Cal's Hart-Newhall QB connection paid off again with the commitment of 6-1/190 Hart QB Zach Johnson today, joining former Hart/Cal QB's Joe Kapp and Kyle Boller as Bears.
“After visiting the school and meeting with all the coaches, it did not take long for me to realize it is the right fit,” said Johnson. “I talked to Coach Baldwin about the offense and he made it clear I would fit in great with what they’re trying to do.”
A top-notch student with a 4.4 gpa, Cal’s academics played a big role in Johnson’s decision, as well.
“Academics are very important to me,” said Johnson. “Cal academically sets me up for life after football.
“Overall it’s an incredible place and i’m excited to be a Bear.”
Despite playing at just over 160 pounds his junior season, Johnson had a stellar year for Hart, completing 219-of-357 passes (62%) for 2892 yards and 30 touchdowns, with 13 interceptions. But a growth spurt after the season and the accompanying increase in strength and velocity brought additional interest from Cal as offensive coordinator Beau Baldwin extended a Cal offer after a visit down South last month.
“Since the end of the season, I’m now up to 190,” said Johnson after the offer. “When Coach Baldwin came down, he was pretty impressed by the way I’ve progressed physically in the offseason. I think that played a big role in the offer.”
“Zach is a super-intelligent football player with a great arm and great accuracy,” said Hart head coach Mike Herrington. “He’s also a great leader.
“He has worked very hard in the weight room to increase his size and strength.”
Johnson’s keenly aware of the stellar duo of Hart quarterbacks who went on to stardom at Cal in Rose Bowl QB and former Cal head coach Joe Kapp and 2003 first round draft pick Kyle Boller.
“My coach talks a lot about guys that have gone on to success after Hart and it was pretty cool to hear about Joe Kapp and Kyle Boller and the success they had at Cal after Hart,” said Johnson last month. “It’s really cool to get an offer from the same place those guys went to.
“Joe Kapp was a beast from what I hear and Kyle Boller had an absolute cannon. He threw missiles, tearing guys’ gloves off.”
Johnson becomes the seventh Cal commit, joining receiver Tommy Christakos, who committed yesterday after Cal’s big recruiting weekend along with receivers Casey Filkins and Jeremiah Hunter, as well as offensive lineman Everett Johnson, linebacker Andy Alfieri and cornerback Isaiah Young.
More recruting stories:
Christakos Makes it Official With Commitment to His Dream School, Cal
Big Cal DB Target Clark Phillips Set to Visit Bears
flounder said:
well, we beat William & Mary in a head-to-head recruiting battle.
Why would we eliminate the rest of the sample size aside from the PAC 12 north? Talking about the rest of the roster is a red herring. And saying that good QBs are generally tall is innacurate.Blueblood said:But hey...welcome to Cal Zach babes!kad02002 said:Blueblood said:I wish I was laughing.....but we're a'talkin' Cal here so let me repeat:kad02002 said:Not sure if this is meant to be trolling or a joke or something but size is very overrated at that position. The list of great 6'2" and below college and/or nfl quarterbacks is long, including the past two number one overall picks and quite a few pro bowlers last year (subs or not ) - Rodgers, Wilson, Brees, Prescott, Watson.Blueblood said:
"Geez, there's nits all over the place!"
Look I'm sure that Johnson is a fine player and an excellant student, but I do have a nit, too, to pick.
He's only 6'-1".
...and Garbers and Modster are both 6'-2".
As I've posited before, Cal needs to go bigger. Bigger is better for successs.
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
"How'd that work out for Sonny? [Well, I'm assuming Wilcox would continue to maintain a defense to go with a competitive offense to which I refer, but preoccupation with defense (like Sonny's with offense) alone won't do it for long.] Also, check out the heights of the most recent Heisman winning QB's. [What were their offenses like? I bet you your "I love NYC" teeshirt Cal is no where near what they had to work with and that neither Garbers nor Modster will perform any where near such a candidate.]"
Yeah I mean most quarterbacks fail. [They do? Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of success. I'm not talking about all college teams in other conferences than the P12 like you seemed to dwell on for some reason.] Good luck expecting Cal, or any program, to consistently have a top notch pro caliber quarterback. [I guess your right there as Cal is proving your point in the P12 north division. Although I believe Cal at one time in the past seemed to consistently recruit fairly respectible pro caliber QBs.]
Last year's college playoffs, Alabama had two QBs under 6'2", Notre Dame's qb was 6', Oklahoma's qb was sub-6'. But hey, what do those programs know about anything? [Well, for one thing these programs know, unlike Cal, how to consistently be ranked in the AP Top 25. It might be due to these teams having a consistently good supporting group of players for their QBs. I am therefore figuring if Cal can't consistently recruit such a supporting cast (and Cal sure seems to prove me right in holding this thought) then at least recruit a good QB. Such a QB doesn't have to run but pass (as Sonny has recently shown) like the QBs consistently playing for P12 north division leaders, such as Oregon, UDub, Wazzu, and to a some extent even the furds. These QB generally are tall.]
kad02002 said:Why would we eliminate the rest of the sample size aside from the PAC 12 north? [Because my statement was made about Cal with respect to the division of its conference that really matters to Cal. That is, Cal ain't going anywhere (qualifying for championships, play off bowls, Heismens, etc., etc.) in the Pac12 north.]Talking about the rest of the roster is a red herring. And saying that good QBs are generally tall is innacurate. [How so? You don't expect Cal to win the P12 championship in consistently being 4th or 5th in the north division, do you? Anyway I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I mean, what's Cal football have to do with Alabama, ND, or Oklahoma?....recently.....not a damn thing.]Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
Yeah I mean most quarterbacks fail. [They do? Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of success. I'm not talking about all college teams in other conferences than the P12 like you seemed to dwell on for some reason.] Good luck expecting Cal, or any program, to consistently have a top notch pro caliber quarterback. [I guess your right there as Cal is proving your point in the P12 north division. Although I believe Cal at one time in the past seemed to consistently recruit fairly respectible pro caliber QBs.]
