Garbers takes an early lead in the QB race
7,441 Views |
42 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Big C
YES!
So reading between the tea leaves
- garbers has a better grasp of the offense (at this early point)
- modster has a better ability to throw it downfield
So it looks like it'll come down to how quickly modster can grasp the offense
- garbers has a better grasp of the offense (at this early point)
- modster has a better ability to throw it downfield
So it looks like it'll come down to how quickly modster can grasp the offense
Of course, if Cal does not have any guys who can get clear downfield, it won't matter whether the QB can wing it or not. IMO, the key will be who can throw the mid-range ball accurately AND "move the chains" consistently. Cal may not have a big play O; however, they may not need one either. They simply need a guy who can matriculate the ball down the field (thanks, Hank Stram for that great video).ducky23 said:
So reading between the tea leaves
- garbers has a better grasp of the offense (at this early point)
- modster has a better ability to throw it downfield
So it looks like it'll come down to how quickly modster can grasp the offense
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
"More of the same, sir?"
So, it looks like my "status quo" basis of assumption for how well Cal ight perform next season was a good one, especially at this juncture.
Cal looks to be serving up the same dish.
Blueblood said:
"More of the same, sir?"
So, it looks like my "status quo" basis of assumption for how well Cal ight perform next season was a good one, especially at this juncture.
Cal looks to be serving up the same dish.
The question in my mind is whether we get the 2018 version of the BB offense where the wheels fell off or the 2017 BB offense which did some things like run the ball much better than expected...
The two significant WR transfers, Clark and Crawford, won't be here until summer.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Peanut Gallery Consultant
"Serving the same old..." Isn't it possible that players improve year-to-year? I would be very surprised if Garbers is not the starter next fall, and even more surprised if he isn't greatly improved. Also, on the wide receiver issue, being effective is not predicated on being a burner: see. New England Patriots passing game.
Hopefully they can learn the offense quickly!!! And Duncan can stay healthy.Big C said:The two significant WR transfers, Clark and Crawford, won't be here until summer.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
BearGreg
Joined:
Jul 9, 2017
Posts:
7,291
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
The competition is far from over. Modster's absorbing the playbook and thinking instead of playing right now. After week two of Fall Camp, we'll have a far better sense of who our QB will be in September.
It is way, way too early for projecting starters. The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition.
Watched practice, we looked like we were in 2018 game form.
Serious question: Is that good or bad?socaliganbear said:
Watched practice, we looked like we were in 2018 game form.
wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. [For fans (it's never too early), I don't agree. Isn't the starter going to be Garbers or Modster? Pick one or the other.] The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.[Even if the newly arriving WRs are good enough to expose one or the other to be the starter, isn't it going to be Garbers or Modster, or visa versa?]Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition. [Yes, this is good, but how does one truely assess such when, as you point out, "the guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing?" Aren't you just "projecting" like others here?]
Urrupp!....excellant question!Go!Bears said:Serious question: Is that good or bad?socaliganbear said:
Watched practice, we looked like we were in 2018 game form.
Will first bear in mind that the source is the Chronicle, so it is de facto wrong. Second, the Chron based their comments on the rotation of an early fall practice where the coaches have said don't read anything into rotations at this juncture (they did anyway). I'm not sure where you came up with that any QB on the roster isn't practicing or getting reps. Besides not being stated in the article, the comment also is inaccurate.Blueblood said:wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. [For fans (it's never too early), I don't agree. Isn't the starter going to be Garbers or Modster? Pick one or the other.] The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.[Even if the newly arriving WRs are good enough to expose one or the other to be the starter, isn't it going to be Garbers or Modster, or visa versa?]Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition. [Yes, this is good, but how does one truely assess such when, as you point out, "the guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing?" Aren't you just "projecting" like others here?]
I'm happy to hear from BI commentators, the coaches and the Chronicle that Garbers looks better. I don't expect Rowell to be in the hunt for playing time. I haver not seen or heard that says Newman is not in the competition and everything the coaches have said indicates no QB determination has been made. Moreover, the coaches have said that a player who isn't even in camp, Brasch, will have an opportunity to compete. What I'm projecting is that Garbers, Modster, Brasch or Newman will be the starter because that is basically every QB presently on the roster other than frosh walk-on Rowell. And if Cal gets a grad transfer, throw him in as well.
