At this point, it looks very likely that we will go 1-11 this season. This season is pretty much written off.

We have 7 games left. Why not give Kline 2 weeks to: a) Get the majority of reps with the 1s during practice and, b) Play the whole game?

Even with doing that, Goff will have the rest of the 5 weeks and games to get practice on top of the 4 he's had already.

The benefits of doings this would be to see how Kline plays but also to build depth at QB in case Goff does go down.

Also, it's likely that we'll be blown out in many games going forward. Instead of giving Kline garbage time in all those games, put it together and give him a chance to play.

------

Note: I'm not saying Goff sucks or that Kline is better or that Goff did not win the starting position. I'm simply advocating an experiment during a period where we have nothing to lose.

:gobears:

This only makes sense if Sonny doesn't have total confidence in Goff going into next season.

If that is indeed the case, then by all means he should give Kline a shot in our last two games. But if it isn't, then Goff needs all the reps he can get.

let mahalic play!

Davidson;842193854 said:

---

let mahalic play!

---

Maybe we can start him in the Big Game.

It'll be just like Steve Levy in the '05 Big Game, except instead of leading us to a win, he'll score a TD at the end of the game in a 69-7 loss.

Why? So we can have a quarterback controversy? So each of them when playing will feel incredible pressure not to take a chance. That's what happened to Riley. He held the ball far too long, because Tedford told him over and over again that a turnover would lead to a sure loss. So he becomes fearful of turning the ball over and each attempt had to be perfect. It can never be perfect. At the college level you're asking too much. Even Peyton Manning screws up occasionally and at the moment he is as close as you're going to get to perfect (with apologies to AR). Riley wasn't afraid of flinging it when he first started, but beating him down will surely kill a QB's confidence. Likewise, we don't need a controversy who our QB is, it's Jared Goff. The coaches have made their decision. Dykes can watch him grow in the years to come. Kline is also a fine QB, but between the two the "experts" decided on Goff. That's just the way it is.

If Dykes makes personnel decision based on the belief that the team will be "blown out in many games going forward," then I question his fitness as head football coach at Cal

After going bat-**** crazy wondering why we never get in a three point stance (even down on the goal line) I noticed another thing this past Saturday: I knew that our OL backpedaled during some/most passing plays. I guess the idea is that during quick routes, by the time the DL contacts our OL, the ball is out or coming out. What I saw this weekend was that our C would backpedal (granted he might be our 3rd string C), engage the DT and then get immediately pushed right into the face of Goff who was throwing. This impacted his throw more than once. I just don't see how our OL can brace for the impact of a DL in full charge and not give at least a yard or two once he engages. And in doing so he is going to get pushed right into our QB. WTF?

For the life of me I've never seen OL play like ours and I'm not just talking about talent. Something has got to missing technique-wise. Maybe out OL coach didn't take great notes when he was assistant OL coach last year, I don't know.

Goff is he only reason to go to the games.

freshfunk;842193849 said:

---

Note: I'm not saying Goff sucks or that Kline is better or that Goff did not win the starting position. I'm simply advocating an experiment during a period where we have nothing to lose.

:gobears:

---

Let's try it out with Hinder. Or Mahalic. Or D'Amato. Think of how good we'd be if D'Amato was better than Goff and we were at a risk to kick or pass every play! There are so many experiments we could run! What do we have to lose?

Let's give every player on the roster an equal share of the playing time at their given position. We may lose every game but we'll lead the league in participation fairness!

6bear6;842193856 said:

---

Why? So we can have a quarterback controversy? So each of them when playing will feel incredible pressure not to take a chance. That's what happened to Riley. He held the ball far too long, because Tedford told him over and over again that a turnover would lead to a sure loss. So he becomes fearful of turning the ball over and each attempt had to be perfect. It can never be perfect. At the college level you're asking too much. Even Peyton Manning screws up occasionally and at the moment he is as close as you're going to get to perfect (with apologies to AR). Riley wasn't afraid of flinging it when he first started, but beating him down will surely kill a QB's confidence. Likewise, we don't need a controversy who our QB is, it's Jared Goff. The coaches have made their decision. Dykes can watch him grow in the years to come. Kline is also a fine QB, but between the two the "experts" decided on Goff. That's just the way it is.

