QB Situation

10,569 Views | 79 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by Cave Bear
GoBears72
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Last year Ross Bowers was better than Chase Forrest and should have played. That's how you prepare for the next season, except Sonny Dykes was leaving, so no planning. Florida did it the right way when they transitioned from Chris Leak to Tim Tebow.

Former QB recruits Max Gilliam is now QB for Saddleback College and Victor Viramontes is at Riverside City College.

Chase Garbers will be a redshirt freshman next year. Mater Dei HS QB J.T. Daniels arrives in the fall. Could be he be another Vince Ferragamo or Jared Goff and start as a freshman? How good is Garbers?

Bowers should improve and hold the job but needs deep threat Demetrius Robertson and Tre Watson back, plus an improved offensive line.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GoBears72 said:

Last year Ross Bowers was better than Chase Forrest and should have played. That's how you prepare for the next season, except Sonny Dykes was leaving, so no planning. Florida did it the right way when they transitioned from Chris Leak to Tim Tebow.

Former QB recruits Max Gilliam is now QB for Saddleback College and Victor Viramontes is at Riverside City College.

Chase Garbers will be a redshirt freshman next year. Mater Dei HS QB J.T. Daniels arrives in the fall. Could be he be another Vince Ferragamo or Jared Goff and start as a freshman? How good is Garbers?

Bowers should improve and hold the job but needs deep threat Demetrius Robertson and Tre Watson back, plus an improved offensive line.
Uhh, what? He's committed to SC.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cubzwin said:

No. It would have been an interception that occurred a half second earlier. The bowl floated and was under thrown.
If he had thrown it half second earlier and assuming the issue was with his arm strength, it wouldn't have been under-thrown.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GMP said:

GoBears72 said:

Last year Ross Bowers was better than Chase Forrest and should have played. That's how you prepare for the next season, except Sonny Dykes was leaving, so no planning. Florida did it the right way when they transitioned from Chris Leak to Tim Tebow.

Former QB recruits Max Gilliam is now QB for Saddleback College and Victor Viramontes is at Riverside City College.

Chase Garbers will be a redshirt freshman next year. Mater Dei HS QB J.T. Daniels arrives in the fall. Could be he be another Vince Ferragamo or Jared Goff and start as a freshman? How good is Garbers?

Bowers should improve and hold the job but needs deep threat Demetrius Robertson and Tre Watson back, plus an improved offensive line.
Uhh, what? He's committed to SC.
He got him mixed up with J.T. Shrout
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

cubzwin said:

No. It would have been an interception that occurred a half second earlier. The bowl floated and was under thrown.
If he had thrown it half second earlier and assuming the issue was with his arm strength, it wouldn't have been under-thrown.
Yeah, the original point was if he had thrown the ball on time the receiver was wide open within range of his arm. The ball wouldn't have floated in that case. By the time he threw it, it was too late - the receiver had outrun his range.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


I just want to point out that when Dykes ran the offense you liked at LaTech, his offense went 49-51-1 in his three years.
I don't think Dykes went 49-51-1 in three years at LaTech. That would mean that the team played 33 or 34 games each year.
Yogi58
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

OaktownBear said:


I just want to point out that when Dykes ran the offense you liked at LaTech, his offense went 49-51-1 in his three years.
I don't think Dykes went 49-51-1 in three years at LaTech. That would mean that the team played 33 or 34 games each year.
Sonny Dykes went 22-15 at Louisiana Tech
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

OaktownBear said:


I just want to point out that when Dykes ran the offense you liked at LaTech, his offense went 49-51-1 in his three years.
I don't think Dykes went 49-51-1 in three years at LaTech. That would mean that the team played 33 or 34 games each year.


Sorry, very unclear of me. His offenses ranked 49, then 51, then 1.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Golden One said:

OaktownBear said:


I just want to point out that when Dykes ran the offense you liked at LaTech, his offense went 49-51-1 in his three years.
I don't think Dykes went 49-51-1 in three years at LaTech. That would mean that the team played 33 or 34 games each year.


Sorry, very unclear of me. His offenses ranked 49, then 51, then 1.
Got it! Makes sense now. Thank you.
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

BearGoggles said:

OaktownBear said:

OdontoBear66 said:

OaktownBear said:

71Bear said:

TomBear said:

I'm amazed at those who say Bowers shouldn't start next year. How in the world do you know what he'll be after an off-season, spring ball and some time maturing and in the weight room?

