The skill positions will be much improved next year.
Why Garbers is "the guy"....
12,056 Views |
78 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Yogi Is King
hanky1 said:71Bear said:Two thoughts...Big C said:What you say here (and what Moe Ways says in the article) makes me want to believe, but then I see Garbers pass against defenses that are DARING HIM to throw and I still have doubts. The arm talent just doesn't seem to be there. Well, I like his running ability, the minimal INTs and he had a nice fade pass to MW for a touchdown...71Bear said:Completely disagree...Cal84 said:
>And, of course, he is winning games. Beating UW and SC are accomplishments that other QB's on the team could not have produced. Of that I am certain.
Beating Wazzu last year was effectively the equivalent of beating UW this year. So actually other QBs have accomplishments of that ilk. Beating SuC this year was huge, but let's not claim that was a QB driven event.
Said it before and will say it again, nothing I have seen in 2017 or 2018 has given me any reason to believe that anyone has a lock on this job next year.
The WSU win was principally the product of scheduling. The practice of scheduling consecutive roadies with the second being on a short week has been eliminated effective this year because it created an extremely unfair disadvantage to the visiting team on the second week. WSU simply was not prepared and Cal, to their credit, took advantage of the situation.
As for beating SC and UW, it had much to do with QB play - the fact that Garbers kept his cool in tight situations and did not try to do more than that which he was capable was a key factor in the wins. In essence, while he could have thrown the game away, he didn't, and that is something I haven't seen from a Cal QB in a long, long time.
Guys like Davis and Bowers were fine when things were going well but neither had the ability to do what was necessary in difficult situations. They were "just good enough to lose".
Garbers has demonstrated a cool that is similar to (dare I say it) a Citrus Bowl champion who played for Cal. Pawlawski didn't have the greatest arm but he had the leadership qualities that are critical components in the make-up of championship QB's.
Garbers is a leader. He is the only guy who should be under consideration for QB next year.
Certainly he can be a little bit better as a passer next year, maybe even significantly better, especially if we can put more talent around him. We'll see. I'm pulling for him to succeed.
He will head into the off season as the clear #1.
Cal will have a much deeper and healthier WR corps and RB group next year.
Those two factors will result in a huge jump in productivity next year.
Everyone said the same thing about Bowers
I didn't. Last year we threw a lot and were bad at it. Our two best WRs left. Laird and McMorris emerged as our best offensive players, we were adding TEs and I hoped Baldwin would go to a power running scheme with Bowers throwing off playaction.
The numbers may be similar, but the eye test nets a completely different assessment. Garbers could be good, but as the season progressed I became less optimistic he would turn a corner.
Honestly, I believe that people overestimate how much players improve during college. If there are five categories of play: bad, below average, average, above average, and great, I think the ceiling for improvement is one category. This means you can go from average to above average, but no one is going to go from below average to great.
The trouble is I don't know how to evaluate Garbers' performance as he had so much working against him (no run game, no receivers, conservative playcalls). After looking at the stats and remembering the eye test, I would say he is on the border of average and below average, whereas Goff was just barely above average after his freshman year.
Honestly, I believe that people overestimate how much players improve during college. If there are five categories of play: bad, below average, average, above average, and great, I think the ceiling for improvement is one category. This means you can go from average to above average, but no one is going to go from below average to great.
The trouble is I don't know how to evaluate Garbers' performance as he had so much working against him (no run game, no receivers, conservative playcalls). After looking at the stats and remembering the eye test, I would say he is on the border of average and below average, whereas Goff was just barely above average after his freshman year.
"Everyone"???hanky1 said:71Bear said:Two thoughts...Big C said:What you say here (and what Moe Ways says in the article) makes me want to believe, but then I see Garbers pass against defenses that are DARING HIM to throw and I still have doubts. The arm talent just doesn't seem to be there. Well, I like his running ability, the minimal INTs and he had a nice fade pass to MW for a touchdown...71Bear said:Completely disagree...Cal84 said:
G>And, of course, he is winning games. Beating UW and SC are accomplishments that other QB's on the team could not have produced. Of that I am certain.
Beating Wazzu last year was effectively the equivalent of beating UW this year. So actually other QBs have accomplishments of that ilk. Beating SuC this year was huge, but let's not claim that was a QB driven event.