Go!Bears said:Serious question: Is that good or bad?socaliganbear said:
Watched practice, we looked like we were in 2018 game form.
I'll let you decide.
Agree it's very early and only spring. I'm calling Grabbers the default starter because of the report and he started last year. But I understand it's open competition and things will be decided in the Fall. I like that Modster can throw the long ball. That's the one thing last season that could have made a significant difference. Hope Garbers can find touch for the long ball too.wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition.
Peanut Gallery Consultant
wifeisafurd said:Will (sic) first bear in mind that the source is the Chronicle, so it is de facto wrong. Second, the Chron based their comments on the rotation of an early fall practice where the coaches have said don't read anything into rotations at this juncture (they did anyway). [At this juncture, the Chron (as well as myself, I might add) are merely facing what little reality we have seen and heard about Cal practices...that is, it looks like Garbers and Modster are the two leading candidates for starter. If you and/or the Cal coaching staff think differently, you and they have keep a well guarded secret.] I'm not sure where you came up with that any QB on the roster isn't practicing or getting reps. [I've never said nor implied such?] Besides not being stated in the article, the comment also is inaccurate. [What comment, pray tell?]Blueblood said:wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. [For fans (it's never too early), I don't agree. Isn't the starter going to be Garbers or Modster? Pick one or the other.] The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.[Even if the newly arriving WRs are good enough to expose one or the other to be the starter, isn't it going to be Garbers or Modster, or visa versa?]Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition. [Yes, this is good, but how does one truely assess such when, as you point out, "the guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing?" Aren't you just "projecting" like others here?]
I'm happy to hear from BI commentators, the coaches and the Chronicle that Garbers looks better. I don't expect Rowell to be in the hunt for playing time. I haver (sic) not seen or heard that says Newman is not in the competition and everything the coaches have said indicates no QB determination has been made. [If Newman wins the starter job such elevation will apparently depend upon future performance, but if so, then, observations from "BI commentators, the coaches, and the Chronicle" about Garbers means very, very little and are also highly disconcerting!] "Moreover, the coaches have said that a player who isn't even in camp, Brasch, will have an opportunity to compete. [Well, good for him and Cal coaching veracity!] What I'm projecting is that Garbers, Modster, Brasch or Newman will be the starter because that is basically every QB presently on the roster other than frosh walk-on Rowell. [Your projecting albeit kinda broadly. We, that is the Chron and myself, have just narrowed the field based on other factors, like common sense for one]. And if Cal gets a grad transfer, throw him in as well. [Cal getting a grad-transfer isn't on the horizon at the moment, but you do have a point, again albeit rather weak at this juncture.]
he doesn't have touch, he's not going to suddenly find it. or at least it's highly unlikely.Another Bear said:Agree it's very early and only spring. I'm calling Grabbers the default starter because of the report and he started last year. But I understand it's open competition and things will be decided in the Fall. I like that Modster can throw the long ball. That's the one thing last season that could have made a significant difference. Hope Garbers can find touch for the long ball too.wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition.
flounder said:he doesn't have touch, he's not going to suddenly find it. or at least it's highly unlikely.Another Bear said:Agree it's very early and only spring. I'm calling Grabbers the default starter because of the report and he started last year. But I understand it's open competition and things will be decided in the Fall. I like that Modster can throw the long ball. That's the one thing last season that could have made a significant difference. Hope Garbers can find touch for the long ball too.wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition.
"Touch" on a long ball is largely a product of knowing your WRs and your WRs making plays. The QB does not guide the ball to the WR with a joystick. He is throwing downfield to a place where he is hoping/expecting the WR will be by the time the ball gets there.
Everybody raved about Longshore, Riley and even Levy's "touch" when heaving the ball down field with Desean Jackson making incredible adjustments to the ball to catch the ball in stride. With Jackson gone, their "touch" disappeared.
It is why the issue of WR depth is bigger than QB, IMO.
Offense or defense?socaliganbear said:
Watched practice, we looked like we were in 2018 game form.
