Head coach Justin Wilcox officially declared the competition wide-open for the starting quarterback spot, and all the candidates took part in the first day of spring practice.
Last year’s primary starter Chase Garbers (No. 7), UCLA transfer Devon Modster (6), JC transfer Jack Newman (8) and walk-on Robby Rowell (13) all took snaps on Monday.
Wilcox said that competition for playing time is taking place all over the roster. “That’s what we’re focused on right now at every position, and quarterback’s no different.,” he said. “There is going to be opportunities for all those guys to get reps. That is the beauty of spring football. We have enough reps to go around.
“I think Chase is going to get a lot better. We have Devon in here and Jack and Robby. And all those guys are going to have opportunities to get 11-on-11, 7-on-7 and 1-on-1. What’s most important is that they get better, like every other position. The depth chart is not something we are even talking about right now.”
He said he had no timetable for making a decision.
“It will resolve when it resolves, whether that’s in a week, ten days, two months or six months,” he said. “I don’t know the answer to that.
The running back position is also interesting, with Brandon McIlwain (5), the erstwhile former quarterback and current baseball outfielder working with RBs Monday.
The other candidates on the field this spring are Marcel Dancy (23), Alex Netherda (31), Chris Brown (34) and DeShawn Collins (26).
Below is video of a running backs drill and well as QB drills:
My fear is that this sounds a lot like last year. They had no timetable to determine the QB and they in fact were never able to figure it out. In the first game they played three quartbacks.
If they don't name a starter soon in fall camp, I fear that no one again is separating themselves and that's a bad sign. Much higher probability of having all subpar QBs than all good to decent ones.
Give to Cal Legends!
https://calegends.com/donation/ Do it now. Text every Cal fan you know, give them the link, tell them how much you gave, and ask them to text every Cal fan they know and do the same.
My fear is that this sounds a lot like last year. They had no timetable to determine the QB and they in fact were never able to figure it out. In the first game they played three quartbacks.
If they don't name a starter soon in fall camp, I fear that no one again is separating themselves and that's a bad sign. Much higher probability of having all subpar QBs than all good to decent ones.
Well, at least no one can say you have a fat brain, fat_slice. I say this because I was thinking the same exact thing!
Jumping ahead, if you and I are making a valid observation, then Wilcox is an eventual gonner! He is unable or maybe has not found any way to either establish his own method of developing an offense or hasn't figured out a way to doing such in view of historical UC administrative and pseudo-cultural impediments to doing so?
My fear is that this sounds a lot like last year. They had no timetable to determine the QB and they in fact were never able to figure it out. In the first game they played three quartbacks.
If they don't name a starter soon in fall camp, I fear that no one again is separating themselves and that's a bad sign. Much higher probability of having all subpar QBs than all good to decent ones.
It is early to worry about this.
Hopefully they have a timetable by the opening of Fall camp.
My fear is that this sounds a lot like last year. They had no timetable to determine the QB and they in fact were never able to figure it out. In the first game they played three quartbacks.
If they don't name a starter soon in fall camp, I fear that no one again is separating themselves and that's a bad sign. Much higher probability of having all subpar QBs than all good to decent ones.
Hopefully they have a timetable by the opening of Fall camp.
Given the first game is v. Davis, there is no urgency to name a 1st team QB. I suspect there will be a pecking order but I also suspect that at least a couple of the guys will see snaps at some point during that game. IMO, the key is having everything settled by Week 2.
How are the coaches planning to use McIlwain as a RB? I see him more as a WR or a flanker. He's not big enough to absorb a ton of hits from running between the tackles.
No reason to impose an artificial timetable on the QB situation. Certainly no reason to announce a timetable to the media. There are plenty of reasons to worry about the offense, but this isn't one of them.
How are the coaches planning to use McIlwain as a RB? I see him more as a WR or a flanker. He's not big enough to absorb a ton of hits from running between the tackles.