Said it before and will say it again, nothing I have seen in 2017 or 2018 has given me any reason to believe that anyone has a lock on this job next year.
The WSU win was principally the product of scheduling. The practice of scheduling consecutive roadies with the second being on a short week has been eliminated effective this year because it created an extremely unfair disadvantage to the visiting team on the second week. WSU simply was not prepared and Cal, to their credit, took advantage of the situation.
As for beating SC and UW, it had much to do with QB play - the fact that Garbers kept his cool in tight situations and did not try to do more than that which he was capable was a key factor in the wins. In essence, while he could have thrown the game away, he didn't, and that is something I haven't seen from a Cal QB in a long, long time.
Guys like Davis and Bowers were fine when things were going well but neither had the ability to do what was necessary in difficult situations. They were "just good enough to lose".
Garbers has demonstrated a cool that is similar to (dare I say it) a Citrus Bowl champion who played for Cal. Pawlawski didn't have the greatest arm but he had the leadership qualities that are critical components in the make-up of championship QB's.
Garbers is a leader. He is the only guy who should be under consideration for QB next year.
Certainly he can be a little bit better as a passer next year, maybe even significantly better, especially if we can put more talent around him. We'll see. I'm pulling for him to succeed.
He will head into the off season as the clear #1.
Cal will have a much deeper and healthier WR corps and RB group next year.
Those two factors will result in a huge jump in productivity next year.
Everyone said the same thing about Bowers
I certainly didn't. I have never been a Bowers fan and I stated at this site well before this season kicked off that Garbers should be the starting QB.
In addition, there were a number of others here who were skeptics re: Bowers.
Add to that, the fact that few here felt the RB position was a deep group. And, of course, the loss of three WR's to transfer thinned that corps significantly.
Changing the record to agree with your narrative is a waste of time. Someone will always call you out....
I hope this is true but what make you say this?71Bear said:
Two thoughts...
He will head into the off season as the clear #1.
Cal will have a much deeper and healthier WR corps and RB group next year.
Those two factors will result in a huge jump in productivity next year.
How so.Bobodeluxe said:
The skill positions will be much improved next year.
HungryCalBear said:
Not saying that Garbers is at Goff's caliper, but I looked up Goff's 1st year stats vs Garbers this year:
Goff: 320 completes, 530 attempts, 60.4%, 3508 yards, 18 TD, 10 INT, 123.4 rating
Garbers: 125 completes, 202 attempts, 61.9%, 1216 yards, 13 TD, 5 INT, 128 rating
Pretty comparable stat-wise! Also consider the win/loss records - Goff was 1-11 that year compared to Cal's 7-2 in the games that Garbers started.
Someone correct me, but I believe Goff had better WRs that year than Garbers this year. At the least they were healthier. Treggs, Harris, Lawler, Powe, Richard Rodgers, Ray Hudson, plus Daniel Lasco, Bigelow at RB ... though most of them were soph and fresh that year.
Back out the games against lower division teams and run the numbers again. It will tell you a different story. Garbers feasted on Idaho State.
Go Bears!
Running Noa across the middle is brutal
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Garbers did ok for a year 1 QB. Not great, not awful. Hard to fully judge him because he had no help at all from his WRs & OL, and minimal help from RBs. Laird had a ok year but not one real playmaker on offense. Tough to judge Garbers too harshly, but that said Bowers could end up starting next year if Garbers doesn't improve.
Good news is that it's easier to find a WR who can contribute immediately than it is at any other skill position. Now Baldwin and Wilcox need to go do it.
Good news is that it's easier to find a WR who can contribute immediately than it is at any other skill position. Now Baldwin and Wilcox need to go do it.
Garbers seems like a good guy with a good demeanor, but I suspect his ceiling is just below Kevin Riley. That means that by senior year he would be a top half PAC 12 QB but never top tier. That's not good enough when you have as good as defense as we do.
blungld said:
Garbers seems like a good guy with a good demeanor, but I suspect his ceiling is just below Kevin Riley. That means that by senior year he would be a top half PAC 12 QB but never top tier. That's not good enough when you have as good as defense as we do.
