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.

---

I think the issue for Bowers on that play was the receiver had been wide open and he knew it, but Bowers hadn't got his feet set on the roll out in time. He made the cardinal sin of knowing it HAD been there and probably knowing it was too late but throwing it anyway.

My general opinion on Bowers is that I don't see that he is the problem any more than any one else. I think he is a 5-6 type QB on a 5-6 team. He has improved. If he continues to do so, he can be a good QB in this league. (and if he doesn't improve he won't be) Probably not a conference championship QB, but then none of the rest of the team is conference championship quality either.

It seems to me that if an OL or a LB plays his position at a Bowers level his first year of starting, we expect them to improve. If a QB does, that's it for him. I expect there to be a QB competition next year and Bowers could come out on top. That could be a bad or a good thing.

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.

---

First year. No. Redshirt sophomore at the end of that year. Plenty of in the system experience and practice. Yes too, one year's on field experience....This is not Jared Goff time in the system type player. Sorry.

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.

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.

71, I said my money is on him.....that is not a prediction, it's just a bet, (or if you like, a hunch.....there's an old term for you).

You accentuated my points by basically saying he can't (or won't) improve. I think he can. Let's see.

OK, he beat out the available quarterbacks this year. So next year is McElwaine (sp?) the answer then? He's supposed to be a better runner but is he a better passer? The other quarterbacks, who did not beat out Bowers this year, will they be better next year? With quarterbacks the intangibles are sometimes more important than the physical tools. Joe Montana was probably 6'1" and skinny and did not have the strongest arm but he had the intangibles to be the best ever, or at least in that conversation. I think the coaches will open up the competition in the spring and I trust that the best candidate will emerge. It will be interesting.

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.

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.

---

Unless his arm turns into a laser in 9 months, this seems silly. He only starts if the QB of the future isn't ready yet or available by then.

OdontoBear66 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.

---

I think the issue for Bowers on that play was the receiver had been wide open and he knew it, but Bowers hadn't got his feet set on the roll out in time. He made the cardinal sin of knowing it HAD been there and probably knowing it was too late but throwing it anyway.

My general opinion on Bowers is that I don't see that he is the problem any more than any one else. I think he is a 5-6 type QB on a 5-6 team. He has improved. If he continues to do so, he can be a good QB in this league. (and if he doesn't improve he won't be) Probably not a conference championship QB, but then none of the rest of the team is conference championship quality either.

It seems to me that if an OL or a LB plays his position at a Bowers level his first year of starting, we expect them to improve. If a QB does, that's it for him. I expect there to be a QB competition next year and Bowers could come out on top. That could be a bad or a good thing.

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.

---

First year. No. Redshirt sophomore at the end of that year. Plenty of in the system experience and practice. Yes too, one year's on field experience....This is not Jared Goff time in the system type player. Sorry.

---

1. I said first year starting.
2. This is an entirely new system, so he doesn't have plenty of time in the system. I agree he shouldn't be looked at the same way as a true frosh. But he should be judged as a redshirt sophomore. Mike Pawlawski looked like crap backing up Troy Taylor as a redshirt soph and many were hoping our incoming freshman phenom would start. And by the way, Mike didn't have a cannon for an arm either.

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.

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.

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 watched the first 3 quarters of the game on tape last night. I have to say, Bowers looked a lot better than the impression I had watching it live.

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 have no doubt the Cal staff is well aware of Bower's strengths and weaknesses. They also have seen Garbers and McIlwain this fall camp and during the season. I also have no doubt that they will carefully evaluate each this Spring and try and measure what each QB potentially brings to the team. I want Garbers and McIlwain to be given fair opportunity to show how they may improve the teams offense and if they give Cal a better chance at winning than does Bowers.

During Fall camp McIlwain was not an option as a transfer player. What I did see was inconsistent accuracy with clearly superior running ability. Garbers as a true frosh was tentative and inconsistent as well. Bowers was more decisive and accurate than either of them. Now by Spring Garbers should have a good enough grasp of the offense to showcase his abilities. McIlwain will be playing baseball and that will impede his chances to earn the job IMO. That said they know he is a superior run threat and may decide that is worth playing and living with some accuracy issues. He does have a stronger arm than Bowers. This is also where a bowl bid would really help. Cal could spend time with both in a developmental role (like they did during the bye week) and really get a good measure of how each is progressing. The additional time spent on individual development which would occur during the first several bowl practices would be very helpful to both Garbers and McIlwain.

But IMO Cal is playing their best bet for this season in Bowers. Next season should have some competition applied to the position. May the best one win.

totally agree about the downfield passing game-he HAS to show that he can improve or replace him. and where is the use of tight ends in this offense?

58.6 completion %, #71 nationally and 9th out of 10 Pac QBs. (I couldn't find the stats on the other 2 Pac QBs).
A number of factors go into that stat, including drops and play calling, but it's got to be higher.

