I find it interesting how defensive many have become in response to any criticism, perceived or real, of Goff. I think everyone agrees that he has generally done an amazing job for a true fr on a team with a lousy D and run game. There's been a ton of pressure on him from day 1 and nobody is blaming him for the teams woes.

That said, the team is in desperate need of a spark and the results on O are getting worse not better. I have not really heard any good arguments against not giving Kline a chance other than the opportunity cost to Goff of missed reps. That seems like a small risk for a chance to see if Kline can change things for the better.

afroski;842197350 said:

---

I find it interesting how defensive many have become in response to any criticism, perceived or real, of Goff. I think everyone agrees that he has generally done an amazing job for a true fr on a team with a lousy D and run game. There's been a ton of pressure on him from day 1 and nobody is blaming him for the teams woes.

That said, the team is in desperate need of a spark and the results on O are getting worse not better. I have not really heard any good arguments against not giving Kline a chance other than the opportunity cost to Goff of missed reps. That seems like a small risk for a chance to see if Kline can change things for the better.

---

well i think that i just disagree with the lets change and see how it turns out argument. to me thats hopeful/wishful kind of thinking that the results will be much different when the problems this team has is mostly unrelated to whoever is playing qb. im sure sonny envisioned that hed have some growing pains with goff also when he first picked him. however if kline improves then i think the case could be made that he is better than goff and thus deserves the opportunity to start. kline had a very good week of practice this past week, arguably better than goff. if he continues this, then obviously he'll have a much stronger case to play and soon force sonny to revisit his original decision to start goff.

gobears725;842197338 said:

---

it will be interesting to see what sonny does if kline continues to get better in practice

---

Is Kline improving in practice ("continues to get better")?
How so?
When?
Link(s)?
Coaches comments?

or just a bit of rhetoric by you ...

ecb;842197312 said:

---

I think it shows that Goff needs as much playing time as he can get. I don't think you pull a true frosh because of that performance. I think we need to pick a QB and develop him. Since Kline didn't show it thus far, unless he does something to show it, I think we should stick with Goff..

---

ecb, moving the goals posts to a 1-11 season. Move it some more so we can go 1-11 for back-to-back seasons.

At this point i actually think it would do Goff some good to sit down, just like the Oregon game. He clearly looks rattled out there and his confidence looks shot. Also, getting an outside perspective (watching plays unfold from the sidelines) might do him some good.

Goff is clearly regressing and "more" isn't always the best solution.

If it's any consolation, I thought Goff would play much better. I put money on the over (and lost) because I thought Goff would drop at least 4 tds.

freshfunk;842197549 said:

---

ecb, moving the goals posts to a 1-11 season. Move it some more so we can go 1-11 for back-to-back seasons.

At this point i actually think it would do Goff some good to sit down, just like the Oregon game. He clearly looks rattled out there and his confidence looks shot. Also, getting an outside perspective (watching plays unfold from the sidelines) might do him some good.

Goff is clearly regressing and "more" isn't always the best solution.

If it's any consolation, I thought Goff would play much better. I put money on the over (and lost) because I thought Goff would drop at least 4 tds.

---

I still just don't feel like the best way for him to learn is to sit him after one bad game. Again, i dont consider wsu a bad game. He needs a chance to incorporate the feedback he gets from tape and coaches this week.

I will say that if he regresses again from ucla to OSU, I'd then give Kline a start.

TouchedTheAxeIn82;842197294 said:

---

What say you now?

---

Let's see how this next game goes?

It's interesting reading this thread and the arguments for or against a given QB. What nobody has mentioned is that the coaching staff this year has a different philosophy on replacing starters during the season than last year's staff. We have seen the ongoing competition affect the OL, RB, WR. We have seen the injuries affect the depth chart on D. The result has been that practically the entire 3 deep has played at almost every position. And yet QB has remained relatively untouched.

I understand why the QB position should be treated differently than other positions. But Dykes has stated that Kline and Goff are close and that Goff's job is not secured for the season.

When you consider that ever since Goff burst on the scene in the opener against NU he has regressed. When you consider that Kline played adequately in Oregon. When you consider that Goff has turned over the ball as much as Bigelow, who was benched for that reason. And when you consider that Goff's body language on and off the field against UCLA indicates some mental and emotional problems leading the team. And when you consider that leadership is one of Kline's strengths. Maybe it is time to see if a QB with better leadership and 1 yr. more maturity can do a better job in critical situations like in the red zone.

Folks that say it is a 1-11 year regardless don't realize that TOs and redzone performance have played a key role in our losses. Goff has been central to both those problems.

If you look at my posts over the years, you will see that I have never been a fan of Kline. If anything, my bias has been for Hinder because of his mobility, size and maturity. I have always been even-handed when it comes to Cal's QB's in the post Maynard era. But I just don't understand what the coaching staff is seeing in Goff right now. Who cares about the record books, Goff is almost as bad as Maynard in clutch situations.

