 127.0.

Their stats are nearly identical.

Let's compare their senior numbers.

KR (through 7+ games): 60.0 (cmpl pct), 1409 (yds), 7.62 (YPA), 13 (TDs), 6 (Ints), 13 (sacks), 140.7 (rating)
ZM (through 8 games): 61.7 (cmpl pct), 1751 (yds), 7.45 (YPA), 10 (TDs), 8 (Ints), 33 (sacks), 131.5 (rating).

Again, pretty similar, but look at the sack totals. Maynard has played a much tougher schedule through 8 games than Riley did through 7+ games his senior season AND with a much, much worse Oline.

Your frustration with this season and your hatred for Maynard is blinding you to the past. Kevin Riley was not a very good quarterback. He was inconsistent and inaccurate, and he missed open guys all the time stalling drives. Better than Maynard, perhaps slightly, but nowhere near good enough to make Cal a BCS caliber team. This notion that Riley was far better than Maynard is baseless.

Don't you remember people on this board back then constantly asking for Brock Mansion and Beau Sweeney, the same way that people have been asking for Bridgford and Kline, until we got to see those guys play? Don't you recall people lamenting the fact that we passed up Colin Kaepernick for Kevin Riley? There were so many Riley haters and critics around here during that time period.

BerlinerBaer;841982024 said:

---

He obviously sees more in Maynard that he does in Bridgford. Then again, so do I and so do many other objective people.

---

Agreed. Bridgford has shown nothing in any of his game apperances (to include the spring game) where he would be considered an improvement. Hinder may be, but he has never played, and doing so now (after being the scout team QB all season) would certainly not be an improvement. Kline is obviously the guy, but you don't burn his redshirt 9 games into a disappointing season. Kind of a rock and an hard place position. A better running game makes Maynard perform SO MUCH better.

Masau80;841984638 said:

---

Agreed. Bridgford has shown nothing in any of his game apperances (to include the spring game) where he would be considered an improvement. Hinder may be, but he has never played, and doing so now (after being the scout team QB all season) would certainly not be an improvement. Kline is obviously the guy, but you don't burn his redshirt 9 games into a disappointing season. Kind of a rock and an hard place position. A better running game makes Maynard perform SO MUCH better.

---

Yes, but when that running game gets shut down, for a program that attracts elite QB talent, you are supposed to have someone ready that does more than can manage a game. We're supposed to have someone that can win games. Going all-in on Maynard the last two seasons was a big mistake and ultimately will be the reason why Tedford is fired.

Masau80;841984638 said:

---

Agreed. Bridgford has shown nothing in any of his game apperances (to include the spring game) where he would be considered an improvement. Hinder may be, but he has never played, and doing so now (after being the scout team QB all season) would certainly not be an improvement. Kline is obviously the guy, but you don't burn his redshirt 9 games into a disappointing season. Kind of a rock and an hard place position. A better running game makes Maynard perform SO MUCH better.

---

I don't understand this logic. Because a guy has never played, we give up on him? Both Kline and Hinder were highly touted, Elite 11 qb's, but since neither has played a down of college ball, we write them off?. I'd like to give Hinder a chance now and then throw in open next spring with, hopefully, a new coach.

CalBearz02;841984655 said:

---

This. For all of tedfords faults, he would not be on the hotseat if he had a qb.

---

Who would block for said phantom qb?

Robocheme;841981917 said:

---

I see:

Zero accuracy
A weak arm
No strength
Average speed
No ability to read a defense
Not particularly shifty
Cannot find the 2nd or 3rd receiver
Bad body language

I saw this last year. Are you seeing something different?

And how do you know the backups can't do better when you never play them?

Totally frustrated,

BTW, I'm canceling my season tickets if you're still around next year.

---

This is the Greek chorus on the Stanford boards as well...almost word for word.