---

+1. Exactly right, especially about Riley. I'd say let Kline play in the 4th quarter, but in games that are completely out of reach at that point. Tedford would not even do that very often. Let Kline compete and try to win the QB job in practice and over the next summer, like most football teams have always done. That being said, I'd still like to see Hinder or Boehm once or twice per game in a wildcat or option situation.

:gobears:

Here's another reason: So we can avoid the clusterf*ck that happened when Riley got a season-ending injury and Mansion went in there looking like a deer in headlights.

Or like when Maynard got a season-ending injury and people were lamenting that JT never gave Bridgford enough reps with the 1s or game time. Bridg came in during Oregon and also against OSU, and his timing looked off.

You can joke all you want about putting Moala at QB but Kline is right behind Goff and will be the guy who goes in if Goff goes down.

freshfunk;842193879 said:

---

Here's another reason: So we can avoid the clusterf*ck that happened when Riley got a season-ending injury and Mansion went in there looking like a deer in headlights.

Or like when Maynard got a season-ending injury and people were lamenting that JT never gave Bridgford enough reps with the 1s or game time. Bridg came in during Oregon and also against OSU, and his timing looked off.

You can joke all you want about putting Moala at QB but Kline is right behind Goff and will be the guy who goes in if Goff goes down.

---

Kline is getting plenty of practice reps with the 1s. He's also making it in at the end of games, as witnessed last week. How many other programs have you seen where the starting QB didn't start just to get the backup some practice? There's a reason it doesn't happen.

On top of that, Goff needs the reps -- remember, he's a true freshman. He will get better with reps.

freshfunk;842193879 said:

---

Here's another reason: So we can avoid the clusterf*ck that happened when Riley got a season-ending injury and Mansion went in there looking like a deer in headlights.

Or like when Maynard got a season-ending injury and people were lamenting that JT never gave Bridgford enough reps with the 1s or game time. Bridg came in during Oregon and also against OSU, and his timing looked off.

You can joke all you want about putting Moala at QB but Kline is right behind Goff and will be the guy who goes in if Goff goes down.

---

Also, if Goff goes down, well then Kline gets his starts. Why give him starts just in case Goff goes down?

Preparing for the next year? If you're talking about next year, it makes more sense to try and optimize for next year by getting the projected starter (based on him starting now) as many reps as possible.

SFCityBear;842193872 said:

---

+1. Exactly right, especially about Riley. I'd say let Kline play in the 4th quarter, but in games that are completely out of reach at that point. Tedford would not even do that very often. Let Kline compete and try to win the QB job in practice and over the next summer, like most football teams have always done. That being said, I'd still like to see Hinder or Boehm once or twice per game in a wildcat or option situation.

:gobears:

---

theres something i agree with.

ecb;842193882 said:

---

Kline is getting plenty of practice reps with the 1s. He's also making it in at the end of games, as witnessed last week. How many other programs have you seen where the starting QB didn't start just to get the backup some practice? There's a reason it doesn't happen.

On top of that, Goff needs the reps -- remember, he's a true freshman. He will get better with reps.

---

Most teams don't have an imminent 1-11 season that's so obvious this early in the season. Call it what you will but teams try new QBs all the time.

Goff has had 4 weeks and there are 7 weeks left. Take 2 of the remaining 7 weeks isn't going to make a huge difference.

ecb;842193884 said:

---

Also, if Goff goes down, well then Kline gets his starts. Why give him starts just in case Goff goes down?

Preparing for the next year? If you're talking about next year, it makes more sense to try and optimize for next year by getting the projected starter (based on him starting now) as many reps as possible.

---

If this offense is really that simple, then how many games does Goff need? Have you seen a visible improvement in his performance between games 1 and 4?

I can see him getting better and cleaning up his game a bit but he's a known quantity at this point. Kline is a big unknown.

Goff's good but Kline could be better. Kline could also be worse. We don't know.

freshfunk;842193891 said:

---

Most teams don't have an imminent 1-11 season that's so obvious this early in the season. Call it what you will but teams try new QBs all the time.

Goff has had 4 weeks and there are 7 weeks left. Take 2 of the remaining 7 weeks isn't going to make a huge difference.

