Who Starts Week 3?

Bear_Territory
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd like to see McIlwain.
PTBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Glad I was wrong about Bowers starting tonight.
I think it's Garbers all the way now, with McIlwain in for the short yardage and change of pace.

Both provide a lot more options for Baldwin. I wonder restricted Baldwin must have felt with Bowers this whole time
upsetof86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Garbers. Mcilwain was great but I think he plays situationally, hot hand. Like Florida Leak and Tebow.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Same set up as this week. Garbers starts and plays 65% of the snaps, McIlwain plays the other 35%.
75bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
McIlwain can't play too many snaps - his body can only take so many big hits. 25-40% sounds about right, depending on the situation.
XXXBEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Garbers starts-similar rotation based on situation...but as the season progresses, and if Mcilwain could improve his passing game....then I think Mcilwain will become the starter and Garbers will come in situationally because the BYU defense was befuddled.

I thought I saw Bowers come over and console Clark after the fumble. That's what leaders do. I hope Bowers gets a chance to play some this next week
Uthaithani
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd go with the current rotations, Garbers starts with McIlwain coming in about 1/4 of the time. Mc brings some skills and athleticism but Garbers seems to have a better handle at running the offense. He also has a lot more upside IMO and giving him more snaps helps the team long term.

I want to see Bowers continue to hold the clipboard. He is not the future of the offense frankly giving him snaps is a waste of everyone's time.

I'll add Laird is showing he is not an every down back. Cal needs to find another go-to RB and transition Laird to more of a receiver back or back up. Losing Tre Watson was a big loss - I said it would cost Cal one potential win, still sounds about right. Basically the team needs to move completely away from any semblance of last year's offense and find its true offensive identity.

staygolden2001
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree that you stick with the Garbers 65% Mcllwain 35% rotation. What about running the option with Garbers and Mcllwain in the same backfield.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
McIlwain should start. He's an electric runner and gives defenses fits. Garbers is pretty nifty too but not elite like McIlwain.

And I'm not convinced Garbers is a better passer. He had a bad pick and he continues to miss a bunch of throws, including a couple of wide open long balls (Wharton in the first half, and the PI on Duncan in the second). Even his TD to Not was under thrown. He has not shown much accuracy. McIlwain pretty much made every throw he was asked to make. His one miss while I was watching was the drop by Jerry Hawkins on 4th down.

So yeah I vote for McIlwain.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Uthaithani said:

I'd go with the current rotations, Garbers starts with McIlwain coming in about 1/4 of the time. Mc brings some skills and athleticism but Garbers seems to have a better handle at running the offense. He also has a lot more upside IMO and giving him more snaps helps the team long term.

I want to see Bowers continue to hold the clipboard. He is not the future of the offense frankly giving him snaps is a waste of everyone's time.

I'll add Laird is showing he is not an every down back. Cal needs to find another go-to RB and transition Laird to more of a receiver back or back up. Losing Tre Watson was a big loss - I said it would cost Cal one potential win, still sounds about right. Basically the team needs to move completely away from any semblance of last year's offense and find its true offensive identity.


Laird is most certainly an every down back. Very good patience and vision, with adequate speed and quickness, and sneaky elusiveness and power. The dude ran for 1200 yards in like 8 starts against P12 competition. He is making the most of his blocking, which hasn't been great for these first two games against defenses geeked up to stop the run. Catches the ball well, and his blocking is OK, I think, though he had a bad miss on a 3rd down running play today.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

McIlwain should start. He's an electric runner and gives defenses fits. Garbers is pretty nifty too but not elite like McIlwain.

And I'm not convinced Garbers is a better passer. He had a bad pick and he continues to miss a bunch of throws, including a couple of wide open long balls (Wharton in the first half, and the PI on Duncan in the second). Even his TD to Not was under thrown. He has not shown much accuracy. McIlwain pretty much made every throw he was asked to make. His one miss while I was watching was the drop by Jerry Hawkins on 4th down.

So yeah I vote for McIlwain.
Not sure who I like to start, but McIlwain has quite an arm from the fastball he threw on one first down -- I think to Kanawai.
ddc_Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

FuzzyWuzzy said:

McIlwain should start. He's an electric runner and gives defenses fits. Garbers is pretty nifty too but not elite like McIlwain.

And I'm not convinced Garbers is a better passer. He had a bad pick and he continues to miss a bunch of throws, including a couple of wide open long balls (Wharton in the first half, and the PI on Duncan in the second). Even his TD to Not was under thrown. He has not shown much accuracy. McIlwain pretty much made every throw he was asked to make. His one miss while I was watching was the drop by Jerry Hawkins on 4th down.

