68great;841985478 said:

---

I disagree. With a better QB (even with the Oline problems) Cal would likely have won the Nevada, ASU games and probably the USC game.
That would put Cal at 6-2.
[Note: I am including those games where Cal was competitive in the 4th Qtr and ZM did not have a strong game)

Cal would also likely win the UW and Utah games.
That would put Cal at 8-4.

While that would not satisfy many on this board (since better Oline play could have allowed Cal to get to a 9 or 10 win season).
But it would be enough for the vast majority of Cal fans (and DONORS)

As John Madden has said: Winning is a great deodorant.

---

Wow!!! Ok. I agree the QB would have made some difference and could affect a win or two. But 6-2? Bears would need the NFL version of Joe Montana in his prime for that to even be a possibility.

rsvlfan2;841985619 said:

---

It is Tedford's responsibility to find and develop a good quarterback. He has not done so in years. The problem is with the coach, the scheme, or both. At some point Tedford must be held responsible for the mediocre performance of the team. He simply is not getting it done. No more excuses.

---

Despite signing a QB out of high school every year he has been at Cal, most of them Elite 11, he has not sent a single one to the NFL, even as a free agent back-up on the practice squad.

89Bear;841985801 said:

---

Wow!!! Ok. I agree the QB would have made some difference and could affect a win or two. But 6-2? Bears would need the NFL version of Joe Montana in his prime for that to even be a possibility.

---

Come on. If the Bears had Longshore out there, Cal would definitely be 6-2 right now. They'd probably be over .500 with Riley, because he'd be able to air it out to Allen and the recievers at least a couple of times and get big plays we dont' get now.

Maynard is below-average, limited, frenetic and kills drives with bad decisions.

I didn't take the OP as lobbying for JT to be the coach. He put a scenario out there that presumes JT as the coach, and, though many people don't want that, and some of us doubt seriously that will happen, is, as of this moment, the status quo.
The other assumption is that Kline is the starter.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841985912 said:

---

Come on. If the Bears had Longshore out there, Cal would definitely be 6-2 right now. They'd probably be over .500 with Riley, because he'd be able to air it out to Allen and the recievers at least a couple of times and get big plays we dont' get now.

Maynard is below-average, limited, frenetic and kills drives with bad decisions.

---

I think people seriously underestimate the line and talent surrounding Longshore in 2006 and 2007--most of those guys are playing in the NFL. We had a great running game and good pass protection. Longshore still threw 26 interceptions in those two years. With this line, playcalling and Longshore we would either have even more sacks and interceptions or Longshore would be throwing the ball away nearly every time he goes back to pass for a lower completition %--and even more likely he would again suffer a major injury on a sack by now as he did in both 2005 and 2007.

As a senior in 2008, Longshore completed 57% of his passes with a 126 passing rating. As a senior so far Maynard has completed 62% of his passes with a 132 passing rating. Maynard has also converted some key first downs with his feet and had our longest run from scrimmage on Saturday. Longshore could not even move in the pocket well. Maynard is not good, but those who think somehow inserting Longshore or any QB we have had other than Rodgers would make a huge difference with this line, this running attack and this play calling are not looking at the whole picture and are making Maynard the scapegoat. Maynard is not good, but there are other aspects of this team that are worse.

Put it this way, I'd much rather have our 2006 line and Marshawn Lynch on this team, even with Maynard, than simply switch Longshore for Maynard on this team. And if we are going to be in spread, I'd rather have Dunbar designing the offense and calling the plays.

the_purple_drank;841985941 said:

---

I don't know... Riley looked off his primary receiver less than Maynard does, and that's saying something. Riley had a much better OL than Maynard did, had about 6 seconds to throw most of the time, and still took a brunt of sacks.

I like how this is all stemming to the QB, again. Nevermind the inconsistent (to put it kindly) play of the other positions. A better QB might be worth 1 win, but that still puts us at 4-4.

---

Disagree. Riley had a terrible line his last two years. Made worse by receivers who could not catch. His armed forces bowl game showed what he could do if he had both.

