"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
Go Bears!
Quote from Bo Baldwin
7,247 Views |
45 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by heartofthebear
oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
I don't think there is any problem with starting the player who is showing the most in practice. I just think that if that player struggles in the actual game you should be willing to bring in the "relief pitcher" even if just for a series to settle down the starter and coach them up. Baldwin was switching Garbers and McIlwain within sets of downs earlier in the season and they seemed to be fine with it. It is a team game. Suddenly he has become Jeff Tedford. .
Yeah, too bad for us, we only see what we see on game day.oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
Or perhaps it's that Mcllwain is looking better, not that the others are "stinking it up"...
Meanwhile, Robo has a fake cast around his hand...
Really? ***?oskirules said:
Meanwhile, Robo has a fake cast around his hand...
Practice is practice. It's the real games where the score is kept. Who cares how a player looks in practice if they are awful in games. This is football not an audition for 'best dancer in class'. I'm sure every team has 'practice' players who can't perform when the whistle blows so to speak. Flimsy excuse.
No one is saying that the injury is fake. Attacking a strawman is for the weak of mind. You're better than that. Mocking an argument no one is making makes you look like an imbecile. Are you an imbecile?
What I'm saying is that, even if Bowers were perfectly healthy, Baldwin would still be going with McIlwain because of his desire to run the RPO.
What I'm saying is that, even if Bowers were perfectly healthy, Baldwin would still be going with McIlwain because of his desire to run the RPO.
Dduster said:
Practice is practice. It's the real games where the score is kept. Who cares how a player looks in practice if they are awful in games. This is football not an audition for 'best dancer in class'. I'm sure every team has 'practice' players who can't perform when the whistle blows so to speak. Flimsy excuse.
The real question is the ability to have a good strategy going into the game and then adjusting that strategy during the game based on what is or is not working. Starting the guy who is doing the best in practice is completely defensible. Leaving him in when he is floundering and not giving someone else a shot is not.
I don't think he has suddenly become Tedford. I think Baldwin has been manufacturing a scenario where only McIlwain can win the starting job because the other quarterbacks are punished for poor performance and McIlwain is not. Baldwin wants McIlwain in.calumnus said:oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
I don't think there is any problem with starting the player who is showing the most in practice. I just think that if that player struggles in the actual game you should be willing to bring in the "relief pitcher" even if just for a series to settle down the starter and coach them up. Baldwin was switching Garbers and McIlwain within sets of downs earlier in the season and they seemed to be fine with it. It is a team game. Suddenly he has become Jeff Tedford. .
+1. Some players are simply better on game day than in practice. For others, the reverse is true. I don' t care how good someone is in practice, if he is stinking it up on game day, give him the hook!calumnus said:oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
I don't think there is any problem with starting the player who is showing the most in practice. I just think that if that player struggles in the actual game you should be willing to bring in the "relief pitcher" even if just for a series to settle down the starter and coach them up. Baldwin was switching Garbers and McIlwain within sets of downs earlier in the season and they seemed to be fine with it. It is a team game. Suddenly he has become Jeff Tedford. .
But, you have to start in practice, otherwise a starting decision becomes a political campaign. Evvvvvvrybody's gonna insist that they are "gamers" and if you listen to that you'll lose the team - they'll get into cliques.Dduster said:
Practice is practice. It's the real games where the score is kept. Who cares how a player looks in practice if they are awful in games. This is football not an audition for 'best dancer in class'. I'm sure every team has 'practice' players who can't perform when the whistle blows so to speak. Flimsy excuse.
Still, there are players who star in practice and choke in games. Some never get over it, no matter how much they play. Then, you sub in the next guy.
I'm not seeing any improvement in McI's weaknesses (which didn't start at Cal). There are sets of circumstances in which he makes the same mistakes, not all of which end in to's, by the way. Give him the first quarter this week and if he persists in them, put in the next healthy guy, even if it's Forrest. 'Course talk is cheap, but I'd work for a hell of a lot less.
I hope this means McIlwain is showing great improvement in practice.
I hope this doesn't mean that every other healthy QB looks so bad in practice that the coaches won't even think of putting them in on game day.
I hope this doesn't mean that every other healthy QB looks so bad in practice that the coaches won't even think of putting them in on game day.
Probably a little of both.
I have a good feeling about this game. I think we are a better team than Oregon State and without the pressure being applied by a better team, McIlwain will hold the turnovers to a minimum and we'll get a comfortable win.
More fool's gold before the tougher part of the schedule.
More fool's gold before the tougher part of the schedule.
Well, there is a thing called "confirmation bias". That must be what's happening. For the life of me, based on what I've seen of the two quarterbacks throwing the ball, I don't know how anyone can conclude Mcllwain is the better passer. You're telling me in practice Mcllwain looks good throwing ALL the routes including the deep ones and those that require touch? BS !! He throws it on a rope - good for some routes bad for others. Maybe Beau doesn't think our offense needs a good passer? He is an outstanding runner though, but once defenses started catching onto his forte has he really been that effective running the ball? You can go RPO with Garbers too. He's not a bad runner, but he's got some throwing ability AND he could be our guy next year. Ahhh!!!!
