OaktownBear;842309143 said:

---

We did not almost beat Arizona and you certainly can't say we SHOULD have beaten them. We were down by two scores for much of the game including almost the whole 4th quarter. We scored at the end to give us an opportunity for an onside kick. That is not almost winning. We were competitive for one of the few times in the season, and that was nice, but I think it is only seen as good relative to the rest of the season.

We had a better chance of beating tOSU the year before, and we know how that worked out the next season.

If we have improved the way we need to, we should beat Sac State, CU, NW and at least 1 out of UA, WSU, and OSU. However, we have to improve a lot to achieve that. I think some have not recognized how bad we were last year. We only lost one game by less than two touchdowns.

Also, some are saying that this year's schedule is easier. I don't agree. It is easier for a GOOD team, because we have the tough games at home. If we were an 8+ win kind of team, that would be great. But we aren't. Of the games we should have a good chance of being competitive in, we have NW, OSU, WSU, UA on the road, all of whom we had at home last year. THOSE are games we can win and thus are more difficult this year than last. CU is the only close one that flips in our favor. The other teams that we get at home beat us by 24, 27, 39, and 50. I don't think it makes it better for us to play teams at home that we haven't even been competitive with. Obviously swapping OSU and BYU gives us a chance of winning another nonconference game, although I'm concerned about our motivation at that point if the conference season doesn't go well.

---

Didn't Goff have a bad pick thrown in the Red Zone for that game? I seem to recall him getting picked off in the endzone and had we scored on that possession would've made for a closer game.

OaktownBear;842309143 said:

---

We did not almost beat Arizona and you certainly can't say we SHOULD have beaten them. We were down by two scores for much of the game including almost the whole 4th quarter. We scored at the end to give us an opportunity for an onside kick. That is not almost winning. We were competitive for one of the few times in the season, and that was nice, but I think it is only seen as good relative to the rest of the season.

We had a better chance of beating tOSU the year before, and we know how that worked out the next season.

If we have improved the way we need to, we should beat Sac State, CU, NW and at least 1 out of UA, WSU, and OSU. However, we have to improve a lot to achieve that. I think some have not recognized how bad we were last year. We only lost one game by less than two touchdowns.

Also, some are saying that this year's schedule is easier. I don't agree. It is easier for a GOOD team, because we have the tough games at home. If we were an 8+ win kind of team, that would be great. But we aren't. Of the games we should have a good chance of being competitive in, we have NW, OSU, WSU, UA on the road, all of whom we had at home last year. THOSE are games we can win and thus are more difficult this year than last. CU is the only close one that flips in our favor. The other teams that we get at home beat us by 24, 27, 39, and 50. I don't think it makes it better for us to play teams at home that we haven't even been competitive with. Obviously swapping OSU and BYU gives us a chance of winning another nonconference game, although I'm concerned about our motivation at that point if the conference season doesn't go well.

---

the easier part is that theres actually a gradient. i think playing oregon and ohio st early last year really hurt our confidence.

we have most of our weakest competition first which can allow us to build confidence if we can win those games, then you may see us play the tougher competition much better because they'll actually believe that they actually have a chance to win those games. regardless of the percentages of actually winning games against schools like oregon or stanford, players will play harder if they actually believe that they have a shot at winning.

i think most people realize how bad we were last year. we were historically bad, maybe the worst team in cal history. but ive also watched cal teams like mariucci's team when they had that horrible defense and watched atari callen get burned like crazy that year. the next year, he got better and then after not a long time, we were calling that same defense the "hit squad." we did have a lot of youth and injuries, so theres still a lot of potential there where things can change pretty dramatically in a short amount of time

StillNoStanfurdium;842309059 said:

---

I'm thinking with the union issue and terrible post-season momentum that NU will in fact be worse this time around when facing us. I think our changes will be greater than their changes and since it was a fairly close game decided by some inopportune turnovers that Goff's improvements and our defensive improvements could very well swing things in our favor even when it's an away game.

---

But they have iPads!!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/sports/ncaafootball/at-northwestern-a-blitz-to-defeat-an-effort-to-unionize.html

okaydo;842309167 said:

---

But they have iPads!!

---

I don't care if they have Maxi Pads. I want to beat the crap out of them.

The only reason Goff has not won games is because of that sh*t pile of a defense. If we had a competent defense, we would have won at least 3 more. It's not a lot, but I'm trying to be unbiased.

BeteRouge;842309135 said:

---

Only if Hogan is hit by a train OR Shaw has a personality transplant.