Last year's college playoffs, Alabama had two QBs under 6'2", Notre Dame's qb was 6', Oklahoma's qb was sub-6'. But hey, what do those programs know about anything? [Well, for one thing these programs know, unlike Cal, how to consistently be ranked in the AP Top 25. It might be due to these teams having a consistently good supporting group of players for their QBs. I am therefore figuring if Cal can't consistently recruit such a supporting cast (and Cal sure seems to prove me right in holding this thought) then at least recruit a good QB. Such a QB doesn't have to run but pass (as Sonny has recently shown) like the QBs consistently playing for P12 north division leaders, such as Oregon, UDub, Wazzu, and to a some extent even the furds. These QB generally are tall.]
Cal should've been in the Rose Bowl with a 6'2" QB who wasn't widely recruited because he was too small physically (and who just might be the best to ever play the sport), and the last time they were in the Rose Bowl was with a 6'2" QB. Anyways, I think this argument has run its course.Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Why would we eliminate the rest of the sample size aside from the PAC 12 north? [Because my statement was made about Cal with respect to the division of its conference that really matters to Cal. That is, Cal ain't going anywhere (qualifying for championships, play off bowls, Heismens, etc., etc.) in the Pac12 north.]Talking about the rest of the roster is a red herring. And saying that good QBs are generally tall is innacurate. [How so? You don't expect Cal to win the P12 championship in consistently being 4th or 5th in the north division, do you? Anyway I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I mean, what's Cal football have to do with Alabama, ND, or Oklahoma?....recently.....not a damn thing.]Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
Yeah I mean most quarterbacks fail. [They do? Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of success. I'm not talking about all college teams in other conferences than the P12 like you seemed to dwell on for some reason.] Good luck expecting Cal, or any program, to consistently have a top notch pro caliber quarterback. [I guess your right there as Cal is proving your point in the P12 north division. Although I believe Cal at one time in the past seemed to consistently recruit fairly respectible pro caliber QBs.]
Last year's college playoffs, Alabama had two QBs under 6'2", Notre Dame's qb was 6', Oklahoma's qb was sub-6'. But hey, what do those programs know about anything? [Well, for one thing these programs know, unlike Cal, how to consistently be ranked in the AP Top 25. It might be due to these teams having a consistently good supporting group of players for their QBs. I am therefore figuring if Cal can't consistently recruit such a supporting cast (and Cal sure seems to prove me right in holding this thought) then at least recruit a good QB. Such a QB doesn't have to run but pass (as Sonny has recently shown) like the QBs consistently playing for P12 north division leaders, such as Oregon, UDub, Wazzu, and to a some extent even the furds. These QB generally are tall.]
kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
Yeah I mean most quarterbacks fail. [They do? Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of success. I'm not talking about all college teams in other conferences than the P12 like you seemed to dwell on for some reason.] Good luck expecting Cal, or any program, to consistently have a top notch pro caliber quarterback.
Last year's college playoffs, Alabama had two QBs under 6'2", Notre Dame's qb was 6', Oklahoma's qb was sub-6'. But hey, what do those programs know about anything? [Well, for one thing these programs know, unlike Cal, how to consistently be ranked in the AP Top 25. It might be due to these teams having a consistently good supporting group of players for their QBs. I am therefore figuring if Cal can't consistently recruit such a supporting cast (and Cal sure seems to prove me right in holding this thought) then at least recruit a good QB. Such a QB doesn't have to run but pass (as Sonny has recently shown) like the QBs consistently playing for P12 north division leaders, such as Oregon, UDub, Wazzu, and to a some extent even the furds. These QB generally are tall.]
Why would we eliminate the rest of the sample size aside from the PAC 12 north? [Because my statement was made about Cal with respect to the division of its conference that really matters to Cal. That is, Cal ain't going anywhere (qualifying for championships, play off bowls, Heismens, etc., etc.) in the Pac12 north.]Talking about the rest of the roster is a red herring. And saying that good QBs are generally tall is innacurate. [How so? You don't expect Cal to win the P12 championship in consistently being 4th or 5th in the north division, do you? Anyway I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I mean, what's Cal football have to do with Alabama, ND, or Oklahoma?....recently.....not a damn thing.]
Cal should've been in the Rose Bowl with a 6'2" QB who wasn't widely recruited because he was too small physically (and who just might be the best to ever play the sport), and the last time they were in the Rose Bowl was with a 6'2" QB. Anyways, I think this argument has run its course.
Hey sucker, Ididn't see any pass over 40 yards and he was really pushing those that he did throw. I didn't see too much duress....leaswise like he'll seein the P12.burritos said:
Am I a sucker, or was highlight film was quite impressive? Many of the throws were deep, accurate, well placed, and completed under duress. It went on forever, TLDW.
Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? I hope none. A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. Welcome to Cal World.
Sorry, but this is a replay of the same old argument in favor of tall quarterbacks, and I can't agree with any of it.Blueblood said:
"Geez, there's nits all over the place!"
Look I'm sure that Johnson is a fine player and an excellant student, but I do have a nit, too, to pick.
He's only 6'-1".
...and Garbers and Modster are both 6'-2".
As I've posited before, Cal needs to go bigger. Bigger is better for successs.
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? [????] I hope none. [Why? You don'tthink their goingto hear a disparging word during the coarse of their lifetimes? Like some said in this thread, this is real life. Welcome to Cal!] A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. [Hey, I did say that he may be a fine player and an excellant student.] Welcome to Cal World.
Blueblood said:Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? [????] I hope none. [Why? You don'tthink their goingto hear a disparging word during the coarse of their lifetimes? Like some said in this thread, this is real life. Welcome to Cal!] A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. [Hey, I did say that he may be a fine player and an excellant student.] Welcome to Cal World.
Uh oh, I have apparently upset the Premium Board members. They'll come out like flies.NYCGOBEARS said:Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? I hope none. A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. Welcome to Cal World.
Most recruits are smart enough to know that a large majority on this, or any other board, never played competitive sports in college and are mostly out of shape old dudes talking sheeeeeet.
Blueblood said:Uh oh, I have apparently upset the Premium Board members. They'll come out like flies.NYCGOBEARS said:Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? I hope none. A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. Welcome to Cal World.
Most recruits are smart enough to know that a large majority on this, or any other board, never played competitive sports in college and are mostly out of shape old dudes talking sheeeeeet.
What really counts here is that my supported comment is based on apparently more observation experience than "a large majority on this or any other board."