As most have said on this board, ZM is not a D-1 starting qb, he lacks the arm, accuracy, pocket presence, ability to read defenses and the lack of reading his progressions quickly when he does have time to pass and isn't particularly fast or elusive or smart when he does run. So why does he start? Maybe ZM's starting was the deal sealer for KA coming here? One can think of no other possibility given his deficiencies that have shown no improvement over 2 seasons.

Statistics only tell part of the story, KR was the qb that started Cal's downward slide after all. Remember we were #1 for about 5 minutes that afternoon against OSU when he, son of a coach, decided to run for the goal line when he could have thrown the ball away to give us a shot at a tying field goal and possible OT win and a # 1 ranking for at least the next week week. That was the height of the program and it has been a death spiral since. :headbang

SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA;841984609 said:

---

Don't you remember people on this board back then constantly asking for Brock Mansion and Beau Sweeney, the same way that people have been asking for Bridgford and Kline, until we got to see those guys play? Don't you recall people lamenting the fact that we passed up Colin Kaepernick for Kevin Riley? There were so many Riley haters and critics around here during that time period.

---

SO TRUE. Several posters on this board decry the lack of playing time for Bridgford, saying that Tedford is a terrible coach for not giving Bridgford a chance.

The problem isn't that Tedford has underperformed because he hasn't played Bridgford...but that the backups are likely no better than our current QB. The real indictment against Tedford is his poor recruiting of QBs ("QB development" is so overrated).

CalBearz02;841984655 said:

---

This. For all of tedfords faults, he would not be on the hotseat if he had a qb. Taking on KA and Maynard, in retrospect, sealed his fate.

---

Disagree. Taking on Maynard wasn't sealing his fate. He can take on whomever he wants (see Doxy, Gary).

People like to create conspiracy theories about Keenan Allen somehow demanding that Maynard plays. But from the many angry reactions Keenan has had to Maynard's bad decisions and poor throws on the field, I find it very hard to believe that Allen would somehow quit the team if Maynard were benched.

The fact that Maynard sees the field so much is because there's no one better behind him. Tedford has every reason to bench Maynard, even for reasons that don't show up on stat sheet. But he doesn't. The real thing that has sealed Tedford's fate is that he hasn't recruited another QB that can unseat Maynard.

Robocheme;841984717 said:

---

I don't understand this logic. Because a guy has never played, we give up on him? Both Kline and Hinder were highly touted, Elite 11 qb's, but since neither has played a down of college ball, we write them off?. I'd like to give Hinder a chance now and then throw in open next spring with, hopefully, a new coach.

---

Guys like Hinder & Boehm have every day to show the coaches what they've got. Up to this point, they haven't given the coaching staff even a reasonable belief that they give this year's team a better chance of winning than Maynard.

I'm not writing them off, necessarily, but I'm not banking on them turning the team around.

Kline (hopefully) is another story...

Dan2002;841985109 said:

---

The fact that Maynard sees the field so much is because there's no one better behind him. Tedford has every reason to bench Maynard, even for reasons that don't show up on stat sheet.

---

Right. You just forgot to add:

:tedford

Dan2002;841985111 said:

---

Guys like Hinder & Boehm have every day to show the coaches what they've got. Up to this point, they haven't given the coaching staff even a reasonable belief that they give this year's team a better chance of winning than Maynard.

I'm not writing them off, necessarily, but I'm not banking on them turning the team around.

Kline (hopefully) is another story...

---

^^^ This

Dan2002;841985111 said:

---

Guys like Hinder & Boehm have every day to show the coaches what they've got. Up to this point, they haven't given the coaching staff even a reasonable belief that they give this year's team a better chance of winning than Maynard.

I'm not writing them off, necessarily, but I'm not banking on them turning the team around.

Kline (hopefully) is another story...

---

I suppose that you may be right, but impressing (or not impressing) the coaches in practice is not the same thing as an actual game. I.e., I'm sure that Maynard looks great in practice, but we've all seen how he does in a game and it ain't pretty. All I'm saying is that we should give the backups a chance; at least we'll know what we've got. As it is, we're just guessing.