I would argue that's plenty good, precisely BECAUSE we have as good a defense as good at we do. An average P12 offense would have won 11-12 games for Cal this year. Trouble is we weren't even close to average.
He was pretty awful today. Even on the fumble by McMorris, his pass didn't lead him at all, which allowed the second defender to come up and force the fumble.johngalenhoward said:
Garbers did ok for a year 1 QB. Not great, not awful. Hard to fully judge him because he had no help at all from his WRs & OL, and minimal help from RBs. Laird had a ok year but not one real playmaker on offense. Tough to judge Garbers too harshly, but that said Bowers could end up starting next year if Garbers doesn't improve.
Good news is that it's easier to find a WR who can contribute immediately than it is at any other skill position. Now Baldwin and Wilcox need to go do it.
Just no consistency, terribly inaccurate, and not nearly decisive enough. They need someone better, regardless of how good the defense gets.
If they can't do better, Baldwin and Wilcox need to go.
The Cal qBs are trash. There's no ceiling with Garbers. He can't even throw the ball straight or remotely accurately. You can't teach or coach that up
johngalenhoward said:
I would argue that's plenty good, precisely BECAUSE we have as good a defense as good at we do. An average P12 offense would have won 11-12 games for Cal this year. Trouble is we weren't even close to average.
Wilner from the Mercury tweeted we'd have 9 wins if our Offense were merely bad.
I'm not going to rag on an amateur QB, or any amateur. I will say he needs some coaching. A QB guru would help greatly. He has the tools but he needs touch, although admittedly that might not be teachable but mechanics shoiuld help. He did however hit a couple of WRs on the numbers...and the balls were dropped.
Blaming Garbers for McMorris' fumble is idiotic. The receiver is fully responsible for hanging on to the ball once they catch it. The expectation should be that all players have to perform basic football functions, and hanging on to the ball is a basic function. Could the pass have been better, yes, but the expectation is for McMorris to make that catch and keep the ball, if a player can't adapt to less than perfect conditions they shouldn't be playing sports.
Offense terrible. Seen enough of Garbers. Fire Baldwin, who called played Garbers could not make, and get a grad transfer. Bowers is light years better than Bowers yet he is not even suited up. No trick plays, no innovative plays, With 10 minutes left I would have tried Forrest. Stick head in the mud and do nothing. No way will I go to a bowl game and watch this.
Bring back It’s It’s to Haas Pavillion!
Another Bear said:
I'm not going to rag on an amateur QB, or any amateur. I will say he needs some coaching. A QB guru would help greatly. He has the tools but he needs touch, although admittedly that might not be teachable but mechanics shoiuld help. He did however hit a couple of WRs on the numbers...and the balls were dropped.
Yeah, drops were brutal tonight, and have been all season. Garbers certainly makes his share of mistakes- no argument there. But when your style of football is defense first, it leaves little room for dumb mistakes. There is simply no excuse for dropping it when the pass hits you in the hands , chest, or facemask. All 3 happened tonight. Do you guys even remember all the off target passes Chad Hansen used to haul in every single game? I think our collective opinion of Garbers would be vastly different if he had one pair of great hands to throw to this year. This needs to be Wilcoxs #1 priority in my mind.
I think my biggest frustration with Garbers is his decision making speed. He seemed to get worse as the year went on. And I'm sure some of that has to do with broadening the playbook (lol) and level of competition. But good god, so many times he seems to manuever directly into pressure ala Bad Bowers, miss WIDE OPEN receivers or simply hold the damn ball instead of throwing it away. Even with really world class coaching these feel like Garbers issues. And again, the lack of improvement over the season doesn't bode well.
KenBurnski said:
I think my biggest frustration with Garbers is his decision making speed. He seemed to get worse as the year went on. And I'm sure some of that has to do with broadening the playbook (lol) and level of competition. But good god, so many times he seems to manuever directly into pressure ala Bad Bowers, miss WIDE OPEN receivers or simply hold the damn ball instead of throwing it away. Even with really world class coaching these feel like Garbers issues. And again, the lack of improvement over the season doesn't bode well.