So you are saying that Cal has to recruit a tall quarterback because the rest of the roster isn't as good as it used to be. Okay, at this point I'll again attempt to bow out of the debate.Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
Yeah I mean most quarterbacks fail. [They do? Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of success. I'm not talking about all college teams in other conferences than the P12 like you seemed to dwell on for some reason.] Good luck expecting Cal, or any program, to consistently have a top notch pro caliber quarterback.
Last year's college playoffs, Alabama had two QBs under 6'2", Notre Dame's qb was 6', Oklahoma's qb was sub-6'. But hey, what do those programs know about anything? [Well, for one thing these programs know, unlike Cal, how to consistently be ranked in the AP Top 25. It might be due to these teams having a consistently good supporting group of players for their QBs. I am therefore figuring if Cal can't consistently recruit such a supporting cast (and Cal sure seems to prove me right in holding this thought) then at least recruit a good QB. Such a QB doesn't have to run but pass (as Sonny has recently shown) like the QBs consistently playing for P12 north division leaders, such as Oregon, UDub, Wazzu, and to a some extent even the furds. These QB generally are tall.]
Why would we eliminate the rest of the sample size aside from the PAC 12 north? [Because my statement was made about Cal with respect to the division of its conference that really matters to Cal. That is, Cal ain't going anywhere (qualifying for championships, play off bowls, Heismens, etc., etc.) in the Pac12 north.]Talking about the rest of the roster is a red herring. And saying that good QBs are generally tall is innacurate. [How so? You don't expect Cal to win the P12 championship in consistently being 4th or 5th in the north division, do you? Anyway I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I mean, what's Cal football have to do with Alabama, ND, or Oklahoma?....recently.....not a damn thing.]
Cal should've been in the Rose Bowl with a 6'2" QB who wasn't widely recruited because he was too small physically (and who just might be the best to ever play the sport), and the last time they were in the Rose Bowl was with a 6'2" QB. Anyways, I think this argument has run its course.
I'm a'talkin' now andin the forseeable future, but if history is your thing, alright I choose to continue this argument. I will grant you Cal could be special if, for example, Johnson turns out to be like the QB to whom you allude to. But, I can't see elevating Johnson to that level yet. Oh, that rare one-of-a-kind QB also had pretty good players supporting him too. Currently, I can't see any comparison to the current program. As for when Cal was in the Rose Bowl....Cal's QB, as well as for other positions (Cal had lessthan 200 lb linemen), the physical dynamics were not only a lot different but that 1958 QB was high average height for that position at the time. Uhhh....today thingshave change for the conferencetha Cal is in....Cal needs a taller QB which I think is easier to land than another AR.
You need to watch the film againBlueblood said:Hey sucker, Ididn't see any pass over 40 yards and he was really pushing those that he did throw. I didn't see too much duress....leaswise like he'll seein the P12.burritos said:
Am I a sucker, or was highlight film was quite impressive? Many of the throws were deep, accurate, well placed, and completed under duress. It went on forever, TLDW.
SFCityBear said:[I like you S.F. At least I unstand where youe coming from.]Blueblood said:
"Geez, there's nits all over the place!"
....
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sorry, but this is a replay of the same old argument in favor of tall quarterbacks [Yes, it is.], and I can't agree with any of it. [No problem...]
First off, Cal, or any team needs to recruit for their offensive scheme, not just recruit for height. [I agree and have not implied anything otherwise.] If the scheme includes running the ball, and many spreads do, then you need a qb with mobility and running ability, and the taller QBs are not usually the best running QBs.[ Some truth here, but they usually don't have run because they are good tall down-field passer in the P12 north. They can see the field better or any attributed improvement is in this area...viz a viz Brandon who can run but has a lot of trouble seeing the field among other things.]
Second, Cal's QB is not playing against the opponent's QB. [Depending upon the early score, this may not be accurate, but I agree to such in general.] He's playing against the opponent's defense, especially against his pass rushers. So I'd be far more worried about the height of the pass rushers, the D-Linemen and linebackers who will be sticking a hand in the QB's face. [I think most of the P12 North OCs wouldagree with you; ergo, they go for tall QBs unlike Cal as of recent.] I'd say if the average pass rusher in PAC12 North that a Cal QB would face is taller than the average height of other teams' pass rushers, then I might start thinking about recruiting a QB who is tall. [Ah, say no more. You couldbe an OC in the P12 north!] And your description of the PAC12 North QBs for next season are only predictions, not facts, because how any one of them will play this season is unknown. The veterans like Herbert or Costello may have a new coach to work with, or new receivers, or new linemen. You don't know for sure that Eason will be a superstar. And Gunner does not look like he will start just yet. [Sure, my statement is conjecture to some degree but does have some validity based on Cal's repeat performances in the conference's north division.]
Third, I don't think you plan your recruiting around only small number of teams you will face every year, and disregard what the rest of the nation is doing. [Why not. I realize sweeping the OOC games may get Cal to the now unassociated cheez-it-Bowl, but such does nothing for real success.] You may not have noticed but the trend nationally does not seem to have been toward taller QBs. I looked at the nation's results from last season, and two top 10 ranking lists based on how they played, ESPN and Bleacher Report and USA Today. A couple of the QBs made both lists, so out of a total of 18 top 10 ranked QBs, 11 were 6-2 and under, 7 were 6-3 and above. The shortest was Kyler Murray of Oklahoma at 5-10, and at 5-11 were Mason Fine of N. Texas, Mckenzie Milton of UCF, and D'Eriq King of Houston. At 6-0 is Tagovailoa of Alabama (named best pure passer in the nation by one service) and McSorley of Penn St. The PAC12 had Gardiner Minshaw at 6-1, Jake Browning of UW at 6-2, Khalil Tate of AZ at 6-2 and Herbert of UO at 6-6. [I say so? I have surely made my position clear that Cal can't becompared to such teams or programs.]
Fourth, Cal has a reputation of recruiting many good and great QBs, and had many good offensive teams, in spite of the lack consistent success in conference championships. So if you start to limit Cal's recruiting to only the tall quarterbacks, then you don't pick an Aaron Rodgers at 6-2, or All-American Joe Kapp. Mike Pawlawski, who led Cal to a #8 ranking is another 6-2 Cal QB. You don't recruit 5'-11" Consensus All-Ameican Paul Larson, who is the only Cal quarterback to lead the nation in total offense, in 1953. You don't recruit 5'-10" Bob Celeri, another exciting quarterback who led Cal to the conference title and the Rose Bowl in 1949. In fact Cal has never had a tall QB of the kind you propose, taller than 6-4. Both Larson and Kapp played both ways, QB on offense, and DB and LB on defense, respectively.