I'm guessing anyone past AB gets about .1% of the reps, if that. Of course, we'll never know since very few see practices.

His arm strength, while not top end, doesn't seem to be a problem. I think he can throw all the balls. He does seem inconsistent. Some of that is related to the quality of the opposition and our game plan and offensive line performance. It's hard to find the 2nd and 3rd receiver when you're getting sacked as often as he is. He certainly could improve in this area as could 98% of all college quarterbacks.

I would prefer a true pro-style offense if we aren't going to have a dual-threat qb. Maynard doesn't look like he wants to run. He is pretty slight of build for a runner although Pat White was pretty skinny and he got away with it in college.

I think our problems run a lot deeper than the quarterback. When you have a guy who has scored on two long TD runs and is averaging 40 yards a carry on your bench when you're behind, there is something systematically wrong with your offensive approach.

[U]I blame a quarterbacks success on the head coach. It's his job to make him successful.[/U] It doesn't matter why the kid is not successful, talent or something else, the blame rests squarely on the head coaches shoulders. We've had a string of unsuccessful quarterbacks and that's why our coach has one foot out the door as he should.

A big incorrect assumption many make on this board is that boehm hinder and Kline etc couldn't beat out Maynard and therefore aren't better than him. That isn't true. No one other than Maynard and Bridgford got or get any snaps in practice. Drills don't count. The coaches don't have time to give all 5 or 6 or more guys snaps. They currently give Maynard most snaps and Bridgford a few. Boehm gets the scout team. Everyone else stands around. Its the same at every school. Next year will be the same. Tedford will pick his guy early - probably or rather almost certainly Bridgford - and there will be a small competition for #2 which he may pick on potential - Kline - or may pick on experience in program - Hinder. I say small competition because it wont be a real on field competition but a decision based on potenial vs experience. So all of our hopes and thoughts regarding all of the promise of the 5 or 6 guys on roster and hopes that here is some spirited competition is pointless. This is largely my opinion only so take it like that. I have some inside info. But I am not inside the gates or anything.

CalGaoTe;841985925 said:

---

A big incorrect assumption many make on this board is that boehm hinder and Kline etc couldn't beat out Maynard and therefore aren't better than him. That isn't true. No one other than Maynard and Bridgford got or get any snaps in practice. Drills don't count. The coaches don't have time to give all 5 or 6 or more guys snaps. They currently give Maynard most snaps and Bridgford a few. Boehm gets the scout team. Everyone else stands around. Its the same at every school. Next year will be the same. Tedford will pick his guy early - probably or rather almost certainly Bridgford - and there will be a small competition for #2 which he may pick on potential - Kline - or may pick on experience in program - Hinder. I say small competition because it wont be a real on field competition but a decision based on potenial vs experience. So all of our hopes and thoughts regarding all of the promise of the 5 or 6 guys on roster and hopes that here is some spirited competition is pointless. This is largely my opinion only so take it like that. I have some inside info. But I am not inside the gates or anything.

---

They (Bridgford, Boehm, and Hinder) have had two competetive springs to show that they are an improvement over Maynard. It was clear this past spring that they weren't. Hinder showed promise that wasn't there the previous year. Kline showed all the promise that was expected of him, but knew going into the season that it would take something catestrophic to have them burn his redshirt. Bridgford I think has had his chance and is going to be the Mansion of 2012. His game performance is consistently poor. Who wasn't relieved when Maynard came in for him against Nevada? I think the job next spring is Kline's to lose and with Goff coming in behind him and the other couple walk-on's with talent already there, I think Boehm and/or Hinder look to go somewhere else (FCS or DII) if they want to play college QB. It will be tough to walk away from a Cal education for something significantly less valuable in life though! It wouldn't hurt to get some of the better, more athletic OL on the field instead of the group we have had out there to date - especially at OT.