Right? We need numbers at WR and he has been studying the pass plays all along, he knows where the WRs are supposed to be. Plus at flanker he can set up for a double-pass or take the ball on a fly sweep with a pass option.
My fear is that this sounds a lot like last year. They had no timetable to determine the QB and they in fact were never able to figure it out. In the first game they played three quartbacks.
If they don't name a starter soon in fall camp, I fear that no one again is separating themselves and that's a bad sign. Much higher probability of having all subpar QBs than all good to decent ones.
Hopefully they have a timetable by the opening of Fall camp.
Given the first game is v. Davis, there is no urgency to name a 1st team QB. I suspect there will be a pecking order but I also suspect that at least a couple of the guys will see snaps at some point during that game. IMO, the key is having everything settled by Week 2.
Having a timetable for naming a depth chart is different than actually naming a depth chart. You just gave a possible time table (have everything settled by game 2). Other posters expressed worry about that very scenario. I think you and I agree, it is too early to worry about it. I do hope the coaches have a plan by the start of Fall camp, even if the plan is to let competition go into game 2 as you suggest.
"We at Cal have plenty of time to plan who will play the QB position! We have until Week 2 of the schedule. Just because Washington already knows who their QB will be doesn't mean Cal still can't surprise the Huskies by keeping our starting QB secret until we play'em. Now that's what I call a plan!"
I totally agreed with sitting Mc rather than having him continue to flounder at QB this past season. However I think its a mistake to move him to RB. The guy had the "yips" at QB - his mistakes were in his head. That can be fixed. He is a 5 star talent at QB while a 3 star talent at RB or WR. QB is a position of need.
I totally agreed with sitting Mc rather than having him continue to flounder at QB this past season. However I think its a mistake to move him to RB. The guy had the "yips" at QB - his mistakes were in his head. That can be fixed. He is a 5 star talent at QB while a 3 star talent at RB or WR. QB is a position of need.
Under perfect conditions...yes, you are 100% correct. But we do not have 3 years to wait for guys. If MC is not the starter, he needs to get on the field this year. RB, Slot , anywhere. He is too damn fast and way to explosive to have him as a back up or 3rd stringer.
I totally agreed with sitting Mc rather than having him continue to flounder at QB this past season. However I think its a mistake to move him to RB. The guy had the "yips" at QB - his mistakes were in his head. That can be fixed. He is a 5 star talent at QB while a 3 star talent at RB or WR. QB is a position of need.
Under perfect conditions...yes, you are 100% correct. But we do not have 3 years to wait for guys. If MC is not the starter, he needs to get on the field this year. RB, Slot , anywhere. He is too damn fast and way to explosive to have him as a back up or 3rd stringer.
Agreed.
I would add BM was a top QB recruit coming out of HS in large part because of his athleticism, not because of his polished passing skills and decision-making - which I am sure at the time was something those recruiting him figured he could develop in college.
Not saying he couldn't have the "QB bulb" go off and he'd be amazing in Baldwin's offense, but I agree, he's too athletic to be a 3rd string QB when we desperately need potentially explosive players on the field making explosive plays.
Additionally, most of our RB and WR recruits are in the 3* category, so if we believe the premise that he is a 3* WR/RB talent, then he is on par with our other skill position players.
Personally, when he flashed his athleticism (think 1st half against UA) he was easily our most explosive player on the offensive side of the ball.
As a runner from the QB spot, more often than not he gained solid positive yards and seemed to display good running instincts once he took off (one reason why I couldn't figure out not inserting him in as a wildcat QB in the Cheez-It Bowl once it became clear a bona-fide passing game was not in the cards for either team that night), so working him out at positions that could put the ball in his hands and letting his athleticism help us makes a lot of sense to me.
My fear is that this sounds a lot like last year. They had no timetable to determine the QB and they in fact were never able to figure it out. In the first game they played three quartbacks.
If they don't name a starter soon in fall camp, I fear that no one again is separating themselves and that's a bad sign. Much higher probability of having all subpar QBs than all good to decent ones.