As noted, Garbers has an "EARLY LEAD" (emphasis added). Based on my reading of the article, that is a factual statement. Of course, as you noted, the competition is far from over.BearGreg said:
The competition is far from over. Modster's absorbing the playbook and thinking instead of playing right now. After week two of Fall Camp, we'll have a far better sense of who our QB will be in September.
Bottom line implied in the comment "early lead" is the understanding that things haven't been settled.
Typical response from someone who does not appear to read the Chron on a daily basis. 'nuff said...wifeisafurd said:Will first bear in mind that the source is the Chronicle, so it is de facto wrong. Second, the Chron based their comments on the rotation of an early fall practice where the coaches have said don't read anything into rotations at this juncture (they did anyway). I'm not sure where you came up with that any QB on the roster isn't practicing or getting reps. Besides not being stated in the article, the comment also is inaccurate.Blueblood said:wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. [For fans (it's never too early), I don't agree. Isn't the starter going to be Garbers or Modster? Pick one or the other.] The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.[Even if the newly arriving WRs are good enough to expose one or the other to be the starter, isn't it going to be Garbers or Modster, or visa versa?]Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition. [Yes, this is good, but how does one truely assess such when, as you point out, "the guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing?" Aren't you just "projecting" like others here?]
I'm happy to hear from BI commentators, the coaches and the Chronicle that Garbers looks better. I don't expect Rowell to be in the hunt for playing time. I haver not seen or heard that says Newman is not in the competition and everything the coaches have said indicates no QB determination has been made. Moreover, the coaches have said that a player who isn't even in camp, Brasch, will have an opportunity to compete. What I'm projecting is that Garbers, Modster, Brasch or Newman will be the starter because that is basically every QB presently on the roster other than frosh walk-on Rowell. And if Cal gets a grad transfer, throw him in as well.
Another Bear said:Agree it's very early and only spring. I'm calling Grabbers the default starter because of the report and he started last year. But I understand it's open competition and things will be decided in the Fall. I like that Modster can throw the long ball. That's the one thing last season that could have made a significant difference. Hope Garbers can find touch for the long ball too.wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition.
I agree with much of what you say.
1. Glad that Garbers has improved his game.
2. Glad that Modster is doing so well. He appears to have talent. Also glad that he is starting to catch on. But in my opinion a smart QB can learn a system.
But it is difficult to learn "talent".
My money is on Modster at this point.
What I think will happen (Garbers vs Modster in Fall) is not was has happened yet - Chronicle speculation notwithstanding. Right now its just some guys trying to improve through reps, and in most cases learn the play book. Don't read too much into anything yet.Blueblood said:wifeisafurd said:Will (sic) first bear in mind that the source is the Chronicle, so it is de facto wrong. Second, the Chron based their comments on the rotation of an early fall practice where the coaches have said don't read anything into rotations at this juncture (they did anyway). [At this juncture, the Chron (as well as myself, I might add) are merely facing what little reality we have seen and heard about Cal practices...that is, it looks like Garbers and Modster are the two leading candidates for starter. If you and/or the Cal coaching staff think differently, you and they have keep a well guarded secret.] I'm not sure where you came up with that any QB on the roster isn't practicing or getting reps. [I've never said nor implied such?] Besides not being stated in the article, the comment also is inaccurate. [What comment, pray tell?]Blueblood said:wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. [For fans (it's never too early), I don't agree. Isn't the starter going to be Garbers or Modster? Pick one or the other.] The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.[Even if the newly arriving WRs are good enough to expose one or the other to be the starter, isn't it going to be Garbers or Modster, or visa versa?]Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition. [Yes, this is good, but how does one truely assess such when, as you point out, "the guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing?" Aren't you just "projecting" like others here?]