So yeah I vote for McIlwain.
Not sure who I like to start, but McIlwain has quite an arm from the fastball he threw on one first down -- I think to Kanawai.
That was a great throw -- but he should not have thrown it. It was dangerous into double coverage and Noah took a big hit. I'm glad he got away with it, though.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm not sure Garbers is any better than Bowers was last year, at least not as a passer. If we stick with him, the hopes gotta be that he makes significant strides over the course of the season. Not sure that's gonna happen, but I will trust the coaches' judgement.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

I'm not sure Garbers is any better than Bowers was last year, at least not as a passer.
Neither am I. As a runner or scrambler, he's definitely better at that.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

Big C said:

I'm not sure Garbers is any better than Bowers was last year, at least not as a passer.
Neither am I. As a runner or scrambler, he's definitely better at that.


Garbers pretty clearly has a stronger arm than Bowers, if not better accuracy,
gpost17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm apparently the only person here who likes Bowers over Garbers. Im not impressed by Chase. I could've thrown both those TD's they were so easy. He missed a few passes badly and almost underthrew Noa on the 52 yard score. I'd like to see McIlwain start next week with Bowers coming in instead of Garbers. He has more experience and accuracy. I think Garbers is just a mediocre combination of McIlwain and Bowers; worse at running than Brandon, worse at throwing than Ross. Maybe I have too much faith but I think discarding Bowers is foolish. We forget he threw for over 3,000 yards last year...
oskirules
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can see how the coaches couldn't pick a favorite during spring ball. All 3 QB's bring something different to the table.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskirules said:

I can see how the coaches couldn't pick a favorite during spring ball. All 3 QB's bring something different to the table.
They did pick a favorite. They picked Bowers consistently all the way until Game 1, after which they decided he shouldn't start anymore.

I don't know who the best QB is, but I do know that the way they handled it in Game 1 was strange to say the least. Game 2 made a little more sense.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
gpost17 said:

I'm apparently the only person here who likes Bowers over Garbers. Im not impressed by Chase. I could've thrown both those TD's they were so easy. He missed a few passes badly and almost underthrew Noa on the 52 yard score. I'd like to see McIlwain start next week with Bowers coming in instead of Garbers. He has more experience and accuracy. I think Garbers is just a mediocre combination of McIlwain and Bowers; worse at running than Brandon, worse at throwing than Ross. Maybe I have too much faith but I think discarding Bowers is foolish. We forget he threw for over 3,000 yards last year...


I wonder about Ross' psyche now. He must be crushed. I didn't see him anywhere; I expected to see him here and there with a headset on. You work all summer thinking you build on starting all last season. It's a brutal gane.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We don't have a good Pac 12 quarterback but I guess I'd take Garbers to start. I wouldn't opine for McIlwain until I saw accuracy downfield.
BerlinerBaer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:



Garbers pretty clearly has a stronger arm than Bowers, if not better accuracy,


I think Garbers should get the nod for this reason alone. I'd rank almost all their other attributes, except Bowers' experience, similarly.

I remember vividly how damaging Ross' weak arm was in the USC game last year.
59bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

We don't have a good Pac 12 quarterback but I guess I'd take Garbers to start. I wouldn't opine for McIlwain until I saw accuracy downfield.
Unhappily, I suspect you're right. What we seem to have is a collection of overachievers who will always give us effort that exceeds their physical abilities. The 49'ers of yore had a modicum of success with a QB troika (Billy Kilmer et al) but I doubt this approach will get us much more than a mid-December bowl game at best. Unless/until we can present a credible downfield passing threat, we're likely to be only as successful as our defense and a plus TO margin will allow. And while I've been pleased with defensive play (Weaver, in particular, has been magnificent) so far, we are not deep, especially at LB and we haven't played a really good offense yet. After all the dry spells of the past half century it's hard to be patient but I remain optimistic about the direction of the program. Go Bears.
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
McGarbers.

Why not put Mc in the backfield, Wildcat-style.
LACalFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

We don't have a good Pac 12 quarterback but I guess I'd take Garbers to start. I wouldn't opine for McIlwain until I saw accuracy downfield.
Both of them flashed last night, good decision making and they showed poise in the pocket. The ability to pick up 3rd and mediums with their legs is huge. Garbers' deep ball needs a little work and you're right, McIllwain didn't show us he can make the longer throws... yet. I'm excited to see what they can do with a little more experience and they'll get that with Idaho St. The ceiling seems high. They both could be good Pac 12 QBs very soon.
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A few comments:

1. We are slowly but surely getting to have three capable and experienced QBs. Not sure when we last had such. A QB going down does not spell doom...