[Historical retorts are non-sequtuer to me.]
Quite frankly, there aren't a lot of 6-5 and above QB recruits around today, and Cal is not a prime destination, so I think it would be risky to put all your eggs in a "tall QBs only" recruiting plan. You need to recruit the best athlete, the best QB you can find for the system you want to run and not limit your recruiting by favoring one physical attribute over all the other attributes.
Finally, I also disagree that it is offense that gives you the best chance to be a consistent success. It is good defense, my friend, that gives you the chance to win almost every game. A good offense, no matter how good, can usually be shut down or slowed down by a a good defense. We saw that with Sonny Dykes, didn't we? Obviously you need both, but often when a skill player like QB, TB or WR goes down to injury , the whole offense stalls. Not usually as much of a problem when a defensive player goes down.
...kinda like you, bub.NYCGOBEARS said:Blueblood said:Uh oh, I have apparently upset the Premium Board members. They'll come out like flies.NYCGOBEARS said:Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? I hope none. A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. Welcome to Cal World.
Most recruits are smart enough to know that a large majority on this, or any other board, never played competitive sports in college and are mostly out of shape old dudes talking sheeeeeet.
What really counts here is that my supported comment is based on apparently more observation experience than "a large majority on this or any other board."
Oh yeah... you're also a very stable genius.
CORRECTION MADEbonsallbear said:You need to watch the film againBlueblood said:Hey sucker, I didn't see too many passes over 40 yards and he was really pushing those that he did throw. I didn't see too much duress....leastwise not like he'll see in the P12.burritos said:
Am I a sucker, or was highlight film was quite impressive? Many of the throws were deep, accurate, well placed, and completed under duress. It went on forever, TLDW.
I think that Brock Mansion proved that the key to success for Cal is getting a taller QB. At 6'5", he was just the right height for a QB. I think the focus of our QB recruiting should be to find the next Brock Mansion, because his results show that, surely, that is where success lies.kad02002 said:So you are saying that Cal has to recruit a tall quarterback because the rest of the roster isn't as good as it used to be. Okay, at this point I'll again attempt to bow out of the debate.Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
Yeah I mean most quarterbacks fail. [They do? Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of success. I'm not talking about all college teams in other conferences than the P12 like you seemed to dwell on for some reason.] Good luck expecting Cal, or any program, to consistently have a top notch pro caliber quarterback.
Last year's college playoffs, Alabama had two QBs under 6'2", Notre Dame's qb was 6', Oklahoma's qb was sub-6'. But hey, what do those programs know about anything? [Well, for one thing these programs know, unlike Cal, how to consistently be ranked in the AP Top 25. It might be due to these teams having a consistently good supporting group of players for their QBs. I am therefore figuring if Cal can't consistently recruit such a supporting cast (and Cal sure seems to prove me right in holding this thought) then at least recruit a good QB. Such a QB doesn't have to run but pass (as Sonny has recently shown) like the QBs consistently playing for P12 north division leaders, such as Oregon, UDub, Wazzu, and to a some extent even the furds. These QB generally are tall.]
Why would we eliminate the rest of the sample size aside from the PAC 12 north? [Because my statement was made about Cal with respect to the division of its conference that really matters to Cal. That is, Cal ain't going anywhere (qualifying for championships, play off bowls, Heismens, etc., etc.) in the Pac12 north.]Talking about the rest of the roster is a red herring. And saying that good QBs are generally tall is innacurate. [How so? You don't expect Cal to win the P12 championship in consistently being 4th or 5th in the north division, do you? Anyway I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I mean, what's Cal football have to do with Alabama, ND, or Oklahoma?....recently.....not a damn thing.]
Cal should've been in the Rose Bowl with a 6'2" QB who wasn't widely recruited because he was too small physically (and who just might be the best to ever play the sport), and the last time they were in the Rose Bowl was with a 6'2" QB. Anyways, I think this argument has run its course.
I'm a'talkin' now andin the forseeable future, but if history is your thing, alright I choose to continue this argument. I will grant you Cal could be special if, for example, Johnson turns out to be like the QB to whom you allude to. But, I can't see elevating Johnson to that level yet. Oh, that rare one-of-a-kind QB also had pretty good players supporting him too. Currently, I can't see any comparison to the current program. As for when Cal was in the Rose Bowl....Cal's QB, as well as for other positions (Cal had lessthan 200 lb linemen), the physical dynamics were not only a lot different but that 1958 QB was high average height for that position at the time. Uhhh....today thingshave change for the conferencetha Cal is in....Cal needs a taller QB which I think is easier to land than another AR.
Cal8285 said:I think that Brock Mansion proved that the key to success for Cal is getting a taller QB. At 6'5", he was just the right height for a QB. I think the focus of our QB recruiting should be to find the next Brock Mansion, because his results show that, surely, that is where success lies. [Please don't think too much...okay your sarcasism is noted. I'm not advocating an all or nothing approach to success as I realize not all tall QBs will be great. So, let me do your thinking for you Premium Board clowns. I was thinking more like 6'-4" Goff and his 8-5 2015 season. Cal was competitive in conference. Now Cal ain't "sheeeeet!"]kad02002 said:So you are saying that Cal has to recruit a tall quarterback because the rest of the roster isn't as good as it used to be. Okay, at this point I'll again attempt to bow out of the debate.Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
Yeah I mean most quarterbacks fail. [They do? Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of success. I'm not talking about all college teams in other conferences than the P12 like you seemed to dwell on for some reason.] Good luck expecting Cal, or any program, to consistently have a top notch pro caliber quarterback.
Last year's college playoffs, Alabama had two QBs under 6'2", Notre Dame's qb was 6', Oklahoma's qb was sub-6'. But hey, what do those programs know about anything? [Well, for one thing these programs know, unlike Cal, how to consistently be ranked in the AP Top 25. It might be due to these teams having a consistently good supporting group of players for their QBs. I am therefore figuring if Cal can't consistently recruit such a supporting cast (and Cal sure seems to prove me right in holding this thought) then at least recruit a good QB. Such a QB doesn't have to run but pass (as Sonny has recently shown) like the QBs consistently playing for P12 north division leaders, such as Oregon, UDub, Wazzu, and to a some extent even the furds. These QB generally are tall.]