If a player is not performing well during practice, it is highly unlikely that he will perform well during a game.Dduster said:
Practice is practice. It's the real games where the score is kept. Who cares how a player looks in practice if they are awful in games. This is football not an audition for 'best dancer in class'. I'm sure every team has 'practice' players who can't perform when the whistle blows so to speak. Flimsy excuse.
Anyone who has coached at any level knows this is one of the hardest things to deal with. You see Player A kicking ass in practice every day and Player B sucking ass in practice every day. The only way you can convince yourself to go with Player B in a competitive game is to effectively give up on Player A.
... and yet, I've had teammates (in soccer, I never played football) like that - they were mediocre in practice but better in games. And they were trying during practice, but the adrenaline of a real game was just not really there in practice. Real games brought out their best. So, yeah, it seems unlikely, but there are people like that.
What happens when player A, who practices like a champ, but commits a dozen turnovers in 3 games?tequila4kapp said:
Anyone who has coached at any level knows this is one of the hardest things to deal with. You see Player A kicking ass in practice every day and Player B sucking ass in practice every day. The only way you can convince yourself to go with Player B in a competitive game is to effectively give up on Player A.
I don't buy any of it. People saw them in fall camp. McIlwain was consistently rated as our 3rd best quarterback.
The thing that baffles me the most is why Boldwin plays McIlwain against 8 or 9 guys in the box.dajo9 said:
I don't buy any of it. People saw them in fall camp. McIlwain was consistently rated as our 3rd best quarterback.
In
Think we get blown out at Osu regardless of who plays qb
Think we get blown out at Osu regardless of who plays qb
Go Bears!
I have a sinking feeling we'll lose, but Oregon State doesn't have the kind of talent UCLA does, so I don't see a blow-out in Cornvalley.
Thank God we don't see what goes on in practice.
The games are bad enough.
The games are bad enough.
It was really bizarre, wasn't it, when Baldwin cited that as the REASON he was going with McIlvain. If anybody doesn't believe this, or wants to check my accuracy, go back and listen to his interview this week.FremontBear said:The thing that baffles me the most is why Boldwin plays McIlwain against 8 or 9 guys in the box.dajo9 said:
I don't buy any of it. People saw them in fall camp. McIlwain was consistently rated as our 3rd best quarterback.
smh...
So, what is the upside of saying this?
This reminds me of the flat out refusal to play Levy. Sometimes the guy who is the least likely to completely cluck up is the best option, at least for a short while.
When your best path to winning a game is to have had the offense start running out the clock at the start of the second half by taking a knee every snap, it stops being a question of who is "better" and starts being a question of who is least likely to cause us to lose the game.
This reminds me of the flat out refusal to play Levy. Sometimes the guy who is the least likely to completely cluck up is the best option, at least for a short while.
When your best path to winning a game is to have had the offense start running out the clock at the start of the second half by taking a knee every snap, it stops being a question of who is "better" and starts being a question of who is least likely to cause us to lose the game.
We don't matchup well with athleticism and speed. UCLA is not a good team, but they have some of that (and will get more).FremontBear said:
I have a sinking feeling we'll lose, but Oregon State doesn't have the kind of talent UCLA does, so I don't see a blow-out in Cornvalley.
We match up better against 2/3 star rosters like Wazzu (hence the upset last year) and Oregon State. Because that's what our roster is made up of.
It sucks that he's clueless, but the continuation of such decisions will hasten his departure. Hard to believe this is the same guy that led the EWU program to much success.
I think it was his coaching staff that help him win, he as just an administrator to the whole staff.chazzed said:
It sucks that he's clueless, but the continuation of such decisions will hasten his departure. Hard to believe this is the same guy that led the EWU program to much success.
What happens in practice, from a fan perspective, is totally 100% irrelevant.oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
Games are what matter. And McIlwain was elevated over Garbers because of what McIlwain and Garbers did in the Oregon game, not in the practices that led up to that game. Otherwise, McIlwain would have started against Oregon.
This is just coachspeak for "I don't give a **** about your question. Go away."
oskidunker said:
"You do not see what we see in practice" When asked about the quarterbacks Garbers must be stinking it up and Forrest must have looked worse.
I see that the Arizona Cardinals fires their OC in midsesason.
Cal should do the same.
Cal should do the same.
fatmoon said:I think it was his coaching staff that help him win, he as just an administrator to the whole staff.chazzed said:
It sucks that he's clueless, but the continuation of such decisions will hasten his departure. Hard to believe this is the same guy that led the EWU program to much success.
Good point.
I like the multiple offense because it's honestly named. We find multiple ways to turn the ball over each game and that's offensive.
Featured Stories
See All
Cal Duo Earns Pac-12 Weekly Honors
by Cal Athletics
Cal Football - Post Spring Review
by Bear Insider
Bears Complete The Sweep Over 5th Ranked Beavers
by Cal Athletics