---

there may be a time when that happens. but i dont think now is the time. if you make a change at this point in time, its because you think making the change will give you the best chance to beat ucla the next game. not to see what kline can do. i can see where we do this toward the end of the season if we continue not to win and goff doesnt keep improving but i dont think that putting kline in just to see what he can do sends the right message to your team. beating ucla, usc, stanford any of those teams still means something to our school even in a non bowl year. so if goff gives us the best chance to do that, then by all means keep playing him

if kline starts outplaying goff in practice then perhaps you give him a look. but by all reports that hasnt happened yet. so i see little reason to make a switch right now

freshfunk;842193891 said:

---

Most teams don't have an imminent 1-11 season that's so obvious this early in the season. Call it what you will but teams try new QBs all the time.

Goff has had 4 weeks and there are 7 weeks left. Take 2 of the remaining 7 weeks isn't going to make a huge difference.

---

No offense ff because you know that I like you personally very much but your argument is only becoming more asinine...

So we should concede the rest of the season now to perform this little experiment in "who's our QB now"? Why not? It won't matter much.

freshfunk;842193879 said:

---

Here's another reason: So we can avoid the clusterf*ck that happened when Riley got a season-ending injury and Mansion went in there looking like a deer in headlights.

Or like when Maynard got a season-ending injury and people were lamenting that JT never gave Bridgford enough reps with the 1s or game time. Bridg came in during Oregon and also against OSU, and his timing looked off.

You can joke all you want about putting Moala at QB but Kline is right behind Goff and will be the guy who goes in if Goff goes down.

---

If Goff should get injured, it really doesn't make any difference if Kline gets some experience this season prior to that happening. This season is lost. We're going to be 1-11 no matter the QB, and no matter if Kline gets any playing time. Our OL and defense are pathetic, and they will ensure we won't get anymore victories. So, it just makes sense to get Goff all the experience possible in preparation for next season. By then, hopefully, the coaching staff can work some miracles that will result in at least modest improvements in the quality of our OL and defense, thereby enabling us, with an experienced QB, to win a few games.

I'm for it at this point. I'm guessing Levy never outshone Ayoob in practice; sometimes you have to see what a guy does under the lights, and more importantly, how the other 80+ teammates respond to it.

Winning every game possible is by far the most important goal, as it effects recruiting, which will determine the success of the Dykes era. In college football, you "build for the future" by projecting the image of a winning program and attracting the best recruits.

That said, the previous regime could have done A LOT better job of preparing backup QBs.

So we bench Goff after the schedule he faced? If you want things fair, leave Goff in and wait till Stanfurd to play Kline. See how he does against a top 5 team.

I agree that you have to play the guy who plays the best in practice. Otherwise you're sending the message that practice doesn't matter. Goff, from all reports, beat out Kline fair and square. Sitting him is just going to create a controversy where none currently exists, except in the minds of Kline adherents who don't want to accept that he was outplayed by Goff in practice.

freshfunk;842193893 said:

---

If this offense is really that simple, then how many games does Goff need? Have you seen a visible improvement in his performance between games 1 and 4?

I can see him getting better and cleaning up his game a bit but he's a known quantity at this point. Kline is a big unknown.

Goff's good but Kline could be better. Kline could also be worse. We don't know.

---

We don't know. But the coaches have a much better idea than us. Have you been to the practices to see Kline for yourself? Do you still read the practice reports? If all you want is to see Kline, stop by practice -- they're open.

Kline is not a big unknown to the coaches.

freshfunk;842193891 said:

---

Most teams don't have an imminent 1-11 season that's so obvious this early in the season. Call it what you will but teams try new QBs all the time.

Goff has had 4 weeks and there are 7 weeks left. Take 2 of the remaining 7 weeks isn't going to make a huge difference.

---

Yeah, teams try new QBs when the current QBs aren't meeting expectations. Did you expect more from the true freshman QB with a terrible oline?

freshfunk;842193893 said:

---

If this offense is really that simple, then how many games does Goff need? Have you seen a visible improvement in his performance between games 1 and 4?

I can see him getting better and cleaning up his game a bit but he's a known quantity at this point. Kline is a big unknown.