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.

The defense could not stop Stanford from chewing up the clock. They made almost every key third down play and had no turnovers except a meaningless one at the end of the first half. I thought we needed three turnovers to win. We really got none.

oskidunker said:

---

The defense could not stop Stanford from chewing up the clock. They made almost every key third down play and had no turnovers except a meaningless one at the end of the first half. I thought we needed three turnovers to win. We really got none.

---

Despite all of the progress made this year by the D, third down has been an issue all season. We're 115th out of 129 teams in defensive 3rd down conversion % at 45%.

Had Sonny Dykes played Ross Bowers last year he would have been experienced and more effective this year. Sonny selfishly played Davis Webb every snap to enhance his own job prospects. Cal and RB will be fine next year once we get injured players back and new recruits in especially on both sides of the line.

oskidunker said:

---

The defense could not stop Stanford from chewing up the clock. They made almost every key third down play and had no turnovers except a meaningless one at the end of the first half. I thought we needed three turnovers to win. We really got none.

---

Stanfurd's offense killed us against the blitz. I don't remember another team so consistently and successfully picking up our extra rushers. That has to change against UCLA.

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.

---

All I want for Garbers and others next year is a good shot at QB. He is certainly disadvantaged in that he did not get "experience" this year. So, if in spring and in fall if he is just a "tad" behind RB (meaning he probably has more upside, considering RB had a year playing against Pac 12 comp), I would hope he gets serious consideration.

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.

---

Change QBs with Furd and Cal wins going away. It was apparent at the game, including the interception play, that Cal had plays where the WRs were behind and separated from the Furd DBs for touchdowns and the ball was never thrown near them. Costello would have made the plays, as would most QBs in the conference. There is a reason Bowers is rated near the bottom and has very few passes over 30 yards. Frud was run blitzing and trying to stop Noa. That left some guys open long. It didn't matter.

drtouros said:

---

Had Sonny Dykes played Ross Bowers last year he would have been experienced and more effective this year. Sonny selfishly played Davis Webb every snap to enhance his own job prospects. Cal and RB will be fine next year once we get injured players back and new recruits in especially on both sides of the line.

---

Webb powered our offense last year, got a good draft position and his career is set, Bowers would not have done anything last year in the Air Raid, so that would have been pointless for everybody.

drtouros said:

---

?
Had Sonny Dykes played Ross Bowers last year he would have been experienced and more effective this year. Sonny selfishly played Davis Webb every snap to enhance his own job prospects. Cal and RB will be fine next year once we get injured players back and new recruits in especially on both sides of the line.

---

Why would he play the third string quarterback?

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

Change QBs with Furd and Cal wins going away. It was apparent at the game, including the interception play, that Cal had plays where the WRs were behind and separated from the Furd DBs for touchdowns and the ball was never thrown near them. Costello would have made the plays, as would most QBs in the conference. There is a reason Bowers is rated near the bottom and has very few passes over 30 yards. Frud was run blitzing and trying to stop Noa. That left some guys open long. It didn't matter.

---

WIF, Costello has a big arm and can run too. However I did not think he was very precise with his passing and don't recall him hitting any long passes.

Not sure he could have completed many of the passes Ross did. Kind of think it is comparing apples and bananas with those two QB's and what they are asked to do in their offenses.

NVBear78 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

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.

---

Change QBs with Furd and Cal wins going away. It was apparent at the game, including the interception play, that Cal had plays where the WRs were behind and separated from the Furd DBs for touchdowns and the ball was never thrown near them. Costello would have made the plays, as would most QBs in the conference. There is a reason Bowers is rated near the bottom and has very few passes over 30 yards. Frud was run blitzing and trying to stop Noa. That left some guys open long. It didn't matter.

---

WIF, Costello has a big arm and can run too. However I did not think he was very precise with his passing and don't recall him hitting any long passes.

Not sure he could have completed many of the passes Ross did. Kind of think it is comparing apples and bananas with those two QB's and what they are asked to do in their offenses.

---

He had the TD pass as well as several long ones to a tight end and WR on the side. I have seen him play in 4 games this year (excluding the route of Rice) and he throws an accurate long ball. That is why he replaced Christ.

my guess is next year Robo starts the season opener, but is eclipsed. Somewhat like the A-Rod year with Robertson. Having an experienced QB like Bowers will be a good thing.

oskidunker said:

---

The defense could not stop Stanford from chewing up the clock. They made almost every key third down play and had no turnovers except a meaningless one at the end of the first half. I thought we needed three turnovers to win. We really got none.

---

We held furd to 17. A job well done, I say. If you can't score 18 in this league you're not going to win many games.

365Bear said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

The defense could not stop Stanford from chewing up the clock. They made almost every key third down play and had no turnovers except a meaningless one at the end of the first half. I thought we needed three turnovers to win. We really got none.