Yeah that's fair. He definitely needs to stay calmer in the collapsing pocket and start seeing the field better. Seems like he pulls the ball down too early sometimes and has trouble spotting open receivers under pressure. His accuracy on the long ball clearly isn't there. At the same time, he hasn't had great protection all season and these receivers are just disappointing across the board.
He does do some things pretty well. Scrambling ability is well above average and he's done well protecting the football. I feel like he has improved over the season, although not by as much as I'd like to see. Bowers could definitely win the job back if his injury heals and Garbers doesn't make some strides. Regardless of who starts next year, I stand by my comment that upgraded WRs and TEs are absolutely critical if we are to have any chance of meaningful improvement.
Unfortunately, Bowers appears to be transferring. I was hoping someone would surpass him this year, but I didn't want him to get injured and lose his job. Bummed about how it worked out for him.johngalenhoward said:KenBurnski said:
Bowers could definitely win the job back if his injury heals and Garbers doesn't make some strides.
Yogi Bear said:Unfortunately, Bowers appears to be transferring. I was hoping someone would surpass him this year, but I didn't want him to get injured and lose his job. Bummed about how it worked out for him.johngalenhoward said:KenBurnski said:
Bowers could definitely win the job back if his injury heals and Garbers doesn't make some strides.
Where did you see that? Bummer if true.
Different site. There is a list of guys who have requested transfers and he's on the list.johngalenhoward said:Yogi Bear said:Unfortunately, Bowers appears to be transferring. I was hoping someone would surpass him this year, but I didn't want him to get injured and lose his job. Bummed about how it worked out for him.johngalenhoward said:KenBurnski said:
Bowers could definitely win the job back if his injury heals and Garbers doesn't make some strides.
Where did you see that? Bummer if true.
all the offensive coaches should be let go including greatwood. average players recruited so what do you expect. and those OL players recruited wont bail. if wilcox does not get rid of them, then he should be too. i am tired of having terrible teams to root for.
>He (Garbers) will head into the off season as the clear #1. Cal will have a much deeper and healthier WR corps and RB group next year.
Am pretty sure we'll see open competition for the QB position. As far as the WR/RB positions...
At WR our front three will be Noa/Duncan/Hawkins instead of Wharton/Means/Noa. And then you are still looking for players without a lot of prior achievements stepping up to be the supplemental WRs. Same as this year. This year those "emerging" WRs were Duncan and Hawkins, neither of whom had over 15 catches. Next year it will probably be Remegio and Walker. Anyway you look at it, that is a TON of inexperience at the WR position that we will be promoting into front line positions. And that's IF we have NO injuries here.
At RB, we lose our most reliable player on offense. Chris Brown is the likely replacement. But we have a number of guys who saw sparse action this year that seem to provide a lot more depth here than at WR. If you are optimistic this could be a wash.
The place where we see a downturn is TE. Of our 7 TEs on the roster, 4 are seniors, including all the ones that got meaningful playing time this year. We may need to convert one of our smaller OL to a blocking TE just to be able to run multiple TE sets.
So, no. Unless someone has a spectacular breakout year, the talent at the skill positions next year seems at best equal to what we have this year. And potentially worse. If injuries strike, we could be hosed.
Am pretty sure we'll see open competition for the QB position. As far as the WR/RB positions...
At WR our front three will be Noa/Duncan/Hawkins instead of Wharton/Means/Noa. And then you are still looking for players without a lot of prior achievements stepping up to be the supplemental WRs. Same as this year. This year those "emerging" WRs were Duncan and Hawkins, neither of whom had over 15 catches. Next year it will probably be Remegio and Walker. Anyway you look at it, that is a TON of inexperience at the WR position that we will be promoting into front line positions. And that's IF we have NO injuries here.
At RB, we lose our most reliable player on offense. Chris Brown is the likely replacement. But we have a number of guys who saw sparse action this year that seem to provide a lot more depth here than at WR. If you are optimistic this could be a wash.
The place where we see a downturn is TE. Of our 7 TEs on the roster, 4 are seniors, including all the ones that got meaningful playing time this year. We may need to convert one of our smaller OL to a blocking TE just to be able to run multiple TE sets.
So, no. Unless someone has a spectacular breakout year, the talent at the skill positions next year seems at best equal to what we have this year. And potentially worse. If injuries strike, we could be hosed.