Hogan is good. Maybe not a top 3 Qb in conference, but if Stanford's system is working, it doesn't need an Andrew Luck to be good enough. In 99% of the cases, Shaw values experience and performance over pure talent. In Hogan he has the first two and enough of the latter.

---

Mariota gets the nod over Hundley... done it more consistently and generally in bigger games on a bigger stage. Hogan is a winner, it doesn't always show up on the stat sheet but he really knows how to manage a game and seems to have a knack to make the big play at the right time.

StillNoStanfurdium;842309059 said:

---

I'm thinking with the union issue and terrible post-season momentum that NU will in fact be worse this time around when facing us. I think our changes will be greater than their changes and since it was a fairly close game decided by some inopportune turnovers that Goff's improvements and our defensive improvements could very well swing things in our favor even when it's an away game.

---

I'm thinking there's a big difference between playing a B1G team at home vs. on the road. The game against Ohio St. was a pleasant surprise. I wouldn't expect that every time. I think that the NU game will be a tone setter like it should have been last year had Cal not had injury problems. IOWs, how Cal does against NU will say a great deal about how good they are. If they beat NU, I think they can beat enough other teams to become bowl eligible. In any case, I think Cal will be competitive like last year.

gobears725;842309129 said:

---

im with NYC, we're winning every game until we lose them. frankly HOB theres no right answer in this debate because we're basically trying to predict the future. i feel like that if we improve, that it will also reflect in our W-L record and i feel that we at least made some moves regarding coaching and are getting some key players healthy which should at least give us a decent chance to improve. to each their own on this type of discussion

---

well at least I agree with that. We should be noticeably better, barring injury or other attrition and I like our defensive coaches. We will go as our OL goes. So for right now it's a big ? I'd feel better if Adcock and M. Cochran had been ready this spring. And I'll feel better when they are back.

He is good. Two years from now he will be #3 and in his Senior year he will be 1 in our conference and one of the top 3 QBs in the nation. Watch.

#2 just barely behind Mariota.

#1. Mariota
#2 Goff
#3 Hundley

Goff is going to be a first round draft pick in 2-3 years, and the hype train/machine is going to get going this year. When all is said and done Goff could be a top 10 career passing yards leader for the NCAA and obviously all time yards leader in the Pac-12. I also believe he will set records in touchdowns, attempts, completions, and lead us to a rose bowl not next year but the year after.

in Goff we trust!!

Anyone saying Goff is lower than 5 is crazy. Lower than 3 and I think you're crazy, but 5 is insane. There isnt anyone in the Pac-12 I would take over Goff. And Goff with the glove is going to probably throw for 4,000 yards and 35Tds next year. Get the popcorn ready because the All Pac-12 first team QB isnt going to be coming from UCLA or Oregon, because they will under perform and get hurt, but from our very own Jared "2016 Hesiman Winner" Goff

Optimistic Bear;842309585 said:

---

#2 just barely behind Mariota.

#1. Mariota
#2 Goff
#3 Hundley

Goff is going to be a first round draft pick in 2-3 years, and the hype train/machine is going to get going this year. When all is said and done Goff could be a top 10 career passing yards leader for the NCAA and obviously all time yards leader in the Pac-12. I also believe he will set records in touchdowns, attempts, completions, and lead us to a rose bowl not next year but the year after.

in Goff we trust!!

---

well ... if the OL gets us a running game ... and pass protects ...
Yenser seems to be hitting his stride as the OL coach.

Optimistic Bear;842309587 said:

---

Anyone saying Goff is lower than 5 is crazy. Lower than 3 and I think you're crazy, but 5 is insane. There isnt anyone in the Pac-12 I would take over Goff. And Goff with the glove is going to probably throw for 4,000 yards and 35Tds next year. Get the popcorn ready because the All Pac-12 first team QB isnt going to be coming from UCLA or Oregon, because they will under perform and get hurt, but from our very own Jared "2016 Hesiman Winner" Goff

---

As an aside, how did you come up with your handle?

:cheer

Bobodeluxe;842309592 said:

---

As an aside, how did you come up with your handle?

:cheer

---

I just call it as I see it.

Jared Goff with as bad as we were last year, especially with pass protection and bad weather, and injury, and games getting out of control was pretty amazing, is going to be a star.

I cannot remember the last time I was so excited for a returning QB as I am this year. This is probably the first time in at least 5-7 years we don't have a question mark at QB coming into the season.

Cal is going to be in a bowl game next year, it is just a matter of which one

Bobodeluxe;842309592 said:

---

As an aside, how did you come up with your handle?

:cheer

---

I am naturally optimistic, and I am a Cal bear, and they seem to go well together. It was between that and Realistic Bear and I thought what's the difference...