I'm happy to hear from BI commentators, the coaches and the Chronicle that Garbers looks better. I don't expect Rowell to be in the hunt for playing time. I haver (sic) not seen or heard that says Newman is not in the competition and everything the coaches have said indicates no QB determination has been made. [If Newman wins the starter job such elevation will apparently depend upon future performance, but if so, then, observations from "BI commentators, the coaches, and the Chronicle" about Garbers means very, very little and are also highly disconcerting!] "Moreover, the coaches have said that a player who isn't even in camp, Brasch, will have an opportunity to compete. [Well, good for him and Cal coaching veracity!] What I'm projecting is that Garbers, Modster, Brasch or Newman will be the starter because that is basically every QB presently on the roster other than frosh walk-on Rowell. [Your projecting albeit kinda broadly. We, that is the Chron and myself, have just narrowed the field based on other factors, like common sense for one]. And if Cal gets a grad transfer, throw him in as well. [Cal getting a grad-transfer isn't on the horizon at the moment, but you do have a point, again albeit rather weak at this juncture.]
wifeisafurd said:Will first bear in mind that the source is the Chronicle, so it is de facto wrong. Second, the Chron based their comments on the rotation of an early fall practice where the coaches have said don't read anything into rotations at this juncture (they did anyway). I'm not sure where you came up with that any QB on the roster isn't practicing or getting reps. Besides not being stated in the article, the comment also is inaccurate.Blueblood said:wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. [For fans (it's never too early), I don't agree. Isn't the starter going to be Garbers or Modster? Pick one or the other.] The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.[Even if the newly arriving WRs are good enough to expose one or the other to be the starter, isn't it going to be Garbers or Modster, or visa versa?]Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition. [Yes, this is good, but how does one truely assess such when, as you point out, "the guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing?" Aren't you just "projecting" like others here?]
I'm guessing you didn't read the whole article:
"Head coach Justin Wilcox said the breakdown in quarterback playing time provides a look into the coaching staff's thinking, but he reiterated that nothing has been set in stone."
Well I read Carolyn CEQA Jones, Asimov and the like to know they usually have no clue what they are talking about. Want some examples:71Bear said:Typical response from someone who does not appear to read the Chron on a daily basis. 'nuff said...wifeisafurd said:Will first bear in mind that the source is the Chronicle, so it is de facto wrong. Second, the Chron based their comments on the rotation of an early fall practice where the coaches have said don't read anything into rotations at this juncture (they did anyway). I'm not sure where you came up with that any QB on the roster isn't practicing or getting reps. Besides not being stated in the article, the comment also is inaccurate.Blueblood said:wifeisafurd said:It is way, way too early for projecting starters. [For fans (it's never too early), I don't agree. Isn't the starter going to be Garbers or Modster? Pick one or the other.] The guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing.[Even if the newly arriving WRs are good enough to expose one or the other to be the starter, isn't it going to be Garbers or Modster, or visa versa?]Another Bear said:It's only spring ball and he's already getting the second most reps. I assume Garbers will be the starter at the end of spring since he's been in the system and started, if it's announced. That said, Modster should continue to develop in the Summer/Fall. Competition is good.touchdownbears43 said:
Yikes. So much for the turn-key transfer concept.
Just glad: (1) Garbers has raised his level of play, and (2) he has competition. [Yes, this is good, but how does one truely assess such when, as you point out, "the guys they are expected to throw to are not even practicing?" Aren't you just "projecting" like others here?]
I'm happy to hear from BI commentators, the coaches and the Chronicle that Garbers looks better. I don't expect Rowell to be in the hunt for playing time. I haver not seen or heard that says Newman is not in the competition and everything the coaches have said indicates no QB determination has been made. Moreover, the coaches have said that a player who isn't even in camp, Brasch, will have an opportunity to compete. What I'm projecting is that Garbers, Modster, Brasch or Newman will be the starter because that is basically every QB presently on the roster other than frosh walk-on Rowell. And if Cal gets a grad transfer, throw him in as well.
1) Jones kept writing articles about Cal's dramatic legal defeat while quoting Panorama Hill''s attorney endlessly that the SAHPC and Stadium projects were dead, even after the New York Times of all people, published an article to contrary and the City of Berkeley refused to comment and told its council that the projects would move forward with minor amendments to the EIR. She comes from the school of modern journalism which says we no longer actually try to actually learn something about the technical area we are reporting on, but simply quote people instead. In fact with internet deadlines, it is amazing how many Chron articles are just quotes. You might appreciate that as a regular Chron reader.