With Bowers leaving, who exactly will be involved in the "open competition"? Unless Cal signs a JC QB or grad transfer, the roster will have three scholarship guys, Garbers, McIlwain and a true freshman.Cal84 said:
>He (Garbers) will head into the off season as the clear #1. Cal will have a much deeper and healthier WR corps and RB group next year.
Am pretty sure we'll see open competition for the QB position. As far as the WR/RB positions...
At WR our front three will be Noa/Duncan/Hawkins instead of Wharton/Means/Noa. And then you are still looking for players without a lot of prior achievements stepping up to be the supplemental WRs. Same as this year. This year those "emerging" WRs were Duncan and Hawkins, neither of whom had over 15 catches. Next year it will probably be Remegio and Walker. Anyway you look at it, that is a TON of inexperience at the WR position that we will be promoting into front line positions. And that's IF we have NO injuries here.
At RB, we lose our most reliable player on offense. Chris Brown is the likely replacement. But we have a number of guys who saw sparse action this year that seem to provide a lot more depth here than at WR. If you are optimistic this could be a wash.
The place where we see a downturn is TE. Of our 7 TEs on the roster, 4 are seniors, including all the ones that got meaningful playing time this year. We may need to convert one of our smaller OL to a blocking TE just to be able to run multiple TE sets.
So, no. Unless someone has a spectacular breakout year, the talent at the skill positions next year seems at best equal to what we have this year. And potentially worse. If injuries strike, we could be hosed.
As for WR and RB, I can only assume that you believe Cal will not sign any new talent at those positions. Otherwise, you would have included them in your summary.
As for a TE, keep an eye on Castles. I think you will be pleased with his play next year.
71Bear said:With Bowers leaving, who exactly will be involved in the "open competition"? Unless Cal signs a JC QB, the roster will have three scholarship guys, Garbers, McIlwain and a true freshman.Cal84 said:
>He (Garbers) will head into the off season as the clear #1. Cal will have a much deeper and healthier WR corps and RB group next year.
Am pretty sure we'll see open competition for the QB position. As far as the WR/RB positions...
At WR our front three will be Noa/Duncan/Hawkins instead of Wharton/Means/Noa. And then you are still looking for players without a lot of prior achievements stepping up to be the supplemental WRs. Same as this year. This year those "emerging" WRs were Duncan and Hawkins, neither of whom had over 15 catches. Next year it will probably be Remegio and Walker. Anyway you look at it, that is a TON of inexperience at the WR position that we will be promoting into front line positions. And that's IF we have NO injuries here.
At RB, we lose our most reliable player on offense. Chris Brown is the likely replacement. But we have a number of guys who saw sparse action this year that seem to provide a lot more depth here than at WR. If you are optimistic this could be a wash.
The place where we see a downturn is TE. Of our 7 TEs on the roster, 4 are seniors, including all the ones that got meaningful playing time this year. We may need to convert one of our smaller OL to a blocking TE just to be able to run multiple TE sets.
So, no. Unless someone has a spectacular breakout year, the talent at the skill positions next year seems at best equal to what we have this year. And potentially worse. If injuries strike, we could be hosed.
As for WR and RB, I can only assume that you believe Cal will not sign any new talent at those positions. Otherwise, you would have included them in your summary.
As for a TE, keep an eye on Castles. I think you will be pleased with his play next year.
Strong likelihood Cal is getting a grad transfer.
I pray we get Daniels and/or a grad transfer. We need someone that can move the ball and be a accurate passer. Need a PAC 12 ready QB to make plays. Be nice to have a talented enough QB that has an NFL future.
I have amended my post to reflect your comment.hanky1 said:71Bear said:With Bowers leaving, who exactly will be involved in the "open competition"? Unless Cal signs a JC QB, the roster will have three scholarship guys, Garbers, McIlwain and a true freshman.Cal84 said:
>He (Garbers) will head into the off season as the clear #1. Cal will have a much deeper and healthier WR corps and RB group next year.
Am pretty sure we'll see open competition for the QB position. As far as the WR/RB positions...