Why would we eliminate the rest of the sample size aside from the PAC 12 north? [Because my statement was made about Cal with respect to the division of its conference that really matters to Cal. That is, Cal ain't going anywhere (qualifying for championships, play off bowls, Heismens, etc., etc.) in the Pac12 north.]Talking about the rest of the roster is a red herring. And saying that good QBs are generally tall is innacurate. [How so? You don't expect Cal to win the P12 championship in consistently being 4th or 5th in the north division, do you? Anyway I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I mean, what's Cal football have to do with Alabama, ND, or Oklahoma?....recently.....not a damn thing.]
Cal should've been in the Rose Bowl with a 6'2" QB who wasn't widely recruited because he was too small physically (and who just might be the best to ever play the sport), and the last time they were in the Rose Bowl was with a 6'2" QB. Anyways, I think this argument has run its course.
I'm a'talkin' now andin the forseeable future, but if history is your thing, alright I choose to continue this argument. I will grant you Cal could be special if, for example, Johnson turns out to be like the QB to whom you allude to. But, I can't see elevating Johnson to that level yet. Oh, that rare one-of-a-kind QB also had pretty good players supporting him too. Currently, I can't see any comparison to the current program. As for when Cal was in the Rose Bowl....Cal's QB, as well as for other positions (Cal had lessthan 200 lb linemen), the physical dynamics were not only a lot different but that 1958 QB was high average height for that position at the time. Uhhh....today thingshave change for the conferencetha Cal is in....Cal needs a taller QB which I think is easier to land than another AR.
Every argument so far in the thread seems to be a non-sequitur for you. You choose the only teams that you will compare Cal to, you choose the only quarterbacks which Cal quarterbacks can be compared with. And you won't consider that a stout defense game after game might give you a better chance to win than a fancy offense that depends on a tall QB who probably can't run. And are you saying that Aaron Rodgers at 6-2 would have no chance of completing passes any time he wanted to, all game long, against ANY team in the PAC12 North? Just because he is only 6-2? You just can't recruit for one thing like tall quarterbacks. Quarterbacks get hurt, they transfer, as do their receivers, etc. And you can't recruit just to try and match up with what only 5 select teams are doing. You need to recruit the best athlete available for your quarterback, not the tallest one. It takes a whole lot more than 2 inches in height to be able to see the field better. And how do you explain all the success that short sub-5 foot QBs have had (and are still having in the rest of the country), when they according to you don't have the height to see the field if they are playing in the PAC!2 North. How do you explain 6-1 Minshew II? He was not chopped liver, was he? How was he so successful in the PAC12 North?Blueblood said:SFCityBear said:[I like you S.F. At least I unstand where youe coming from.]Blueblood said:
"Geez, there's nits all over the place!"
....
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sorry, but this is a replay of the same old argument in favor of tall quarterbacks [Yes, it is.], and I can't agree with any of it. [No problem...]
First off, Cal, or any team needs to recruit for their offensive scheme, not just recruit for height. [I agree and have not implied anything otherwise.] If the scheme includes running the ball, and many spreads do, then you need a qb with mobility and running ability, and the taller QBs are not usually the best running QBs.[ Some truth here, but they usually don't have run because they are good tall down-field passer in the P12 north. They can see the field better or any attributed improvement is in this area...viz a viz Brandon who can run but has a lot of trouble seeing the field among other things.]
Second, Cal's QB is not playing against the opponent's QB. [Depending upon the early score, this may not be accurate, but I agree to such in general.] He's playing against the opponent's defense, especially against his pass rushers. So I'd be far more worried about the height of the pass rushers, the D-Linemen and linebackers who will be sticking a hand in the QB's face. [I think most of the P12 North OCs wouldagree with you; ergo, they go for tall QBs unlike Cal as of recent.] I'd say if the average pass rusher in PAC12 North that a Cal QB would face is taller than the average height of other teams' pass rushers, then I might start thinking about recruiting a QB who is tall. [Ah, say no more. You couldbe an OC in the P12 north!] And your description of the PAC12 North QBs for next season are only predictions, not facts, because how any one of them will play this season is unknown. The veterans like Herbert or Costello may have a new coach to work with, or new receivers, or new linemen. You don't know for sure that Eason will be a superstar. And Gunner does not look like he will start just yet. [Sure, my statement is conjecture to some degree but does have some validity based on Cal's repeat performances in the conference's north division.]
Third, I don't think you plan your recruiting around only small number of teams you will face every year, and disregard what the rest of the nation is doing. [Why not. I realize sweeping the OOC games may get Cal to the now unassociated cheez-it-Bowl, but such does nothing for real success.] You may not have noticed but the trend nationally does not seem to have been toward taller QBs. I looked at the nation's results from last season, and two top 10 ranking lists based on how they played, ESPN and Bleacher Report and USA Today. A couple of the QBs made both lists, so out of a total of 18 top 10 ranked QBs, 11 were 6-2 and under, 7 were 6-3 and above. The shortest was Kyler Murray of Oklahoma at 5-10, and at 5-11 were Mason Fine of N. Texas, Mckenzie Milton of UCF, and D'Eriq King of Houston. At 6-0 is Tagovailoa of Alabama (named best pure passer in the nation by one service) and McSorley of Penn St. The PAC12 had Gardiner Minshaw at 6-1, Jake Browning of UW at 6-2, Khalil Tate of AZ at 6-2 and Herbert of UO at 6-6. [I say so? I have surely made my position clear that Cal can't becompared to such teams or programs.]
Fourth, Cal has a reputation of recruiting many good and great QBs, and had many good offensive teams, in spite of the lack consistent success in conference championships. So if you start to limit Cal's recruiting to only the tall quarterbacks, then you don't pick an Aaron Rodgers at 6-2, or All-American Joe Kapp. Mike Pawlawski, who led Cal to a #8 ranking is another 6-2 Cal QB. You don't recruit 5'-11" Consensus All-Ameican Paul Larson, who is the only Cal quarterback to lead the nation in total offense, in 1953. You don't recruit 5'-10" Bob Celeri, another exciting quarterback who led Cal to the conference title and the Rose Bowl in 1949. In fact Cal has never had a tall QB of the kind you propose, taller than 6-4. Both Larson and Kapp played both ways, QB on offense, and DB and LB on defense, respectively.
