In the last 12 years, about a third of the quarterbacks in the BCS championship were first year starters and the 1st year starters won almost half of the BCS championship games.
Now, the subject line is sort of tongue in cheek. I know that college quarterbacks usually get better with experience. Also, "first year starter" is not the same as "never took a single snap in a game" which is the case at Cal.
But inexperienced QB's have done quite well lately in the Pac 12--if you consider the 2012 QB play at Oregon, Stanford (second half of season) and UCLA.
Goff/Kline/Hinder may not have the same success as Mariota, Hundley or Hogan but there is a chance that whomever is named the starter will be playing pretty well by the time the conference schedule starts.

cubzwin;842140700 said:

---

In the last 12 years, about a third of the quarterbacks in the BCS championship were first year starters and the 1st year starters won almost half of the BCS championship games.
Now, the subject line is sort of tongue in cheek. I know that college quarterbacks usually get better with experience. Also, "first year starter" is not the same as "never took a single snap in a game" which is the case at Cal.
But inexperienced QB's have done quite well lately in the Pac 12--if you consider the 2012 QB play at Oregon, Stanford (second half of season) and UCLA.
Goff/Kline/Hinder may not have the same success as Mariota, Hundley or Hogan but there is a chance that whomever is named the starter will be playing pretty well by the time the conference schedule starts.

---

The game is certainly changing. Or, perhaps, QBs are arriving better prepared. It was not long ago where there was a long, long streak of Pac-10 winning teams who were QB'd by a senior. Those days, suddenly, are long gone.

grandmastapoop;842140705 said:

---

The game is certainly changing. Or, perhaps, QBs are arriving better prepared. It was not long ago where there was a long, long streak of Pac-10 winning teams who were QB'd by a senior. Those days, suddenly, are long gone.

---

As are seemingly the more complex offenses they were running.

drizzlybears brother;842140717 said:

---

As are seemingly the more complex offenses they were running.

---

Well supposedly we are going the opposite direction with a pretty simple offense

moonpod;842140745 said:

---

Well supposedly we are going the opposite direction with a pretty simple offense

---

Yes. That's the point I was trying to make.

"those days [of requiring senior QBs], suddenly, are long gone."

As are seemingly the more complex offenses they were running.

90sBear;842140829 said:

---

I don't think a monumentally complex offense was ever the norm in college football.

I mean, there's no good reason a QB can't learn the basics in the fall, use their first year to play it out in practice and be 100% comfortable and fluid in it by his second year. If the average QB can't do that, the offensive coach has to go.

---

Not my point. But it's true that the QB's role became increasingly more difficult as passing became more prominent and defenses more diverse. GMP's comment about the shift in the experience levels of successful QBs isn't made up. It was not that long ago that it was a given that to win in the Pac required an upperclass QB. It's no longer so and my point is that it is in part due to the trend toward simpler, quicker offenses.

drizzlybears brother;842140795 said:

---

Yes. That's the point I was trying to make.

"those days [of requiring senior QBs], suddenly, are long gone."

As are seemingly the more complex offenses they were running.

---

whoops misread that

- big difference between first year starter and a first year starter in a newly installed offense....

yes yes, new offense is supposedly very simple. i suppose we'll see.

cubzwin;842140700 said:

---

In the last 12 years, about a third of the quarterbacks in the BCS championship were first year starters and the 1st year starters won almost half of the BCS championship games.
Now, the subject line is sort of tongue in cheek. I know that college quarterbacks usually get better with experience. Also, "first year starter" is not the same as "never took a single snap in a game" which is the case at Cal.
But inexperienced QB's have done quite well lately in the Pac 12--if you consider the 2012 QB play at Oregon, Stanford (second half of season) and UCLA.
Goff/Kline/Hinder may not have the same success as Mariota, Hundley or Hogan but there is a chance that whomever is named the starter will be playing pretty well by the time the conference schedule starts.

---

vanity;842140882 said:

---

.... yes yes, new offense is supposedly very simple. i suppose we'll see.

---

of course ... soon :p

cubzwin;842140700 said:

---

In the last 12 years, about a third of the quarterbacks in the BCS championship were first year starters and the 1st year starters won almost half of the BCS championship games.
Now, the subject line is sort of tongue in cheek. I know that college quarterbacks usually get better with experience. Also, "first year starter" is not the same as "never took a single snap in a game" which is the case at Cal.
But inexperienced QB's have done quite well lately in the Pac 12--if you consider the 2012 QB play at Oregon, Stanford (second half of season) and UCLA.
Goff/Kline/Hinder may not have the same success as Mariota, Hundley or Hogan but there is a chance that whomever is named the starter will be playing pretty well by the time the conference schedule starts.

---

Your comment would be more compelling if you noted the quality of O-lines these successful youngsters played behind. 3 of the 4 Pac-12 teams with successful young QBs last year played behind good OLs (Stanford, Oregon and ASU) UCLA was the one exception. I think the concern about Cal is the dual issues at QB and OL. If it was just one or the other it would be different.
Still, your point gives cause for some optimism as we have plenty of talent at QB.

heartofthebear;842140959 said:

---

Your comment would be more compelling if you noted the quality of O-lines these successful youngsters played behind. 3 of the 4 Pac-12 teams with successful young QBs last year played behind good OLs (Stanford, Oregon and ASU) UCLA was the one exception. I think the concern about Cal is the dual issues at QB and OL. If it was just one or the other it would be different.
Still, your point gives cause for some optimism as we have plenty of talent at QB.

---

Great observation about the OL being a key contributor to a successful young QB. That being said, with a completely new system, to infer that our OL will be below league average really has no basis in fact - just like with the QB hand-wringing. Coach Dykes and Coach Franklin are successful because they have been able to put well-coached athletes on the field to successfully run their system. Why would we think that Cal athletes would be any different?

A guy like Mariota can also make an OL look really good--tall, quick release, strong arm, accurate, can take off and run like the wind. I'm not saying UO didn't have a good OL, they sent a kid to the NFL in the first round, but a great QB can showcase the OL, not just vice versa.