XXXBEAR;842309326 said:

---

He is good. Two years from now he will be #3 and in his Senior year he will be 1 in our conference and one of the top 3 QBs in the nation. Watch.

---

If he turns out to be that good he will be gone as a junior. We should be so blessed.

Optimistic Bear;842309595 said:

---

I just call it as I see it.

Jared Goff with as bad as we were last year, especially with pass protection and bad weather, and injury, and games getting out of control was pretty amazing, is going to be a star.

I cannot remember the last time I was so excited for a returning QB as I am this year. This is probably the first time in at least 5-7 years we don't have a question mark at QB coming into the season.
Cal is going to be in a bowl game next year, it is just a matter of which one

---

thats actually a really good point. :bravo

gobears725;842309607 said:

---

thats actually a really good point. :bravo

---

Well it wasn't a question mark going into the 2012 season either. It was Maynard's senior year, and he was the established starter by virtue of starting every game in 2011.

KoreAmBear;842309620 said:

---

Well it wasn't a question mark going into the 2012 season either. It was Maynard's senior year, and he was the established starter by virtue of starting every game in 2011.

---

Uh. There was no "controversy" but I would argue it was a question mark

KoreAmBear;842309620 said:

---

Well it wasn't a question mark going into the 2012 season either. It was Maynard's senior year, and he was the established starter by virtue of starting every game in 2011.

---

I think there were many question marks. Kline? AB? He didn't even start the game against Nevada, and there was competition for the spot as well. This year unquestions no QB controversy. Goff is the guy and it isn't even close, and he throws a great ball and I think the issues going into the year are mostly on the OL, RBs, and do we have a defense who can at least hold teams to under 40 points a game

Optimistic Bear;842309629 said:

---

I think there were many question marks. Kline? AB? He didn't even start the game against Nevada, and there was competition for the spot as well. This year unquestions no QB controversy. Goff is the guy and it isn't even close, and he throws a great ball and I think the issues going into the year are mostly on the OL, RBs, and do we have a defense who can at least hold teams to under 40 points a game

---

With Tedford would there have been any question marks? The year of question marks would have been 2011, but JT treated Maynard like he was our Andrew Luck. Then on the day of the unveiling of the new CMS in 2012, Tedford pulls one of the more bizarre decisions in recent memory: sitting the senior who started every game the year before for a quarter of the game (for something he did during the summer), and not telling anyone that he would be doing this until game day. But back to the point -- no one had any reason to think Bridgford or Kline would get a bona fide chance. I think by that point we were resigned to thinking Maynard was our best bet, not because we thought he was that good, but Tedford pretty much inexplicably went all-in with the guy in 2011 (when the competition between him and Bridgford was close in fall 2011) and now suddenly he was the only guy with any real game experience.

SonOfCalVa;842309589 said:

---

well ... if the OL gets us a running game ... and pass protects ...
Yenser seems to be hitting his stride as the OL coach.

---

OK,.. so a 1-11 season, no running game and having no one who can consistently snap a deep ball to a QB is hitting stride? I understand that Yenser can only do so much, the problem is what he has to work with. Why are you so high on Adcock? He has perfected the downfield 'matador' block technique and straight up misses blocks similar to Tagaloa for one on one. Sorry but the O Line has been an obvious mess for years. This has to get fixed.

Dduster;842309757 said:

---

OK,.. so a 1-11 season, no running game and having no one who can consistently snap a deep ball to a QB is hitting stride? I understand that Yenser can only do so much, the problem is what he has to work with. Why are you so high on Adcock? He has perfected the downfield 'matador' block technique and straight up misses blocks similar to Tagaloa for one on one. Sorry but the O Line has been an obvious mess for years. This has to get fixed.

---

I'm not "high on Adcock" but having experienced players back is better than not having them back.
Losing them last season certainly contributed in no small way to the OL "mess", and it was messy.
How and where they fit into the OL is up to Yenser and Franklin, and to them.

NYCGOBEARS;842309172 said:

---

I don't care if they have Maxi Pads. I want to beat the crap out of them.

---

My mom calls iPad mini "mini-pads"

Dduster;842309757 said:

---

OK,.. so a 1-11 season, no running game and having no one who can consistently snap a deep ball to a QB is hitting stride? I understand that Yenser can only do so much, the problem is what he has to work with. Why are you so high on Adcock? He has perfected the downfield 'matador' block technique and straight up misses blocks similar to Tagaloa for one on one. Sorry but the O Line has been an obvious mess for years. This has to get fixed.

---

people like adcock because he can actually snap the ball. rigsbee struggles more with the snap. the unit as a whole played better with adcock so at least his calls seem ok.