If we are going to continue to blame the OL for these things, than be prepared for years of blaming the OL. All QBs receive pressure on almost every down. But some know how to extend plays and create time. Goff is a relative stiff in the backfield. His instincts are better than Maynard's and he will get much better with time, but for now he is way behind the curve that defines the conference standard for clutch play.

SonOfCalVa;842197363 said:

---

Is Kline improving in practice ("continues to get better")?
How so?
When?
Link(s)?
Coaches comments?

or just a bit of rhetoric by you ...

---

actually no. i get my info from a couple of paid sites. on wed kline had his best practice ever according to reports. he had 2 incompletions the entire practice

I certainly don't mind seeing what Kline can do as a starter.

So just wondering if the people who jumped down my throat about this idea have changed their minds.

Next game would be great to see Kline.

Starting him against UCLA and Oregon State would have been premature.

freshfunk;842201885 said:

---

So just wondering if the people who jumped down my throat about this idea have changed their minds.

---

It's still a bad idea. It's one thing if you think Cal should switch starters, but starting a guy for two weeks and then going to another guy no matter the results... WHY?

freshfunk;842201885 said:

---

So just wondering if the people who jumped down my throat about this idea have changed their minds.

---

It should certainly help the defense keep the other team from scoring less than 40. But hey, if 14 points at the end of another blowout excites you all that much, by all means, start him.

dimitrig;842201913 said:

---

It's still a bad idea. It's one thing if you think Cal should switch starters, but starting a guy for two weeks and then going to another guy no matter the results... WHY?

---

I think my original post was misinterpreted. The point was letting him start games and get reps as starter for at least 2 weeks.

What I was implying was that even if it turned out that he's worse, Goff WOULD STILL have the rest of the season. The main point wasn't to switch willy-nilly between the two. Obviously if he played better than Goff, then it would be worth considering keeping him as a starter.

Intermezzo;842201921 said:

---

It should certainly help the defense keep the other team from scoring less than 40. But hey, if 14 points at the end of another blowout excites you all that much, by all means, start him.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought that in a rebuilding year, you look at all positions, including QB. I guess you exclude that from rebuilding and only pick the best players at the worst positions instead of every position.

freshfunk;842201996 said:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought that in a rebuilding year, you look at all positions, including QB. I guess you exclude that from rebuilding and only pick the best players at the worst positions instead of every position.

---

You probably think Darren Ervin should get a start at RB too

heartofthebear;842197747 said:

---

It's interesting reading this thread and the arguments for or against a given QB. What nobody has mentioned is that the coaching staff this year has a different philosophy on replacing starters during the season than last year's staff. We have seen the ongoing competition affect the OL, RB, WR. We have seen the injuries affect the depth chart on D. The result has been that practically the entire 3 deep has played at almost every position. And yet QB has remained relatively untouched.

I understand why the QB position should be treated differently than other positions. But Dykes has stated that Kline and Goff are close and that Goff's job is not secured for the season.

When you consider that ever since Goff burst on the scene in the opener against NU he has regressed. When you consider that Kline played adequately in Oregon. When you consider that Goff has turned over the ball as much as Bigelow, who was benched for that reason. And when you consider that Goff's body language on and off the field against UCLA indicates some mental and emotional problems leading the team. And when you consider that leadership is one of Kline's strengths. Maybe it is time to see if a QB with better leadership and 1 yr. more maturity can do a better job in critical situations like in the red zone.

Folks that say it is a 1-11 year regardless don't realize that TOs and redzone performance have played a key role in our losses. Goff has been central to both those problems.

If you look at my posts over the years, you will see that I have never been a fan of Kline. If anything, my bias has been for Hinder because of his mobility, size and maturity. I have always been even-handed when it comes to Cal's QB's in the post Maynard era. But I just don't understand what the coaching staff is seeing in Goff right now. Who cares about the record books, Goff is almost as bad as Maynard in clutch situations.

If we are going to continue to blame the OL for these things, than be prepared for years of blaming the OL. All QBs receive pressure on almost every down. But some know how to extend plays and create time. Goff is a relative stiff in the backfield. His instincts are better than Maynard's and he will get much better with time, but for now he is way behind the curve that defines the conference standard for clutch play.

---

IMO Hinder should have gotten a series tonight. I just believe players plateau with what they can accomplish in practice if they never get in to a game. Get some live fire, then come back and see what you can do during the week. Maybe a light goes on. Bet Ervin will practice better this week.

Intermezzo;842202032 said:

---

You probably think Darren Ervin should get a start at RB too

---

Every position should be up for grabs. Put the ball on the ground? Can't execute your duties? Be prepared to lose playing time and maybe your starting spot.

This game might've been out of reach, but what about UCLA? Northwestern? Heck, even a couple early TDs against WSU could've changed that game around.

The problem in many of these games (today included) is that we would turn it over deep in our own territory and opposing teams would be 25 yards away from a touchdown. Do a couple of those early and suddenly you're down 2 or 3 TDs and playing from behind THE WHOLE GAME.