[Historical retorts are non-sequtuer to me.]
Quite frankly, there aren't a lot of 6-5 and above QB recruits around today, and Cal is not a prime destination, so I think it would be risky to put all your eggs in a "tall QBs only" recruiting plan. You need to recruit the best athlete, the best QB you can find for the system you want to run and not limit your recruiting by favoring one physical attribute over all the other attributes.
Finally, I also disagree that it is offense that gives you the best chance to be a consistent success. It is good defense, my friend, that gives you the chance to win almost every game. A good offense, no matter how good, can usually be shut down or slowed down by a a good defense. We saw that with Sonny Dykes, didn't we? Obviously you need both, but often when a skill player like QB, TB or WR goes down to injury , the whole offense stalls. Not usually as much of a problem when a defensive player goes down.
Cal8285 said:I think that Brock Mansion proved that the key to success for Cal is getting a taller QB. At 6'5", he was just the right height for a QB. I think the focus of our QB recruiting should be to find the next Brock Mansion, because his results show that, surely, that is where success lies.kad02002 said:So you are saying that Cal has to recruit a tall quarterback because the rest of the roster isn't as good as it used to be. Okay, at this point I'll again attempt to bow out of the debate.Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:kad02002 said:Blueblood said:
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sure I think a 6'-2" player may be fine but only if he's an already proven grad transfer or otherwise has a very good supporting cast around him. Cal football doesn't meet either of these QB personnel situations. Until Cal does, Cal ain't going nowhere nohow.
Oh yes, defense may give Cal a year or so of success but not consistently like a very good offense might.
Yeah I mean most quarterbacks fail. [They do? Well, I guess it depends upon your definition of success. I'm not talking about all college teams in other conferences than the P12 like you seemed to dwell on for some reason.] Good luck expecting Cal, or any program, to consistently have a top notch pro caliber quarterback.
Last year's college playoffs, Alabama had two QBs under 6'2", Notre Dame's qb was 6', Oklahoma's qb was sub-6'. But hey, what do those programs know about anything? [Well, for one thing these programs know, unlike Cal, how to consistently be ranked in the AP Top 25. It might be due to these teams having a consistently good supporting group of players for their QBs. I am therefore figuring if Cal can't consistently recruit such a supporting cast (and Cal sure seems to prove me right in holding this thought) then at least recruit a good QB. Such a QB doesn't have to run but pass (as Sonny has recently shown) like the QBs consistently playing for P12 north division leaders, such as Oregon, UDub, Wazzu, and to a some extent even the furds. These QB generally are tall.]
Why would we eliminate the rest of the sample size aside from the PAC 12 north? [Because my statement was made about Cal with respect to the division of its conference that really matters to Cal. That is, Cal ain't going anywhere (qualifying for championships, play off bowls, Heismens, etc., etc.) in the Pac12 north.]Talking about the rest of the roster is a red herring. And saying that good QBs are generally tall is innacurate. [How so? You don't expect Cal to win the P12 championship in consistently being 4th or 5th in the north division, do you? Anyway I wholeheartedly disagree with you. I mean, what's Cal football have to do with Alabama, ND, or Oklahoma?....recently.....not a damn thing.]
Cal should've been in the Rose Bowl with a 6'2" QB who wasn't widely recruited because he was too small physically (and who just might be the best to ever play the sport), and the last time they were in the Rose Bowl was with a 6'2" QB. Anyways, I think this argument has run its course.
I'm a'talkin' now andin the forseeable future, but if history is your thing, alright I choose to continue this argument. I will grant you Cal could be special if, for example, Johnson turns out to be like the QB to whom you allude to. But, I can't see elevating Johnson to that level yet. Oh, that rare one-of-a-kind QB also had pretty good players supporting him too. Currently, I can't see any comparison to the current program. As for when Cal was in the Rose Bowl....Cal's QB, as well as for other positions (Cal had lessthan 200 lb linemen), the physical dynamics were not only a lot different but that 1958 QB was high average height for that position at the time. Uhhh....today thingshave change for the conferencetha Cal is in....Cal needs a taller QB which I think is easier to land than another AR.
Not really....at least not like aUNbear89 (a Premium Board member like you), whose spirit is mean as hell!, orjoe amos yaks said:
Your comment seemed mean spirited.
AunBear89 said:
This thread is conclusive evidence that bluedud is ill-informed and self-deluded.
This rant on 'QBs must be >6'1" 'is almost as clueless as his MWC idea. Clearly he once read something back in the '80s that QBs have to be tall. [No, ot really. I have just been watching the Bears play football...behind a ~60 year Rose Bowl daught!] There is room for only one idea in blue's pea brain, and obviously he liked that one. [Speaking of pea brains, "How come yours never changes?"....AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Blueblood said:Not really....at least not like aUNbear89 (a Premium Board member like you), whose spirit is mean as hell!, orjoe amos yaks said:
Your comment seemed mean spirited.
another Premium Board genius NYCGOBEARS.
.....sigh.....some people just can't learn....you have chosen issues that I've repeatedly addressed per non-rigid qualifications.SFCityBear said:Every argument so far in the thread seems to be a non-sequitur for you. You choose the only teams that you will compare Cal to, you choose the only quarterbacks which Cal quarterbacks can be compared with. And you won't consider that a stout defense game after game might give you a better chance to win than a fancy offense that depends on a tall QB who probably can't run. And are you saying that Aaron Rodgers at 6-2 would have no chance of completing passes any time he wanted to, all game long, against ANY team in the PAC12 North? Just because he is only 6-2? You just can't recruit for one thing like tall quarterbacks. Quarterbacks get hurt, they transfer, as do their receivers, etc. And you can't recruit just to try and match up with what only 5 select teams are doing. You need to recruit the best athlete available for your quarterback, not the tallest one. It takes a whole lot more than 2 inches in height to be able to see the field better. And how do you explain all the success that short sub-5 foot QBs have had (and are still having in the rest of the country), when they according to you don't have the height to see the field if they are playing in the PAC!2 North. How do you explain 6-1 Minshew II? He was not chopped liver, was he? How was he so successful in the PAC12 North?Blueblood said:SFCityBear said:[I like you S.F. At least I unstand where youe coming from.]Blueblood said:
"Geez, there's nits all over the place!"