Maynard has a bad OLine but world class receivers who make him look better than he is - which says a lot.

the_purple_drank;841985582 said:

---

You do realize that USC wasn't exactly trying, right?

If we were truly a threat, they would expand their playbook and blow it open. Note that (unsurprisingly) we couldn't stop their running game and Marquise Lee dropped a 50-yard touchdown catch standing by himself. Basically, unforced errors by USC made this game closer than it really was.

We had a slimmer of hope down 8 when USC was as inept as we were. But there was absolutely no way we were going to win that game.

PS, that wasn't a pick in the endzone, but at the 30-yard line.

---

Cal was in the redzone at the time of the pick. Check the stats. There was another pick and maybe that is what you were thinking of.

But that is not the only bad play of the game by ZM. There were 2 INTs and a number of other bad throws to men who were open or other open receivers who were not seen by ZM (as was the wide open Cal receiver in the endzone on the INT referred to).

Even with ZM's caliber of play, Cal got to the redzone (bluezone) FIVE times and got NO TD's and only a total of NINE points.

USC was not the dominant USC of years past. The game was within reach. it was not a sure win or a definite win. But it was a possible win.

CalBarn, I totally agree. I seriously doubt that a change in the QB would have had a significant or even slight improvement to our performance. Does anyone here really believe that a coach and staff that know they are on the ropes and likely to lose jobs would play a QB of less ability?

Yeah, JT has the comfort of a contract, but he has loyal assistants who are not in the same position and could have their careers, homes and families uprooted as a consequence. The problems with Cal go way beyond the QB position as has been well chronicled here over the past few years.

There have been games where ZM has been good. Why isn't he consistent, why do they insist on keeping him in the pocket, why isn't he running more (e.g Wazzu game)? The offensive scheme is stale. We fool no one and I often feel sorry for ZM on the traditional third and longs he faces. The staff has made a choice to go with ZM yet not put in a playbook and gameplan that makes him more successful and plays to his strengths.

You can blame JT for not getting the caliber of QB into the program or simply the inability to coach-up the ones he has, but I don't think there are many QBs, other than someone with RGIII's ability, that could turn this program around as it stands today. So it goes waaay deeper than QB.

I don't know how many of you have seen Zach Kline play, but I think some here may have unfair expectations of just how good he is and how he could suddenly turn us around. He is a very talented young QB, with a fantastic arm, if not real mobile. He is a very intriguing PROSPECT. Was he the best QB in the EBAL last year? Arguable with Lockie (oregon), a highly mobile QB, and Houston (Wisconsin), it was not a sure thing. To think that he could outperform ZM THIS season, given all the weaknesses we have in OL, scheme, etc, is unfair IMHO.

The bottom line is that this program is STALE. Our kids deserve to be put in positions to win and its not happening.

Fact: JT successfully recruits Elite-11 quarterbacks most years.
Fact: There are three on the roster today. One of whome was rated #2 in the nation last fall as a HS student.

Query: Why does our coach start a kid with no BCS school offers? Not Elite-11, not a quarterback that wold start at another Pac-12 school. But one who came from BUFFALO before transferring here.

calumnus;841985944 said:

---

I think people seriously underestimate the line and talent surrounding Longshore in 2006 and 2007--most of those guys are playing in the NFL. We had a great running game and good pass protection. Longshore still threw 26 interceptions in those two years. With this line, playcalling and Longshore we would either have even more sacks and interceptions or Longshore would be throwing the ball away nearly every time he goes back to pass for a lower completition %--and even more likely he would again suffer a major injury on a sack by now as he did in both 2005 and 2007.

As a senior in 2008, Longshore completed 57% of his passes with a 126 passing rating. As a senior so far Maynard has completed 62% of his passes with a 132 passing rating. Maynard has also converted some key first downs with his feet and had our longest run from scrimmage on Saturday. Longshore could not even move in the pocket well. Maynard is not good, but those who think somehow inserting Longshore or any QB we have had other than Rodgers would make a huge difference with this line, this running attack and this play calling are not looking at the whole picture and are making Maynard the scapegoat. Maynard is not good, but there are other aspects of this team that are worse.