Goff's good but Kline could be better. Kline could also be worse. We don't know.

---

I've seen him cut the number of tipped balls (though they are still there) and deal with an ineffective run game (which was unknown in game 1) and a worsening oline (Cochran and Adcock out).

Goff's good but Mahalic could be better. Mahalic could also be worse. We don't know.

Don't get the boy crush people on BI have with Kline. This team has 99 problems and Goff ain't one. He's done as well as any true frosh I've seen and that's with a crappy oline.

ive read reports where kline was still throwing picks in practice throughout the season. remember thats against our sh*tty defense. the game will be tougher...

ayetee11;842193916 said:

---

So we bench Goff after the schedule he faced? If you want things fair, leave Goff in and wait till Stanfurd to play Kline. See how he does against a top 5 team.

---

With the way this season is going, there are few stretches where the competition level is going to dramatically drop -and it's not a "fairness" issue (or at least not to me).

I don't think the OP (or anyone for that matter) is saying Goff is a bad QB, can't get better as he matures, etc - maybe just that for a team like ours, how much worse will it be if we do give a guy with a different skill set some starter chances?

In our next 3 games, we face #11 UCLA, Oregon State, and #16 Washington - with both ranked teams on the road, and not out of the question the game in Seattle affected by rain.

Our home game against Oregon State is going to be against one prolific offense that will require our offense to score in the high 30's to low 40's to stay within shouting distance.

Speaking of Oregon State, they did manage to weather a QB controversy and flip-flopping with Vaz and Mannion a bit last season - and so far, it hasn't affected the guy who won the job this season. I realize that injury played a key part of the ensuing controversy - but the point I am making is that a good QB can weather that storm and get better too.

Franklin admitted it was a very hard decision to choose Goff, so it is not like many other situations.

If Goff is as good as everyone here thinks - (despite the fact he has very mediocre accuracy on the long passes) and we are going to lose every game this year with him as QB, he can handle sitting for two games.

Also - you sometimes have to see if different leadership could affect the team positively.

Do you think if SC or Ohio St or Florida or LSU, etc, would not change up QBs at some point if they were losing every game. If we don't, it just says to me we are a losing program. It also is a clear signal to every other QB on the roster that they should transfer because they won't play even if we are losing every game.

They only thing that matters is winning. 500 yards between the 20s is worth nothing. Not saying that Kline will necessarily do better, but I see no harm in trying. If Goff can't handle it, he is mentally weak and not a leader in the first place.

RealDrew2;842193985 said:

---

[ If Goff can't handle it, he is mentally weak and not a leader in the first place.

---

im not sure i understand where this mentally weak and not a leader is coming from. if it happens, then im pretty sure that he'll be fine handling it. its not like he was pouting on the sideline when they pulled him from the oregon game.

RealDrew2;842193985 said:

---

Do you think if SC or Ohio St or Florida or LSU, etc, would not change up QBs at some point if they were losing every game. If we don't, it just says to me we are a losing program. It also is a clear signal to every other QB on the roster that they should transfer because they won't play even if we are losing every game.

.

---

I see every reason to change up many positions on our defense, running back and perhaps even o line. i dont see a reason to pull goff yet. if your frustrated with the losses perhaps you should look to the other parts of the team where we are not doing well. much much bigger reason why we are losing games right now. for instance lapite getting playing time was the big head scratcher to me. shouldnt ever be on a D1 field. every 3rd and long WSU went straight at lapite.

doing it just to change things up and see how things go just seems like some bad reasoning when coming to make a change at QB.

BeggarEd;842193866 said:

---

Let's give every player on the roster an equal share of the playing time at their given position. We may lose every game but we'll lead the league in participation fairness!

---

:bravo..Yes, let's try the "shuffle-the-qb" trick again and see if it might work this time for the Bears when the rest of the team is a MASH unit..:woohoo

ecb;842193863 said:

---

Let's try it out with Hinder. Or Mahalic. Or D'Amato. Think of how good we'd be if D'Amato was better than Goff and we were at a risk to kick or pass every play! There are so many experiments we could run! What do we have to lose?

---

It was a long day. Reading this was hilarious. I'm forwarding this to my brothers to provide today's dose of mirth.