Let's see what he has for us in the spring. Making predictions before that, seems to me, is foolish.

I'm putting my money on him. He'll have plenty of time to study film of this year, get some good instruction, some more weight, and have time to reflect. He's tough, he's a fighter, the team seems to like and respect him, and I am hopeful he'll be the right guy for us. I'm rooting for him.
I think you just made a prediction when you said, "I'm putting my money on him."

Many of us do not believe he is the answer. He has had an entire season to demonstrate that he can throw an accurate deep pass. He has proven to be inconsistent regarding this type of pass. No amount of adding weight, more film study, reflection or instruction will change that. He is what is - an accurate passer on short and intermediate routes and a poor passer on deep passes. If you can live with that, then he is your guy. If you can't (and I think most of us are in this group), then it is time to find someone who can.
My question is 71, isn't this true at almost every position on the field? I agree that it is unlikely Bowers will be a proficient deep passer. He can't be Rodgers or Goff (or a lot of other Cal QB's I could name). But he can be Reggie Robertson. There have been a lot of years I would have taken Reggie Robertson in a heartbeat. 2004 isn't one of them. Of course we need to improve the QB position if we want to win a championship. I just can't think of a position other than fullback and kicker that we don't need to improve to win a championship.

Believe me, I see the flaws. His ability to turn a 4 yard sack into a 14 yard sack is second to none. I just don't see why he takes the heat on a roster of 5 win level talent for being a 5 win level talent. We knew going into this year that we need a talent upgrade up and down the roster. I hope every position is up for grabs. It seems to me that everyone looks for a panacea from the QB position when it is more likely that you win by having a roster full of A- level talent rather than one A+ guy and a lot of C+ guys.

If anyone thinks that we have a prayer of a championship season next year, they should be disabused of that notion right now. If Bowers gets beaten out, great. If not, I think his performance is about as should be expected based on what Wilcox was left with. He didn't lose that game more than anyone else on the field.
Oaktown, what you are saying is almost exactly what most posters feeling nega on Bowers are saying. I can't imagine anyone is rooting against him not to succeed. I would love him to take a monstrous step forward and be as successful as any of our QBs this century. That would be wonderful. In that he has been able to show his stuff for just short of a full year, the comments are based on his performance this year and how they seem to project. On that there is difference.

I see him as having been the best option at the start of the year due to his seniority at the time and his moxie. And he has done a very serviceable job. What I worry about is that because he has that year's experience it will be hard to weigh him against Garbers who in fall practice was new to Cal, lacking experience, and probably not as good an option. But I followed Garbers in HS and hope he has a much greater upside than RB. That is what is being said. Bowers losing anything is not good for Cal. But he has had the year to strut his stuff, and I for one, hope we have more in the stable. If not, go RB.
I understand that, and I think it is a fair point. On the flip side, however, since Aaron Rodgers declared for the draft, I've seen many Cal fans look at each QB as "will he take us to a Rose Bowl? I don't think so. NEXT!!!" including after Goff's first year. (and Goff was definitely good enough to do so if he had team and coaches surrounding him that were good enough as well). You don't start Garbers just because he hasn't proven NOT to be the guy to take us to the Rose Bowl. Maybe a redshirt frosh Garbers will be a lot worse than a redshirt junior Bowers, and then senior Garbers takes us to the Rose Bowl. In any case, best guy next year starts. Good chance that will be Bowers. Good chance it won't be. I think Bowers can be a successful QB by learning to cut down mistakes, by having improved personnel around him, and by employing a scheme that plays to his strengths. Rose Bowl - not unless the talent gets a lot better around him.

But I'm not sure of the desperation to take chances at the QB position when it is not like that is the position that is holding the team back. In 2005, I get it. The QB position let down what was otherwise a top 10 kind of team (honestly - Bowers might have been enough on that team). Right now, 8 wins would be great next year. Give me the QB that gives me the best chance of doing that. I don't want to play Garbers simply because for some people the verdict is in on Bowers' ceiling especially when I don't see that ceiling being lower than the ceiling for the team as a whole.


You're right - no qb would take this Cal team to the Rose Bowl - no one is claiming that. QB is not the only position on the team lacking in talent, but with a little more talent at QB, Cal wins 1-3 more games this year - this year. Cal didn't have a better option. For better or worse, qb play has the largest impact on the offensive side of the ball.