Put it this way, I'd much rather have our 2006 line and Marshawn Lynch on this team, even with Maynard, than simply switch Longshore for Maynard on this team. And if we are going to be in spread, I'd rather have Dunbar designing the offense and calling the plays.

---

I understand your point re Longshore in late 2007 into 2008.

However, Longshore
1. Played in 2006 and the first half of 2007; you COMPLETELY ignore that
2. Riley and Longshore split time behind the "great" line that was provided in the second half of 2007 and 2008 and both did poorly; you COMPLETELY ignore that

So lets not pretend Longshore was just a product of a great line. Longshore was a phenominal QB with a great football mind before a late hit by Oregon broke his leg and ruined any chance he had... He played outstanding football before his injury, and writing that off as "a good line" is flat out ridiculous.


Further, looking at our schedule in 2005, If he had not been injured against Sac St, I would guess that would have been an 11 win season.

1979bear;841986014 said:

---

Fact: JT successfully recruits Elite-11 quarterbacks most years.
Fact: There are three on the roster today. One of whome was rated #2 in the nation last fall as a HS student.

Query: Why does our coach start a kid with no BCS school offers? Not Elite-11, not a quarterback that wold start at another Pac-12 school. But one who came from BUFFALO before transferring here.

---

Not to point fingers;

Rodgers was not offered by any BCS school. He was not offered by any Mid Major.

He was a nobody on the road to becoming a nobody when Cross caught someones eye and Tedford went to see CROSS.


MAYBE Tedford saw something he could work with...


Just interesting juxtaposition. A HUGE find, and a HUGE bust.

No. It's not about players it's lack of coaching. Look at the game plans in critical games the last 3-4 years on both sides of the ball. Never going to change until they are gone.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841985912 said:

---

Come on. If the Bears had Longshore out there, Cal would definitely be 6-2 right now....

---

You're joking, right? The pressure Longshore faced when he hurt his ankle in 2007 is absolutely nothing compared to the Deluge pouring in through the Dikes right now. In fact, that was lightweight pressure. Longshore (a good guy) was a statue and would be killed behind our current Oline.

ASU, a game looked upon as winnable with a QB-from-the-past by the delusional History Revisionists above, would sack both Longshore and Riley about 10 times with Riley escaping to make some plays to make the game close in the end.

However, Longshore and Riley easily beat Nevada and there would be some hope for a minor bowl game this season.

Phantomfan;841986073 said:

---

I understand your point re Longshore in late 2007 into 2008.

However, Longshore
1. Played in 2006 and the first half of 2007; you COMPLETELY ignore that
2. Riley and Longshore split time behind the "great" line that was provided in the second half of 2007 and 2008 and both did poorly; you COMPLETELY ignore that

So lets not pretend Longshore was just a product of a great line. Longshore was a phenominal QB with a great football mind before a late hit by Oregon broke his leg and ruined any chance he had... He played outstanding football before his injury, and writing that off as "a good line" is flat out ridiculous.


Further, looking at our schedule in 2005, If he had not been injured against Sac St, I would guess that would have been an 11 win season.

---

Longshore was a good QB if he had lots of protection and was surrounded by great (NFL even future Pro Bowl) talent. He could take his time and make good decisions to get the ball into the hands of one of our many playmakers. On the 2006 and 2007 teams (before he was hurt), there is no question he was better than Riley or Maynard would be on those teams. Yes, the 2005 team too. His greatest strength was that he knew Tedford's offense.

This team does not have the offensive line we had back then and does not have Marshawn Lynch, who in 2005 and 2006, sometimes carried the team (and the opposing team literally) on his back. I do not think Longshore would be a good QB for this team at all. He needed protection, he needed some time. He had a very high season-ending-injury per sack ratio. Like 2005 and 2007, we would likely have lost him in the first half of season. Moreso, this year.