---

We held furd to 17. A job well done, I say. If you can't score 18 in this league you're not going to win many games.

---

Yep, and I really appreciate how we mostly contained Love. We were standing him up and hitting him hard.

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.

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.

---

Besides a stronger, deeper o-line, Watson and Laird are back. The QB gets the advantage of a strong run game (on paper), and decent defense. The question is which QB exploits this the best?

TeamBoomtho said:

---

This has been Bowers' audition year. If we get the W next week at UCLA and have a decent showing in a bowl game, I'd give him a passing grade, but his status as a starter in 18 is far from secure. If next week is just another flavor of what we saw from him last night, that starter spot looks even more up for grabs next year. Which I think is fair on behalf of the coaching staff. Next year's QB depth is very compelling, loaded with potential and athleticism. Have faith young Bears.

---

I would hope (and won't know until spring camp, since we don't know how Wilcox/ Baldwin operate in the off-season) that every position would be wide open and that the coaches would always choose the best. If that means a FR or transfer takes Bowers place, then that's what should be, regardless of how much people like him or the W/L record.

And further I would hope, given what we have seen this season, that the offense sees a lot of changes and gets a lot of help. OLine, TE, WR, RB, QB all either need major upgrades or major additions. We probably need another quality FB, too. (And before people jump down my throat, Laird is doing very well, but the team needs much more depth and a variety of running styles - he shouldn't be an every-down back next season.) So that means Cal would have either a much better Bowers or another QB who is much better, because this level of QB (And OL, TE and WR) play will never get the team more than 6 or 7 wins, tops, no matter how good the D is next season.

If in fact Baldwin is the offensive genius he's hyped to be and Cal is just missing a lot of pieces, I expect BB will fill those gaps and showcase a much more powerful and productive offense next season. (An offensive upgrade similar to the defensive upgrade we saw this season.) If not, the problem isn't talent and depth.

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.)

Uthaithani said:

---

TeamBoomtho said:

---

This has been Bowers' audition year. If we get the W next week at UCLA and have a decent showing in a bowl game, I'd give him a passing grade, but his status as a starter in 18 is far from secure. If next week is just another flavor of what we saw from him last night, that starter spot looks even more up for grabs next year. Which I think is fair on behalf of the coaching staff. Next year's QB depth is very compelling, loaded with potential and athleticism. Have faith young Bears.

---

I would hope (and won't know until spring camp, since we don't know how Wilcox/ Baldwin operate in the off-season) that every position would be wide open and that the coaches would always choose the best. If that means a FR or transfer takes Bowers place, then that's what should be, regardless of how much people like him or the W/L record.

And further I would hope, given what we have seen this season, that the offense sees a lot of changes and gets a lot of help. OLine, TE, WR, RB, QB all either need major upgrades or major additions. We probably need another quality FB, too. (And before people jump down my throat, Laird is doing very well, but the team needs much more depth and a variety of running styles - he shouldn't be an every-down back next season.) So that means Cal would have either a much better Bowers or another QB who is much better, because this level of QB (And OL, TE and WR) play will never get the team more than 6 or 7 wins, tops, no matter how good the D is next season.

If in fact Baldwin is the offensive genius he's hyped to be and Cal is just missing a lot of pieces, I expect BB will fill those gaps and showcase a much more powerful and productive offense next season. (An offensive upgrade similar to the defensive upgrade we saw this season.) If not, the problem isn't talent and depth.

---

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. Depending on circumstances it is pretty hard to improve a lot year 2. I don't see "filling those gaps" by year 2 to be a viable strategy. They barely got to recruit last year, so you are asking them to fill gaps with first year players.

I DO expect substantial improvement on offense next year because of it being the second year in the system and we lose little of consequence. We've had a lot of young players who these coaches will now have time to develop. Getting a solid if unspectacular RB back to complement our solid if unspectacular current guy will help a lot. Getting a great playmaker at WR will help immensely. Hopefully a year of experience serves the OL well - I think we've seen improvement. I think we have a potentially good (though not great) offense.

But I expect that with existing guys. I think it is pretty tough to get a lot of new guys filling holes until year 3.

One interesting question the coaches might ask themselves is that, assuming one of the young freshmen (either redshirt or true) has better arm strength than Bowers and can throw the deep ball, do you start over with him even if he is not as good at first as Bowers is now, knowing that you have more talent to work with and more years to work with.

I think that is going to be seriously vetted in spring and fall camp next year.
I am absolutely neutral on Bowers and can take him or leave him.
At first I really thought Forrest should have been the guy, but then I resigned myself to Bowers and then I actually liked Bowers. It is clear that Bowers is improving and can improve to be more of what we are looking for at QB in 2018. But I am not attached to the idea either as I think Bowers has a very clear ceiling that he may be nearing.