I agree Bowers "can" be a better qb by cutting down mistakes. He might compensate for less than ideal arm strength with better timing and by not trying to do too much (e.g., the stanfurd and usc interceptions and many bad sacks). But at this point, how likely is that? We haven't seen much development on those fronts.

So ultimately, the question next year is whether one of the other qbs can beat him out by showing higher upside. It might mean taking an initial step back due to inexperience (Garbers). I'm hoping Baldwin is still around to make that decision - I trust his ability to evaluate and develop qbs. Whoever is playing qb should be helped by a better/deeper/more experienced OL and health D Rob.




I just don't agree on "higher upside". The coach needs to play the best QB for 2018. Now if that means the coach believes Bowers is best game 1, but someone else would be better by game 7, by all means, play the second guy. But that upside better be realized in 2018. If you start trying to predict upside for seasons in the future the quality of you prediction becomes poor. Guys surprise in both directions.

Sports is notorious for overvaluing upside over downside. This was one point in Moneyball where Beane found his scouts overvaluing 17 year olds because they could "dream on them" and project their dreams onto the player while the universe of outcomes on a college player was narrower even if better. They'd be more attracted to a guy that had a in a hundred thousand shot at being Mays and an 80% shot of being Joe Shlabotnik, than a guy who had a 20% chance of being Coco Crisp and a 10% chance of being Shlabotnik.

If upside means the kid is better in all phases and just needs a couple games in the offense, fine. If all it means is he has a stronger arm and maybe more accurate, but doesn't do any of the other things that a QB needs to do to be better than Bowers in 2018, then no. You don't play with what might be good in 2020, because it very well might not be. Make him earn it on the field. Otherwise you ensure you put the worse option out one year while minimally increasing your chances of creating a better option for the next year. And, by the way, you then face the possibility of a higher upside QB being on the bench behind the new guy. (Something I think is reasonably likely to happen at Cal in 2019.)
Bolded text is what I was referring to. As Odonto mentioned, I expect the other guys to look "worse" in the spring simply because Bowers is the only one with game experience. But based on reports, I think one or both of the other guys would be better with some experience simply because the other guys have better physical tools. But who knows - really hoping Baldwin stays or his replacement is top notch in evaluating qbs.
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Strykur said:

OaktownBear said:

ibhoagiesforlife said:

I was in the end zone behind the bears on the long bomb. When Bowers lauched it, the receiver has eyes on the ball and tried to stop his momentum and come back to it but slipped. The ball was a pop fly and hung long enough for anybody in the secondary to come and get it.

Watching the replay, Bowers just tried to do too much. There was a receiver underneath that was open and would've resulted in a first down.
Also seems to me that some judge the QB by whether he can get us to a conference championship. Well, lets get some reality here. We aren't getting to that level for at least a couple years. Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have made this team compete for a conference championship.
If Goff or Webb was playing QB last Saturday we have the Axe back. It's not like we need another Aaron Rodgers, although we have been squandering some pretty good talent at QB for several years now.
Yes, if Goff, the #1 draft pick, and Webb, a high draft pick played in a three point game instead of Bowers, we would have won that game. That is a pretty high bar you are setting. If Marshawn, or Arrington, or Best, or Forsett, or Vereen or a few others had played one play of that game - the one that Laird broke for a long run but couldn't out run the secondary, we would have won that game because they would have taken it to the house because they are flat out faster than Laird. Are you going to hold Laird to that standard?

None of Goff, or Webb, or Rodgers would have taken that team to a championship, nor would they next year. If the next Goff or Webb or Rodgers emerges next year, by all means they should play. That doesn't mean we can't have a winning conference record with Bowers next year, which is the next reasonable goal for this team as it is currently constructed whether Bowers or someone else starts at QB.
I'm far less sure than you are that 2004 Aaron Rodgers couldn't have taken this team to the Pac-12 championship game. Washington was the only game I think we still wouldn't have had a reasonable shot to win with Rodgers. USC, Arizona and Stanford I think are easy to flip. Oregon and Colorado are the wildcards because the defense got rung up so badly in both games. Even so, Bowers threw 93 times for 614 yards, 6 TDs and 1 INT in those two games. Imagine what Rodgers would have done to those defenses with 93 pass attempts.

Since two losses happened to be good enough to get to the title game this year, I don't see why there wouldn't have been at least a decent chance that we would have made it if you swap Bowers for one of the greatest of all time.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.