Broken legs heal and it is not like he was ever fast. Longshore was as healthy as he's ever been for the 2008 Nut Bowl (when we finally had good play calling and utilized Best well too). He was still undrafted in 2009. He went to the Dolphin's 3-day rookie mini-camp to try out and was not offered a contract, even on the practice squad. He tried out with the San Jose Sabercats in the Arena League, but did not make the final roster.

Like all our QBs, he gave it his all and he was a great Bear--he almost had a great college seasons playing on great teams in 2005, 2006 and 2007, but he was not Aaron Rodgers, he was at best an above average college QB surrounded by great future pros so his skill set was a good fit for those teams (not necessarily Dunbar's spread) but would not translate well to this team at all.

1979bear;841986014 said:

---

Fact: JT successfully recruits Elite-11 quarterbacks most years.
Fact: There are three on the roster today. One of whome was rated #2 in the nation last fall as a HS student.

Query: Why does our coach start a kid with no BCS school offers? Not Elite-11, not a quarterback that wold start at another Pac-12 school. But one who came from BUFFALO before transferring here.

---

Maynard is starting because he showed he was the best option, performed the best, out of spring practice a year ago and again last spring. No one was clamoring for Mansion to play past year. Bridgford has no one wishing he was playing this year - how happy was everyone when Maynard came into the Nevada game after that abysmal start by Bridgford? Kline, despite all the talent, was not going to start as a true freshman. The other three (Bridgford, Hinder, and Boehm) simply didn't show enough to warrant a change from Maynard (Watch the spring game film - its all we have to go on, but it is pretty clear why the depth chart is the way it is). Give Maynard more than a few fleeting seconds to throw, open consistent running lanes, and keep the left side of the line for getting penalties, and things take on a MUCH different look. Maynard has flaws (He will always throw too high on the short, easy passes), but give him a consistent OL and we win games with the talent we have. Next year will be a lot better - if the right OL is on the field.

the_purple_drank;841986115 said:

---

Why this belief? Riley played Nevada before and we only got crushed the first time.

---

NOTE: the following is my own take on Revisionist History, like some of the other posters above (not as psycho as "We could have beat USC and be 6-2!!!") --


Riley wouldn't have been in the position to be suspended for the first quarter by our HC, the Ghandhi of the PAC-12.

Riley looked somewhat normal against Maryland on the East Coast and we got blasted.

Riley destroyed Maryland in the revenge game the next year at CMS.

Riley does not lose in the revenge game against Nevada, connects with KA for 3 long TD passes and 150+ catching yards in the first half alone. Nevada, terrorized by the Riley/Allen combo lets Isi and CJ rush for another 150 yards in the second half and Cal wins by a modest 14 points after going up big and then cruising.

See? How you like us now?

Masau80;841986125 said:

---

Maynard is starting because he showed he was the best option, performed the best, out of spring practice a year ago and again last spring. No one was clamoring for Mansion to play past year. Bridgford has no one wishing he was playing this year - how happy was everyone when Maynard came into the Nevada game after that abysmal start by Bridgford? Kline, despite all the talent, was not going to start as a true freshman. The other three (Bridgford, Hinder, and Boehm) simply didn't show enough to warrant a change from Maynard (Watch the spring game film - its all we have to go on, but it is pretty clear why the depth chart is the way it is). Give Maynard more than a few fleeting seconds to throw, open consistent running lanes, and keep the left side of the line for getting penalties, and things take on a MUCH different look. Maynard has flaws (He will always throw too high on the short, easy passes), but give him a consistent OL and we win games with the talent we have. Next year will be a lot better - if the right OL is on the field.

---

Just a few points.
1. during Spring and Summer of 2011 and again 2012, it was reported by a number of observers that ZM had more picks during practice than AB or other backups. But JT said he decided on ZM since ZM was mobile and able to make things happen with his feet. We have seen that ZM has gotten more than his share of INTs and his passing is terrible. IMO his feet do not seem to offset the problems caused by the INTs and poor passing

2. JT has not made any attempt to give the backups any playing time at all, despite the obvious deficiencies that ZM has shown. Allowing ZM to sit for a series of two following a few terrible passes
might help him to take the measure of the opposing D.