....
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sorry, but this is a replay of the same old argument in favor of tall quarterbacks [Yes, it is.], and I can't agree with any of it. [No problem...]
First off, Cal, or any team needs to recruit for their offensive scheme, not just recruit for height. [I agree and have not implied anything otherwise.] If the scheme includes running the ball, and many spreads do, then you need a qb with mobility and running ability, and the taller QBs are not usually the best running QBs.[ Some truth here, but they usually don't have run because they are good tall down-field passer in the P12 north. They can see the field better or any attributed improvement is in this area...viz a viz Brandon who can run but has a lot of trouble seeing the field among other things.]
Second, Cal's QB is not playing against the opponent's QB. [Depending upon the early score, this may not be accurate, but I agree to such in general.] He's playing against the opponent's defense, especially against his pass rushers. So I'd be far more worried about the height of the pass rushers, the D-Linemen and linebackers who will be sticking a hand in the QB's face. [I think most of the P12 North OCs wouldagree with you; ergo, they go for tall QBs unlike Cal as of recent.] I'd say if the average pass rusher in PAC12 North that a Cal QB would face is taller than the average height of other teams' pass rushers, then I might start thinking about recruiting a QB who is tall. [Ah, say no more. You couldbe an OC in the P12 north!] And your description of the PAC12 North QBs for next season are only predictions, not facts, because how any one of them will play this season is unknown. The veterans like Herbert or Costello may have a new coach to work with, or new receivers, or new linemen. You don't know for sure that Eason will be a superstar. And Gunner does not look like he will start just yet. [Sure, my statement is conjecture to some degree but does have some validity based on Cal's repeat performances in the conference's north division.]
Third, I don't think you plan your recruiting around only small number of teams you will face every year, and disregard what the rest of the nation is doing. [Why not. I realize sweeping the OOC games may get Cal to the now unassociated cheez-it-Bowl, but such does nothing for real success.] You may not have noticed but the trend nationally does not seem to have been toward taller QBs. I looked at the nation's results from last season, and two top 10 ranking lists based on how they played, ESPN and Bleacher Report and USA Today. A couple of the QBs made both lists, so out of a total of 18 top 10 ranked QBs, 11 were 6-2 and under, 7 were 6-3 and above. The shortest was Kyler Murray of Oklahoma at 5-10, and at 5-11 were Mason Fine of N. Texas, Mckenzie Milton of UCF, and D'Eriq King of Houston. At 6-0 is Tagovailoa of Alabama (named best pure passer in the nation by one service) and McSorley of Penn St. The PAC12 had Gardiner Minshaw at 6-1, Jake Browning of UW at 6-2, Khalil Tate of AZ at 6-2 and Herbert of UO at 6-6. [I say so? I have surely made my position clear that Cal can't becompared to such teams or programs.]
Fourth, Cal has a reputation of recruiting many good and great QBs, and had many good offensive teams, in spite of the lack consistent success in conference championships. So if you start to limit Cal's recruiting to only the tall quarterbacks, then you don't pick an Aaron Rodgers at 6-2, or All-American Joe Kapp. Mike Pawlawski, who led Cal to a #8 ranking is another 6-2 Cal QB. You don't recruit 5'-11" Consensus All-Ameican Paul Larson, who is the only Cal quarterback to lead the nation in total offense, in 1953. You don't recruit 5'-10" Bob Celeri, another exciting quarterback who led Cal to the conference title and the Rose Bowl in 1949. In fact Cal has never had a tall QB of the kind you propose, taller than 6-4. Both Larson and Kapp played both ways, QB on offense, and DB and LB on defense, respectively.
[Historical retorts are non-sequtuer to me.]
Quite frankly, there aren't a lot of 6-5 and above QB recruits around today, and Cal is not a prime destination, so I think it would be risky to put all your eggs in a "tall QBs only" recruiting plan. You need to recruit the best athlete, the best QB you can find for the system you want to run and not limit your recruiting by favoring one physical attribute over all the other attributes.
Finally, I also disagree that it is offense that gives you the best chance to be a consistent success. It is good defense, my friend, that gives you the chance to win almost every game. A good offense, no matter how good, can usually be shut down or slowed down by a a good defense. We saw that with Sonny Dykes, didn't we? Obviously you need both, but often when a skill player like QB, TB or WR goes down to injury , the whole offense stalls. Not usually as much of a problem when a defensive player goes down.
Another unfortunate problem too is that a large majority who read this board can't quid pro quo respond to you Premium Board members who hind behind your money. Us, free boarders, have only this forum to make our comments in that we learn as much as you geniuses!....thus.....please forgive me as I bow before you!NYCGOBEARS said:Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? I hope none. A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. Welcome to Cal World.
Most recruits are smart enough to know that a large majority on this, or any other board, never played competitive sports in college and are mostly out of shape old dudes talking sheeeeeet.
Blueblood said:Another unfortunate problem too is that a large majority who read this board can't quid pro quo respond to you Premium Board members who hind behind your money. Us, free boarders, have only this forum to make our comments in that we learn as much as you geniuses!....thus.....please forgive me as I bow before you!NYCGOBEARS said:Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? I hope none. A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. Welcome to Cal World.
Most recruits are smart enough to know that a large majority on this, or any other board, never played competitive sports in college and are mostly out of shape old dudes talking sheeeeeet.
You feel better now, I bet.
....and apparently you do too, bub. It must be that n@$#y New Yorker in you or something like that!NYCGOBEARS said:Blueblood said:Another unfortunate problem too is that a large majority who read this board can't quid pro quo respond to you Premium Board members who hind behind your money. Us, free boarders, have only this forum to make our comments in that we learn as much as you geniuses!....thus.....please forgive me as I bow before you!NYCGOBEARS said:Larno said:
I wonder how many recruits read this board? I hope none. A high school kid is excited about committing to Cal and he gets dumped on for not being tall enough. Welcome to Cal World.
