Given that Dykes pulled Goff again after his inability to hold on to the ball and brought in Kline, does Cal now have a QB controversy? Kline had some success throwing for a couple of TDs and moving the offense, but also had an INT and missed some passes. Going into the rest of the season does Dykes sit Goff and give Kline a chance to start to show what he can do as a starter?

I think we do now.

All the fumbles by Goff are now magnified because he had the ball just fly backwards out of his hand in normal playing conditions. That's just ridiculous man. I imagine that would just make your hair fall out as a coach, it's no wonder they pulled him immediately after that.

What Kline shows is DECISIVENESS. Teams pick up on that. He earned a start next week.

I think that there was no controversy before the start of the game, but Goff's inability to limit TOs has forced Dykes to reconsider his position. If he doesn't give Kline a chance to start and Goff has another day like the Oregon or today's game, the already frustrated fans will be to loud to ignore and he will have to start Kline. Goff just played himself into a QB controversy.

Sonny is in a bind. I get the sense that he wants to keep on building Goff and has heavily invested in him until now (fall camp, practice time, 6 games). It's like when you bet on something and don't want to cut your losses and instead double-down because this is the bet you made.

However, if he starts Goff next week he knows that a certain portion of our fan base will be outraged. Others may just scratch their heads.

I wouldn't be surprised if either QB was named starter next week.

I don't think that this should be a controversy.

I think Goff's play is greatly affected by the terrible OL and that he could be a fantastic QB, but Kline deserves a chance to show what he can do in a start.

i just dont think that goff was ready to play behind this bad of an oline and defense that puts this much pressure on the offense. if the team was better theyd be able to pick up for some of his mistakes. that said kline now deserves his shot. he seemed to handle sh*t circumstances in two games better than goff.

I agree the O-line play has been less than adequate and that Goff has had to deal with being sacked and hit. It would be very telling if Kline started and had to deal with the same deficiencies that Goff has had to for a full game.

BearNIt;842202062 said:

---

It would be very telling if Kline... had to deal with the same deficiencies that Goff has had to.

---

Like having to scramble on half the pass plays and ending up as the 2nd leading rusher?

concernedparent;842202064 said:

---

Like having to scramble on half the pass plays and ending up as the 2nd leading rusher?

---

I don't think either of these guys are Tebow. They need to read and react quickly, not scramble. However, neither of them have the experience to do it.

Kline moves better in the pocket, and makes his reads much quicker. Hes only weakness is having trouble hooking up with receivers on deep balls, but is that a lack of first team reps?

Either way I'd start him

Quote:
Originally Posted by BearNIt View Post
It would be very telling if Kline... had to deal with the same deficiencies that Goff has had to.

concernedparent;842202064 said:

---

Like having to scramble on half the pass plays and ending up as the 2nd leading rusher?

---

That's why Dykes will have to start Kline. He has to see what Kline can or can't do all things being equal. If Kline gets a chance and fails then no more controversy. If Kline succeeds then Dykes has a huge problem to deal with. Does he sit Goff a freshman who has already set records while at Cal or does he announces Cal's two QB system?

Here's my take at this point: why not give Kline a few starts or at least designate a quarter (2nd or 3rd) where he runs the first team offense, see what he has...but don't expect him to be that much better than Goff with the poor OL and poor running game. This isn't Aaron Rodgers replacing Reggie Robertson. This is two fairly equal and young players, on a bad team.

Kline looked fresh coming in the 3rd quarter and he moved the ball and scored but it was the 3rd quarter against a mix of starters and mop-up crew and the game was long over. He looked good but didn't look like a world beater who could put the team on his back and carry them despite the OL and running game, i.e., he wasn't head and shoulder above Goff or a magic bullet.

One thing I did notice however, the offense seemed more dynamic with even a slightly more mobile QB. The uptempo offense really does benefit from a QB that can throw the 25 yard strike and on the next play 15 seconds later run the read option and take a 10 yard run up the seam. It's that combo of deep ball and then a slashing run through a tired defense that just kills.

I hate to say it but going with Goff as the starter was a big risk given the possible scenarios now that we knew were possible. Better to start the upper classman and then opt out to the frosh. But either way it was a difficult decision. No one could predicted how many key injuries would take place after the first games.

HaloBear;842201971 said:

---

I don't think that this should be a controversy.

I think Goff's play is greatly affected by the terrible OL and that he could be a fantastic QB, but Kline deserves a chance to show what he can do in a start.

---

agree.

why is it a controversy? we have two skilled qb's and need to see which one is best equipped to lead this team.

If anything we should have a coaching controversy.

Yes.