3. JT seems to be putting a lot of weight on ZM's performance in practice. I have seen ZM make some pretty good throws during pre-game warm-ups. But I have rarely seen him make those same throws during live fire when there are rushers coming at him. Maybe ZM is a "practice" Diva. [I have not heard this to be the case.]

4. For the sake of argument let's accept that ZM is clearly better than the backups and that that the backups cannot be coached up to improve their performance and that JT is correct in his assessment. This tells me some very bad things about JT.

(a) JT is terrible at spotting talent and struck out on 3 Elite 11 QBs in a row, such that not one of them is good enough now and cannot be coached to be good enough in the future to out-perform a QB as bad as ZM.

(b) if the 3 Elite 11 QB's do have the basic talent, JT is terrible at developing that talent and has failed to coach up these potentially great QB's so that they could out perform a QB as bad as ZM.

Whichever answer you choose, it says that JT is the wrong guy.

68great;841986169 said:

---

Just a few points.
1. during Spring and Summer of 2011 and again 2012, it was reported by a number of observers that ZM had more picks during practice than AB or other backups. But JT said he decided on ZM since ZM was mobile and able to make things happen with his feet. We have seen that ZM has gotten more than his share of INTs and his passing is terrible. IMO his feet do not seem to offset the problems caused by the INTs and poor passing

2. JT has not made any attempt to give the backups any playing time at all, despite the obvious deficiencies that ZM has shown. Allowing ZM to sit for a series of two following a few terrible passes
might help him to take the measure of the opposing D.

3. JT seems to be putting a lot of weight on ZM's performance in practice. I have seen ZM make some pretty good throws during pre-game warm-ups. But I have rarely seen him make those same throws during live fire when there are rushers coming at him. Maybe ZM is a "practice" Diva. [I have not heard this to be the case.]

4. For the sake of argument let's accept that ZM is clearly better than the backups and that that the backups cannot be coached up to improve their performance and that JT is correct in his assessment. This tells me some very bad things about JT.

(a) JT is terrible at spotting talent and struck out on 3 Elite 11 QBs in a row, such that not one of them is good enough now and cannot be coached to be good enough in the future to out-perform a QB as bad as ZM.

(b) if the 3 Elite 11 QB's do have the basic talent, JT is terrible at developing that talent and has failed to coach up these potentially great QB's so that they could out perform a QB as bad as ZM.

Whichever answer you choose, it says that JT is the wrong guy.

---

Or it could mean that just because a high school kid has that "Elite 11" moniker attached to him, it doesn't automatically translate to success a the next level. I have heard that Bridgford is an excellent practice QB - but EVERY game he has been in, including the spring game, he has not looked good. He has a slow delivery and he throws a slow football. Back-up QBs don't get playing time in DI football, unless they are part of a special package (Bell at Oklahoma and Bennett at Oregon, for example) - that is just a fact of life. The reality is that Aaron Rodgers spoiled everyone's standards. Kline and Goff behind him could be the guys that turn the position around.

Masau80;841986197 said:

---

Or it could mean that just because a high school kid has that "Elite 11" moniker attached to him, it doesn't automatically translate to success a the next level. I have heard that Bridgford is an excellent practice QB - but EVERY game he has been in, including the spring game, he has not looked good. He has a slow delivery and he throws a slow football. Back-up QBs don't get playing time in DI football, unless they are part of a special package (Bell at Oklahoma and Bennett at Oregon, for example) - that is just a fact of life. The reality is that Aaron Rodgers spoiled everyone's standards. Kline and Goff behind him could be the guys that turn the position around.

---

Rogers spoiled everyone's standards because he didn't have to learn the whole damn play encyclopedia. The play encyclopedia was massively streamlined because he didn't have the requisite 4 year apprenticeship.

slider643;841986254 said:

---

Rogers spoiled everyone's standards because he didn't have to learn the whole damn play encyclopedia. The play encyclopedia was massively streamlined because he didn't have the requisite 4 year apprenticeship.

---

Having his level of talent didn't hurt either!