Quarterback Competition Has Begun

fat_slice said:

---

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?

fat_slice said:

---

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.

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

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.

BearSD said:

---

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.

71Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

fat_slice said:

---

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.

MilleniaBear said:

---

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.

socalBear23 said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

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.

fat_slice said:

---

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.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

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.

BearSD said:

---

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.

Just glad to see Mc running with the RB's.

I see Mc in the gadget player mould of deanthony thomas, tavon austin

oskirules said:

---

Aren't we all just hoping Modster becomes the clear choice after one week?

---

BINGO!

oskirules said:

---

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.

oskirules said:

---

Aren't we all just hoping Modster becomes the clear choice after one week?

---

I'm hoping it's hard to make a decision... because they're all so good!

(I'm like this every off-season, when we're still undefeated.)

Beardog26 said:

---

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 am of the opinion that we are better off for having different positional coaches working with the QBs, whoever wins the job.

In Newman I trust

KoreAmBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

oskirules said:

---

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.

Yogi Bear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

oskirules said:

---

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.

New chapter. New avatar.

calumnus said:

---

As I have said all along, our biggest issues are not QB, but 1) WRs and 2) scheme and playcalling.

---

and (3) OL performance.

2018 OL performance regressed from 2017, which was somewhat a surprise considering who we have as OL coach.