Kline surprised me with his mobility. We need a little bit of that.

I think Dykes would make the QB change if he believed Kline would give us a better chance at winning here on out. IIRC he has done this in the past at La Tech.

HaloBear;842201971 said:

---

I don't think that this should be a controversy.

I think Goff's play is greatly affected by the terrible OL and that he could be a fantastic QB, but Kline deserves a chance to show what he can do in a start.

---

Yeah, I'm not seeing the controversy, either. Kline deserves a start.

I now want Kline in there!

I really don't get how this phrase "QB controversy" is used, as in: "Oh noes! Your program has a QB controversy! That means you're screwed!" It's like "QB controversy" is another word for "herpes".

It means the guy you're not starting may be a better option than the guy you're starting, meaning it might be worth it to make a change (and deal with the negative effects of such a change). Is that so bad?

What's bad is when coaches stay with a poorly performing QB just to avoid the dreaded QB controversy.

At this point play whoever is doing better. You're only going to motivate the other and at the end of the year maybe one emerges and even if one doesn't 't you have two seasoned young kids

No controversy for me, goff played himself out of the job

tommie317;842202253 said:

---

No controversy for me, goff played himself out of the job

---

I agree. The switch has to be made. I don't see how things could get any worse...

TiredBear;842202233 said:

---

I now want Kline in there!

---

I've reached this point as well.

TiredBear;842202429 said:

---

I agree. The switch has to be made. I don't see how things could get any worse...

---

Sadly, I think it could get worse. You could destroy the confidence and progress of a young Qb (think Riley) only to discover that the next guy is no better. I am not saying this is a reason not to do it, just that things could get worse. Have a nice day.

Well I don't think it's Goff's fault, and I don't think he's played all that badly, considering that he's a true freshman.
But this season is long lost. I want to see both Kline and Goff in game situations, to prepare them better for next year's QB competition.

If I remember correctly, the main reasons that Goff got the nod over Kline was his ability to not turn the ball over and his cool, calm demeanor. I am not seeing this from Goff right now and like what others have posted, he played himself out of the starting QB position. I would have to imagine that Goff himself thinks this is the case also.

Go!Bears;842202442 said:

---

Sadly, I think it could get worse. You could destroy the confidence and progress of a young Qb (think Riley) only to discover that the next guy is no better. I am not saying this is a reason not to do it, just that things could get worse. Have a nice day.

---

Let's remember that Goff has been coughing up the ball far too much lately. RBs get benched all the time for that, so why not QBs? All players need to be accountable.

Any QB whose confidence would get destroyed simply by being asked to sit on the bench after fumbling shouldn't be the starting QB at Cal. With that said, I doubt Goff is that kind of player and I look forward to him pushing Kline and winning back the starting job.

510Bear;842202234 said:

---

I really don't get how this phrase "QB controversy" is used, as in: "Oh noes! Your program has a QB controversy! That means you're screwed!" It's like "QB controversy" is another word for "herpes".

It means the guy you're not starting may be a better option than the guy you're starting, meaning it might be worth it to make a change (and deal with the negative effects of such a change). Is that so bad?

What's bad is when coaches stay with a poorly performing QB just to avoid the dreaded QB controversy.

---

+1
This 2 QB "controversy" is nothing compared to the 1 QB controversy we had under JT. If playing the guys that give you the best chance of winning means making a change at QB, I'll take it.

BerlinerBaer;842202467 said:

---

Let's remember that Goff has been coughing up the ball far too much lately. RBs get benched all the time for that, so why not QBs? All players need to be accountable.

Any QB whose confidence would get destroyed simply by being asked to sit on the bench after fumbling shouldn't be the starting QB at Cal. With that said, I doubt Goff is that kind of player and I look forward to him pushing Kline and winning back the starting job.

---

It may very well be that Kline throws more INTs than Goff, but when you factor in fumbles, I think Kline secures the ball more. Fumbles are more costly when they come from the QB because they happen in the backfield rather than downfield. Heck, on long passes, INTs are not much worse than a punt. But Goff's fumbles have given teams a short field and put our D in even more trouble than they have been.

I guess I've never seen a QB "controversy" where one QB's play has regressed from ok to horrible, is plagued by an inexplicable ability to hold onto the ball and who lacks confidence and with that possess questionable leadership.

Performance has been poor over several games. Back-ups, by definition, are there for when that happens. Nothing odd or controversial about that...

I was fully on board with Goff, but it's time to try Kline for a game or two. If it works out, stick with Kline. If not, reevaluate based on each player's performance in practice and in any game time that Goff gets in games Kline starts.

I don't think a team without a Division I win can have a player position controversy.