Most recruits are smart enough to know that a large majority on this, or any other board, never played competitive sports in college and are mostly out of shape old dudes talking sheeeeeet.
You feel better now, I bet.
We bourgeois insiders laugh at you, not for your economic circumstance, but for your loving embrace of philistinism.
Now I feel better... you blow hard clown.
Arm.SFCityBear said:Every argument so far in the thread seems to be a non-sequitur for you. You choose the only teams that you will compare Cal to, you choose the only quarterbacks which Cal quarterbacks can be compared with. And you won't consider that a stout defense game after game might give you a better chance to win than a fancy offense that depends on a tall QB who probably can't run. And are you saying that Aaron Rodgers at 6-2 would have no chance of completing passes any time he wanted to, all game long, against ANY team in the PAC12 North? Just because he is only 6-2? You just can't recruit for one thing like tall quarterbacks. Quarterbacks get hurt, they transfer, as do their receivers, etc. And you can't recruit just to try and match up with what only 5 select teams are doing. You need to recruit the best athlete available for your quarterback, not the tallest one. It takes a whole lot more than 2 inches in height to be able to see the field better. And how do you explain all the success that short sub-5 foot QBs have had (and are still having in the rest of the country), when they according to you don't have the height to see the field if they are playing in the PAC!2 North. How do you explain 6-1 Minshew II? He was not chopped liver, was he? How was he so successful in the PAC12 North?Blueblood said:SFCityBear said:[I like you S.F. At least I unstand where youe coming from.]Blueblood said:
"Geez, there's nits all over the place!"
....
Let's take a look at the P12 north, shall we:
Stanfurd- experienced Costello 6'-5"
Washington- grad transfer superstar Eason is 6"-6"
Oregon- can't get rid of him Herbert is 6'-6"
Washington State- grad transfer Guburd 6'-2" may be a proven instant fix but the future is Gunner Cruz 6'-5".
Oregon State- around for seemingly forever Luton is 6'-7"
Sorry, but this is a replay of the same old argument in favor of tall quarterbacks [Yes, it is.], and I can't agree with any of it. [No problem...]
First off, Cal, or any team needs to recruit for their offensive scheme, not just recruit for height. [I agree and have not implied anything otherwise.] If the scheme includes running the ball, and many spreads do, then you need a qb with mobility and running ability, and the taller QBs are not usually the best running QBs.[ Some truth here, but they usually don't have run because they are good tall down-field passer in the P12 north. They can see the field better or any attributed improvement is in this area...viz a viz Brandon who can run but has a lot of trouble seeing the field among other things.]
Second, Cal's QB is not playing against the opponent's QB. [Depending upon the early score, this may not be accurate, but I agree to such in general.] He's playing against the opponent's defense, especially against his pass rushers. So I'd be far more worried about the height of the pass rushers, the D-Linemen and linebackers who will be sticking a hand in the QB's face. [I think most of the P12 North OCs wouldagree with you; ergo, they go for tall QBs unlike Cal as of recent.] I'd say if the average pass rusher in PAC12 North that a Cal QB would face is taller than the average height of other teams' pass rushers, then I might start thinking about recruiting a QB who is tall. [Ah, say no more. You couldbe an OC in the P12 north!] And your description of the PAC12 North QBs for next season are only predictions, not facts, because how any one of them will play this season is unknown. The veterans like Herbert or Costello may have a new coach to work with, or new receivers, or new linemen. You don't know for sure that Eason will be a superstar. And Gunner does not look like he will start just yet. [Sure, my statement is conjecture to some degree but does have some validity based on Cal's repeat performances in the conference's north division.]
Third, I don't think you plan your recruiting around only small number of teams you will face every year, and disregard what the rest of the nation is doing. [Why not. I realize sweeping the OOC games may get Cal to the now unassociated cheez-it-Bowl, but such does nothing for real success.] You may not have noticed but the trend nationally does not seem to have been toward taller QBs. I looked at the nation's results from last season, and two top 10 ranking lists based on how they played, ESPN and Bleacher Report and USA Today. A couple of the QBs made both lists, so out of a total of 18 top 10 ranked QBs, 11 were 6-2 and under, 7 were 6-3 and above. The shortest was Kyler Murray of Oklahoma at 5-10, and at 5-11 were Mason Fine of N. Texas, Mckenzie Milton of UCF, and D'Eriq King of Houston. At 6-0 is Tagovailoa of Alabama (named best pure passer in the nation by one service) and McSorley of Penn St. The PAC12 had Gardiner Minshaw at 6-1, Jake Browning of UW at 6-2, Khalil Tate of AZ at 6-2 and Herbert of UO at 6-6. [I say so? I have surely made my position clear that Cal can't becompared to such teams or programs.]
Fourth, Cal has a reputation of recruiting many good and great QBs, and had many good offensive teams, in spite of the lack consistent success in conference championships. So if you start to limit Cal's recruiting to only the tall quarterbacks, then you don't pick an Aaron Rodgers at 6-2, or All-American Joe Kapp. Mike Pawlawski, who led Cal to a #8 ranking is another 6-2 Cal QB. You don't recruit 5'-11" Consensus All-Ameican Paul Larson, who is the only Cal quarterback to lead the nation in total offense, in 1953. You don't recruit 5'-10" Bob Celeri, another exciting quarterback who led Cal to the conference title and the Rose Bowl in 1949. In fact Cal has never had a tall QB of the kind you propose, taller than 6-4. Both Larson and Kapp played both ways, QB on offense, and DB and LB on defense, respectively.
[Historical retorts are non-sequtuer to me.]
Quite frankly, there aren't a lot of 6-5 and above QB recruits around today, and Cal is not a prime destination, so I think it would be risky to put all your eggs in a "tall QBs only" recruiting plan. You need to recruit the best athlete, the best QB you can find for the system you want to run and not limit your recruiting by favoring one physical attribute over all the other attributes.
Finally, I also disagree that it is offense that gives you the best chance to be a consistent success. It is good defense, my friend, that gives you the chance to win almost every game. A good offense, no matter how good, can usually be shut down or slowed down by a a good defense. We saw that with Sonny Dykes, didn't we? Obviously you need both, but often when a skill player like QB, TB or WR goes down to injury , the whole offense stalls. Not usually as much of a problem when a defensive player goes down.