Last year the coaches did name a starter early in the process. His name was Ross Bowers. Then Bowers broke the thumb on his throwing hand in the first game of the season...
It's going to be really interesting to see what lessons the staff learned from last year.
Yes what the staff has learned will be important. IMO what is more important is whether we will have the players to implement any plan that the staff comes up with. At the Bowl game iMO the staff came up with a decent plan for the starting players. Unfortunately after Noa and Laird went down we had no offense.
How are the coaches planning to use McIlwain as a RB? I see him more as a WR or a flanker. He's not big enough to absorb a ton of hits from running between the tackles.
Size is not all that critical to running inside if the OL play is competent. Philip Lindsay (no bigger than McIlwain)ran inside a lot at CU and even some in the NFL. Miles Gaskin, no giant, made history at UW and many of his runs over 4 years were between the tackles.In any case, I doubt very much we'll see McIlwain get a lot of snaps at RB unless he shows improved ball security and develops as a pass receiver or blocker.
Agreed. Further to your point, with Brown, Dancy and Collins in the backfield, Mac would be unlikely to be the "bell cow" if he were to play RB. Every down backs typically need more bulk to absorb the volume of hits taken over the course of a game with 20-30 touches. Mac is more likely to be a hybrid RB/slot WR/wildcat QB with the intention of getting him the ball in space. Doubt he'll ever be a guy an OC would give the ball 20 times a game between the tackles.
Agreed. Further to your point, with Brown, Dancy and Collins in the backfield, Mac would be unlikely to be the "bell cow" if he were to play RB. Every down backs typically need more bulk to absorb the volume of hits taken over the course of a game with 20-30 touches. Mac is more likely to be a hybrid RB/slot WR/wildcat QB with the intention of getting him the ball in space. Doubt he'll ever be a guy an OC would give the ball 20 times a game between the tackles.
I don't think it makes sense to have him at RB. Seems like having him work out as a slot receiver (ie practice running routes and catching balls) would be the best use. Wildcat, reverses, and other gadget plays would all be possible. We are going to have a running QB (no matter who wins the job) and we have a few guys already at RB who I am sanguine about. At WR only Duncan is proven. We need at least 3 other guys.
I totally agreed with sitting Mc rather than having him continue to flounder at QB this past season. However I think its a mistake to move him to RB. The guy had the "yips" at QB - his mistakes were in his head. That can be fixed. He is a 5 star talent at QB while a 3 star talent at RB or WR. QB is a position of need.
I totally agreed with sitting Mc rather than having him continue to flounder at QB this past season. However I think its a mistake to move him to RB. The guy had the "yips" at QB - his mistakes were in his head. That can be fixed. He is a 5 star talent at QB while a 3 star talent at RB or WR. QB is a position of need.
He wasn't good enough at South Carolina and he wasn't good enough here. This goes well beyond having the yips
Aren't we all just hoping Modster becomes the clear choice after one week?
Not me. I am in Garbers camp. Modster is a good failsafe but not much more. Garbers has the highest ceiling.
If Garbers wins the job it's because he would know and manage the offense the best (and reduce the forced INTs). There was nothing he did last season that made me say in any way "wow this guy has some upside." Kyle Boller, for how terrible he was the first 3 seasons, still had his cannon arm. You could see it. It was inaccurate. He was not placed in good positions. But you could still see it. I did not see much zip on Garbers throws whether short, mid or deep. Garbers did have some good instincts to get away from the rush and run for nice gains. Even that was limited in the last few games when teams figured out that was his best chance at moving the ball. So sorry, I don't know where you get your belief that he has the "highest ceiling" esp. when we haven't seen Modster much.
Aren't we all just hoping Modster becomes the clear choice after one week?
Not me. I am in Garbers camp. Modster is a good failsafe but not much more. Garbers has the highest ceiling.