At WR our front three will be Noa/Duncan/Hawkins instead of Wharton/Means/Noa. And then you are still looking for players without a lot of prior achievements stepping up to be the supplemental WRs. Same as this year. This year those "emerging" WRs were Duncan and Hawkins, neither of whom had over 15 catches. Next year it will probably be Remegio and Walker. Anyway you look at it, that is a TON of inexperience at the WR position that we will be promoting into front line positions. And that's IF we have NO injuries here.
At RB, we lose our most reliable player on offense. Chris Brown is the likely replacement. But we have a number of guys who saw sparse action this year that seem to provide a lot more depth here than at WR. If you are optimistic this could be a wash.
The place where we see a downturn is TE. Of our 7 TEs on the roster, 4 are seniors, including all the ones that got meaningful playing time this year. We may need to convert one of our smaller OL to a blocking TE just to be able to run multiple TE sets.
So, no. Unless someone has a spectacular breakout year, the talent at the skill positions next year seems at best equal to what we have this year. And potentially worse. If injuries strike, we could be hosed.
As for WR and RB, I can only assume that you believe Cal will not sign any new talent at those positions. Otherwise, you would have included them in your summary.
As for a TE, keep an eye on Castles. I think you will be pleased with his play next year.
Strong likelihood Cal is getting a grad transfer.
Counting on a true freshman is a fool's errand (see SC and Daniels this season).....Gkhoury2325 said:
I pray we get Daniels and/or a grad transfer. We need someone that can move the ball and be a accurate passer. Need a PAC 12 ready QB to make plays. Be nice to have a talented enough QB that has an NFL future.
71Bear said:Counting on a true freshman is a fool's errand (see SC and Daniels this season).....Gkhoury2325 said:
I pray we get Daniels and/or a grad transfer. We need someone that can move the ball and be a accurate passer. Need a PAC 12 ready QB to make plays. Be nice to have a talented enough QB that has an NFL future.
I'll take my chances with a talented freshman like Daniels than Gabers any day of the week. So would almost every Cal fan. It twould be nice to get a lights out Grad Transfer to come to Cal and more ideal.
Cal84 said:
>He (Garbers) will head into the off season as the clear #1. Cal will have a much deeper and healthier WR corps and RB group next year.
Am pretty sure we'll see open competition for the QB position. As far as the WR/RB positions...
At WR our front three will be Noa/Duncan/Hawkins instead of Wharton/Means/Noa. And then you are still looking for players without a lot of prior achievements stepping up to be the supplemental WRs. Same as this year. This year those "emerging" WRs were Duncan and Hawkins, neither of whom had over 15 catches. Next year it will probably be Remegio and Walker. Anyway you look at it, that is a TON of inexperience at the WR position that we will be promoting into front line positions. And that's IF we have NO injuries here.
At RB, we lose our most reliable player on offense. Chris Brown is the likely replacement. But we have a number of guys who saw sparse action this year that seem to provide a lot more depth here than at WR. If you are optimistic this could be a wash.
The place where we see a downturn is TE. Of our 7 TEs on the roster, 4 are seniors, including all the ones that got meaningful playing time this year. We may need to convert one of our smaller OL to a blocking TE just to be able to run multiple TE sets.
So, no. Unless someone has a spectacular breakout year, the talent at the skill positions next year seems at best equal to what we have this year. And potentially worse. If injuries strike, we could be hosed.
Dancy looks like a talent. If he was not hurt, we should not have redshirted him.
Yogi Bear said:Different site. There is a list of guys who have requested transfers and he's on the list.johngalenhoward said:Yogi Bear said:Unfortunately, Bowers appears to be transferring. I was hoping someone would surpass him this year, but I didn't want him to get injured and lose his job. Bummed about how it worked out for him.johngalenhoward said:KenBurnski said:
Bowers could definitely win the job back if his injury heals and Garbers doesn't make some strides.
Where did you see that? Bummer if true.
Who else is on that list?
Garbers doesn't see the field well and he lacks confidence to throw the ball in a narrow timeframe / window. Even on short / intermediate throws where he has shown accuracy he often lacks the confidence to rip it in there. His long throws are an abomination.
He has a lot of improving to do. I am rooting for him.
He has a lot of improving to do. I am rooting for him.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Enjoy 'Exciting Times' In Fun Spring Game
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Signs Shannon Dowell For 2026-27 Season
by Cal Athletics