2. It's like an audition of sorts. Maybe one of them will really begin to shine, making it evident that he's the guy. This is best done under-the-lights, and arguably can only be done, during actual games. Bowers had all of 2017 and some of the first game this year, providing for a delta assessment...

3. For the opposing D, from game week prep to actual in-game considerations, it's not the norm and presents some new challenges, possibly creating an edge for Cal to exploit...

4. Bowers seems to be handling "this" just fine. On two occasions the telecast showed him on the sidelines consoling players after they experienced mishaps. A couple times, with big smiles and celebrating. Kudos to Bowers and staff for creating such an environment.

I am happy to have a well-coached Cal football team. It has been way too long. Hopefully some can see the upside; on both sides of the ball, but more so on offense.

We are about to start 3-0 again, like JW's first season. I really like the set-up from here... BYE week afterwards, so two weeks to prepare for our Pac-12 opener - the Ducks, in Berkeley. That will be their first road game, and will have played Stanford the week before, while the whole Cal team watches that game. Goode and other players continue to mend... The Oregon game is huge. They look to be quite good. I envision CMS being electric.

A win over the Ducks gets us to Arizona, then UCLA at home, then the Beavs in Corvallis...

The 6-1 to 7-0 start I've postulated is unfolding. Anyone else feelin' it? If not, I bet you're simply not allowing it to happen... It's there.

Can't believe I typed this much with a wicked headache. Drank too much before and during the game...

Go Bears!
Sig test...
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm always been kind of a "anyone but Bowers fan" but I'm OK with Bowers now too.
If I had to pick, I like Garbers because he's young and still has upside and I don't see anyone with an arm and pocket presence better than him.
He's going to make some mistakes but he is a true dual threat, meaning you don't think he is going to run and then he gashes you for 5-10 yards at a time, sometimes more.
I think McIlwain needs to throw a couple mid range TDs to gain my confidence that he is not a run first QB.
The fact that both Garbers and McIlwain are playing regularly means, unlike in the days of Tedford, the coaches are paying attention to who does best in practice. So, I trust the coaches to make the best decision week to week based on that week's practices.
If they play McIlwain, I would really love to see him run the option outside with Laird trailing behind or even a triple option with Darcy in as well.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think we're going to see a QB rotation until one distinquishes himself, rises above, and that might not be this season. Bowers will get reps.

Usually I'm against this but it worked. I think who plays when will be situational and opponent driven to some extent. Both McIIwain and Garbers can run, but you have to manage that but having two running QB is better than one, if for no other reason than one guy not getting beat up too badly. Also keeps the defense guessing.

I really like McIIwain's playmaker/finisher ability. He can move the chains. Garbers looks to have more upside but he'll have to develop. He has good skills but he's green.

Any way, what seems suspect before last night actually might be an advantage. Having a few QBs who can play is better than having none. It would be better to have one QB but this is college ball and it can work, just not ideal. I say let the experiment run its course...which is possible if the D is playing well, and it is.
TomBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, I'm no expert on quarterbacking, but I do think there are a few things worth considering.

First, Mac has SEC game experience behind him. So if you go based on experience, you'd have to give that some value vs. Garbers at least. Bowers will play against ISU, I'm very sure. I'm not at all sure that the coaches have yet decided exactly how they want to use each quarterback, and think they'll be using results of the first three games to name a permanent starter starting with Oregon.

In my humble opinion, we are fortunate to have 3 quarterbacks, all of whom bring something to the table. I'm not rooting for one against the other. Rather I'm hoping that each one has an opportunity to provide a memory to this season (like Bowers flip against WSU last year) that they can hold onto and helps the Bears be a bowl team.

I did like seeing Bowers on the sideline talking to players, and in particular giving encouragement to players who had an unfortunate incident in their play. He has leadership qualities that are commendable, and I wouldn't count him out based on one game's performance.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is working, for now, but, eventually, we are going to need better pocket passing if we are going to have a "good" offense. ("good" = Pac 12 average or better) I guess both Garbers and McIlwain have an upside, in this regard. Hope it ends up that way.
SoFlaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal is historically really bad managing games like this.

The goals should be that the # 1 starter (Garbers?) the #1 RB (Laird) and the first string WRs should be able to get up at least two TDs by the end of Q1. At that point, Bowers and the #2 & #3 at every position should play the remaining three quarters. You want to get everyone on the team some work. This isn't North Dakota State or Youngstown State; this is a team coming off a 4-7 year that we should be able to out-physical and beat by 4 TDs + even with our 2nd/3rd string out for most of the game. Don't get anyone hurt that we will need for Oregon - by which I mean don't get anyone hurt.
Page 1 of 1
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.