If Garbers wins the job it's because he would know and manage the offense the best (and reduce the forced INTs). There was nothing he did last season that made me say in any way "wow this guy has some upside." Kyle Boller, for how terrible he was the first 3 seasons, still had his cannon arm. You could see it. It was inaccurate. He was not placed in good positions. But you could still see it. I did not see much zip on Garbers throws whether short, mid or deep. Garbers did have some good instincts to get away from the rush and run for nice gains. Even that was limited in the last few games when teams figured out that was his best chance at moving the ball. So sorry, I don't know where you get your belief that he has the "highest ceiling" esp. when we haven't seen Modster much.
Kyle Boller had less going for him in his senior year than Garbers does now. Garbers is generally able to get the ball where he wants it to go, which was Boller's big problem. His problem is that he needs to make better decisions on where the ball should be going.
In watching Modster, his decision making looked better than Garbers and his deep accuracy looked better too. But I'm skeptical about his running ability (which is not to say that I think it should be a determining factor in who the QB should be), just that it's not a plus for him.
Hopefully they'll make a decision and put all of their resources and effort into the guy they think is best rather than what they did last year.
Aren't we all just hoping Modster becomes the clear choice after one week?
Not me. I am in Garbers camp. Modster is a good failsafe but not much more. Garbers has the highest ceiling.
If Garbers wins the job it's because he would know and manage the offense the best (and reduce the forced INTs). There was nothing he did last season that made me say in any way "wow this guy has some upside." Kyle Boller, for how terrible he was the first 3 seasons, still had his cannon arm. You could see it. It was inaccurate. He was not placed in good positions. But you could still see it. I did not see much zip on Garbers throws whether short, mid or deep. Garbers did have some good instincts to get away from the rush and run for nice gains. Even that was limited in the last few games when teams figured out that was his best chance at moving the ball. So sorry, I don't know where you get your belief that he has the "highest ceiling" esp. when we haven't seen Modster much.
Kyle Boller had less going for him in his senior year than Garbers does now. Garbers is generally able to get the ball where he wants it to go, which was Boller's big problem. His problem is that he needs to make better decisions on where the ball should be going.
In watching Modster, his decision making looked better than Garbers and his deep accuracy looked better too. But I'm skeptical about his running ability (which is not to say that I think it should be a determining factor in who the QB should be), just that it's not a plus for him.
Hopefully they'll make a decision and put all of their resources and effort into the guy they think is best rather than what they did last year.
As far as running ability, at a minimum we need our QB to be able to escape pressure and sprint for a first down if no one is open. Running ability beyond that is great, but it does not trump any passing advantage. All of our QB candidates are capable of using their feet to gain first downs.
As I have said all along, our biggest issues are not QB, but 1) WRs and 2) scheme and playcalling.
Our WR situation was bad in 2017, got worse in 2018, and now in 2019 we return one WR or TE with more than 100 yds in receiving. We need multiple players to step up and need Baldwin to show us SOMETHING.
I totally agreed with sitting Mc rather than having him continue to flounder at QB this past season. However I think its a mistake to move him to RB. The guy had the "yips" at QB - his mistakes were in his head. That can be fixed. He is a 5 star talent at QB while a 3 star talent at RB or WR. QB is a position of need.
My fear is that this sounds a lot like last year. They had no timetable to determine the QB and they in fact were never able to figure it out. In the first game they played three quartbacks.
If they don't name a starter soon in fall camp, I fear that no one again is separating themselves and that's a bad sign. Much higher probability of having all subpar QBs than all good to decent ones.
Statements like these make me wonder how long you have followed college football. It is way more common than not to have a coaching staff establish a culture of competition in Spring camp only to pivot in Fall camp to name the depth chart at every position.
They have a new QB on the team in Modster, what kind of message would it send to other QBs on the team that Modster is the No. 1 when nobody has seen him throw? That would be unfair to the returning players. Likewise what message would it send to Modster to indicate that the No. 1 QB job is somebody elses, without anybody having seen what Modster can do and where he may stack up. That would be unfair to Modster. The idea here is to create a competition that raises all boats. Who ultimately starts or is No. 1 is an unnecessary decision at this point.