2) The countless incorrect articles about the "stadium" debt financing. One moron Chronicle writer didn't even know that Cal didn't even issue the debt, and called debt instruments issued by UC (between 4 to 6%) as highly leveraged subprime debt like the type that started the Great Recession. Of the few problems was the debt was not sub-prime but issued at AA ratings by a governmental entity, not private debt secured by bad loans, low interest, not tied to a derivative (like the kind that caused the Great Depression) and not leveraged because there was no security, just the general credit of the University of California. In fact, the same debt was issued to finance countless other UC projects such as labs, class rooms, faculty centers, etc. and was about as vanilla as you could get. But the Chronicle articles, which were so obviously wrong to anyone with just a de minimis understanding of finance, managed to divert everyone's attention from an ESP financing plan which was highly dependent on stable interest rates.The two largest projected sources for funding were ESP sales and investment earnings. In fairness, then Cal CFO Brystrom made his projections before the Great Recession. Further, ESP was developed and first marketed before the Great Recession and during a period when the football team was a national power. However, ESP was finally sold after the Great Recession started and the football program was starting a downward trajectory, and sales were off (though not that off). The much bigger problem was investment rates dropped dramatically, so you had interest at higher bond rates before the crash, and income investment from ESP sales at low post-crash rates. This should have been story in the Chron, which would have pressured UC to defease the bonds to reduce invest expense. But oh no, the clueless Chron was busy misreporting the entire story, and by the time the real story came out, UC had gone on debt spending spree, its bond rating had fallen, and the Regents in response, put limits on borrowing (btw, the guys that reported on the Regents' spending problem were not the idiots from the Chron), which made defeasement impossible. Malfeasance in reporting having real consequences.
To quote the iconic Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee's famous line: "Give it to the Chronicle, they will print anything." Nuff said...
wifeisafurd said:
What I think will happen (Garbers vs Modster in Fall) is not was has happened yet - Chronicle speculation notwithstanding. [You think neither will be the starter, maybe? Oh you Premium guys really have an edge over us freebeers! Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean, that is, the starter will be Garbers or Modster...or I see you believe the CCSF guys wil beat them both out? Maybe...but as of now it's looking like Garbers.] Right now its just some guys trying to improve through reps, and in most cases learn the play book. [Yes, I see. So, you think they're just foolin' around for themselves at the moment?] Don't read too much into anything yet. [Oh I get it! You're a'sayin' it doesn't matter what Garbers or Modster are doing right now because neither will be the starter....hmmmm....interesting.]
Both.OdontoBear66 said:Offense or defense?socaliganbear said:
Watched practice, we looked like we were in 2018 game form.
bearchamp said:
"Serving the same old..." Isn't it possible that players improve year-to-year? I would be very surprised if Garbers is not the starter next fall, and even more surprised if he isn't greatly improved. Also, on the wide receiver issue, being effective is not predicated on being a burner: see. New England Patriots passing game.
Agree. Most of the new Cal WRs are tall. They should be able to out jump the defenders for the ball.
At this time last year, Bowers was the returning starter, had the early lead in the quarterback competition, and we were lead to believe he was making great strides. So where the competition is at this point means almost nothing. I'm not sure this will really be decided until the first or second game of the season.
re: "touch" and good WRs...that also might be "chemistry" but it's all related. Good chemistry between QB and WR can mask small mistakes from either or there's a natural adjustment and "feel" or familiarity, knowing tendencies. Obviously good talent helps at WR. Can't over state that.
Good touch on a pass is putting the ball in a good position or shield the ball from a defender, i.e., throwing a catchable ball vs. a bullet on the money but with too much pace. I saw a nice touch from Garbers a few times last season but mostly he looked rushed and a bit young. His HS reel showed decent touch. So I assume he has the ability but he might not have caught up with the speed, improved players.
Good touch on a pass is putting the ball in a good position or shield the ball from a defender, i.e., throwing a catchable ball vs. a bullet on the money but with too much pace. I saw a nice touch from Garbers a few times last season but mostly he looked rushed and a bit young. His HS reel showed decent touch. So I assume he has the ability but he might not have caught up with the speed, improved players.
Peanut Gallery Consultant
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