Big C said:
OaktownBear said:
Big C said:
71Bear said:
wifeisafurd said:
71Bear said:
dajo9 said:
71Bear said:
Blueblood said:
HGAs for how well Cal will do against its conference brethren, I thought it greatly dependent upon the overall QB development not only for Cal but especially for its opponents.
As I've pointed out previously, I think it is entirely possible that Cal could repeat last year's accomplishment by going 3-0 against the Bears' OOC opponents.
Oregon- Even though the game is at Berkeley, I think the Ducks still have too much talent (especially with a healthy Herbert) this early in the season for Cal. This is most likely a LOSS.
Arizona- If Cal's newfound defense can corral the 'zona QB, this may be a win for Cal, but it is an away-game at night in Tucson, so Cal could just as easily flub it up too. There is a big question about whether or not 'zona's OL can offer any pass protection. If not, Cal will face a rushing tidal wave from the same cast of characters as last year, i.e., QB Tate (148 yds), Green (130 yds), and short yardage guy 6'-2", 215 JJ Taylor. For now, I believe this is a Cal LOSS.
UCLA- If the Chip Kelly is what they say he is, then the bruins will be more than competitive with ex-Michigan grad transfer QB Wilton Speight, who has a lot stronger arm than Ross. Thus, if at this juncture the bruins are not too discombobulated with new Kelly's system, Cal LOSES this one.
Oregon State- Even though played in Corvallis, Cal should be able to handle fellow-mediocre North division compadre for a WIN.
Washington- UDub with Browning should be far and away the better team. This is a LOSS.
Washington State- This game is at Pullman so I hope the Bears don't "coug" it. But, although Falk is gone, I think sly ol'Leach will solve his QB woes by this game with one of his 5 candidates, which include East Carolina grad transfer Gardner Minshew and an incredible **** QB Cammon Cooper. The Curse befalls Cal for a LOSS.
USC- This game will be in L.A., so it's a traditional Cal LOSS.
stanfurd- With (I presume) a more experienced Costello (or even Richardson) at qb and with a healthy Love, we are looking once again at another Cal LOSS.
Colorado- If QB Steven Montez is still healthy by this game, the Buffs will give Cal a good game. Even if so, I give Cal the home field advantage and a WIN.
I guess Cal is looking at a 5-7 season (wherein look for "Buy him out!" chants during Wilcox's fourth season), but if Ross turns out to be more than adequate, Cal could possibly add three more wins ('zona, ucla, and WSU) to its total for a 8-4 bowl season! (or...we'll be saying "where are all those bricks that we bought for Sonny's statute!")
Agree if Bowers is the QB. However, given that I don't believe that he will be, I'm a bit more optimistic. The key to this season is finding a QB who doesn't stare down his primary target and can throw the ball more than 20 yards accurately. Bowers is not the guy. Can McIlwain or Garbers meet the challenge?
Strange take as Bowers is our best quarterback
Geez, I hope not. If so, Cal is looking at a very disappointing season....
I'm not so sure Baldwin doesn't do a Shaw and allow the QBs to play in games, and pick the guy who clicks. Hopefully he takes less games than Shaw does, to do so.
I would not be surprised if we see a reprise of 2003. Although Rodgers was the better QB, JT played Robertson until it got to a point where a change had to be made. Rodgers stepped in and the rest is history. Although Bowers may start the season, I expect a transition to either Garbers or McIlwain at some point in September. We shall see.....
That would also be like Fred Besana/Joe Roth in 1975. It worked then and it worked in 2003, though it tends to defy "conventional wisdom". Personally, I think, if there's not a clear-cut difference, this is an okay way to go. You end up having two guys that have had meaningful playing time, as well as ending up with the best guy (instead of guessing).
I don't think it is necessarily accurate to say it worked either year. In 1975 Cal was 1-2 when they made the change and then had the best offense in the country. I think we also lost games early in 2003 that we might have won with Rodgers. If I had to guess, I'd say our record took a hit both years because we didn't start the right guy at the beginning of the season. I acknowledge it is possible that Roth and Rodgers would not have been as good later if thrown in earlier, but honestly, I doubt it.
Yes, there are other factors in play. You mentioned the "throwing them to the wolves" factor.
Maybe the most important factor is "How SURE are the coaches that QB X is going to eventually be better than QB Y?" Sometimes it's obvious, but fairly often I'm guessing there's an element of uncertainty. Aaron Rodgers had only been practicing with the team for 3-4 weeks before their first game. I don't recall if Joe Roth was around for Spring Ball in 1975, but Fred Besana was a fairly established and fairly highly regarded QB.
Understand, I'm not criticizing White or Tedford's decisions. They may have been the right decision. But I don't think they "worked" as you said. I think by that reasoning you could claim it would have "worked" if the Patriots started Brock Mansion, went 0-3, then started Brady and went 13-0.
Cal went 1-3 with Robertson starting. They weren't going to beat KSU, but they lost to Utah because the offense was putrid in the first quarter and dug a hole Rodgers couldn't get out of despite playing great. Rodgers didn't play in the loss to CSU and the offense was very pedestrian. Also, we never realized at the time, but we were a couple breaks away from Rose Bowl that year. If we beat either OSU (Rodgers looked every bit the rookie and maybe he wouldn't have if he'd started game one) or UCLA (lost in overtime) we would have gone to the Oregon game with the Rose Bowl on the line and maybe don't come out very flat and lose a power outage game. The starting experience for Rodgers easily might have swung 2 of those games and we would have tied USC and had the tie break.
In 1975, we went 1-2 with Besana including losing to SJSU. Maybe going 2-1 or 3-0 gets us a bowl back when that meant something. Maybe it gets Muncie enough publicity he gets the Heisman.
In either case, it would have been hard to do worse in the win/loss column if the eventual starter had started game one, and I think it is in the 90% range we would have done better. Not saying the coaches should have known, but I am saying their decisions didn't "work"