bluehenbear said:

---

Has no one seen Jim McGills tweet that has Modster on the depth chart???

---

The QB portion of the chart is identical to the one published by Cal before the season started. It gives observers no additional information re: the status of Modster.

SFCity:

I think there are several issues here. I fully agree regarding to what we as fans/alumni are "entitled to." As I see it, we are entitled (as supporters, ticket buyers, alumni who are--for better or worse--identified with Cal) to the following:

A program that will play by the rules and not embarrass the university by cheating.
A team that will give a genuine effort.
Players who will represent the university honorably on and off the field.

Beyond that, I agree, we aren't entitled to anything. If as a fan, I want more and don't get it, I have the right to stop supporting the team.

OTOH, some here have noted that regardless of what fans are entitled to, it makes sense for coaches to be a bit more forthcoming in order to build good will among the supporters who ultimately pay their salary. Not that the fans are "entitled" to it, but that it builds good will and, therefore, makes strategic sense for the good of the program.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Does anybody really think Modster is the answer?

---

It depends on the question.

A few quips regarding Modster and his eligibility (apparently there is an I in eligibility).
Anyway, here are my vein attempts at levity over what is essentially another tragic chapter in Cal football:

• I wish we were pining away over the MIA of our backup offensive coordinator and his pending eligibility.
• Maybe Wilcox is saving Modster for next year so he isn't damaged by our current staff, the offensive ones.
• Maybe Modster is saving himself for a day when he has coaches and linemen to support his success.
• One thing we can be sure of, Modster is happier here then at UCLA, that place is really offensive.
• I'm not even sure I'd prefer Chip Kelly over Baldwin at this point. At least Baldwin does nothing with nothing. Kelly does nothing with something.
• Can modster be our OC until he is eligible to be our QB? I'd consider that.

On a slightly more serious note:

• Can Modster practice and has he?
• How do we know he's not injured?

Okay, that was actually significantly more serious.
But I'm really curious about that.

SFCityBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Does anybody really think Modster is the answer?

---

No idea. But I do know I've seen some of worst thrown balls out of a QB's hands that I've ever seen from our current starter and I know that our offense has been pathetic enough that trying someone else is justified.

---

I've seen some very inaccurate passers. Randy Gold comes to mind (when he was on the run). Garbers certainly makes more off-target throws than most. McIlwain rifled the ball in there, nice spiral, but too hard to catch, and he overthrew a lot too.

Best looking passes I ever saw, where they were just effortless spirals that seemed to just float in there and hit the receiver in the hands were those of Craig Morton and Joe Roth.

I love to see good-looking passes, but on the other hand, Joe Kapp himself threw a lot of balls that were not perfect spirals - in fact, most of them fluttered through the air, but as he described, "I always got the ball to the receiver with the laces up." Easier to catch, presumably.

Garbers is as good a runner as we've had at QB, and maybe when his line blocks better and he can stay longer in the pocket, his passing will improve. I sure hope so.

Picks and fumbles are often the result of bad decisions or breakdowns in blocking or receivers running a lss than perfect rout. So far Garbers seems to have improved in this area. Right now he ain't Morton, Roth or Kapp, but then again he is only a sophomore.

---

You do realize that these days, with the speed and athleticism on opposing defenses, Joe Kapp's wobbly passes would get intercepted more often than not. He played in a different era, he was great and I'm sure, if he played today, he would compete as hard as ever, but he'd have to learn to throw the ball with more zip than Garbers does currently. Also, I'm not a Garbers hater BTW, I argued for him last year long before most did, but his issues exist equally whether or not he is getting good protection. I agree that the OL has as many issues as anybody, especially the number of holds and false starts in critical situations, but 2 competing issues can be equally true at the same time. It's Garbers, it's our OL and it's also Baldwin and some of his staff on O. We can't change the issues with the OL, which are largely a product of injuries and we are stuck with the staff for now. We can change the QB, especially if there is a qualified replacement.

Modster may not be better than Garbers and he may not be eligible, but he proved enough at UCLA to be a qualified option should we need to try someone else at QB. So his eligibility is a legitimate issue for a team looking for more options in the passing game than they currently exhibit.

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity:

I think there are several issues here. I fully agree regarding to what we as fans/alumni are "entitled to." As I see it, we are entitled (as supporters, ticket buyers, alumni who are--for better or worse--identified with Cal) to the following:

A program that will play by the rules and not embarrass the university by cheating.
A team that will give a genuine effort.
Players who will represent the university honorably on and off the field.

Beyond that, I agree, we aren't entitled to anything. If as a fan, I want more and don't get it, I have the right to stop supporting the team.

OTOH, some here have noted that regardless of what fans are entitled to, it makes sense for coaches to be a bit more forthcoming in order to build good will among the supporters who ultimately pay their salary. Not that the fans are "entitled" to it, but that it builds good will and, therefore, makes strategic sense for the good of the program.

---

I disagree with your final paragraph.
If the coach believes there is some disadvantage in being too forth coming, I have no problem with him not disclosing information that he believes is important.
I just don't want the coach to lie to the media.
After all this is not politics where SOME spokesperson feel they can lie to the media whenever they want.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity:

I think there are several issues here. I fully agree regarding to what we as fans/alumni are "entitled to." As I see it, we are entitled (as supporters, ticket buyers, alumni who are--for better or worse--identified with Cal) to the following:

A program that will play by the rules and not embarrass the university by cheating.
A team that will give a genuine effort.
Players who will represent the university honorably on and off the field.

Beyond that, I agree, we aren't entitled to anything. If as a fan, I want more and don't get it, I have the right to stop supporting the team.

OTOH, some here have noted that regardless of what fans are entitled to, it makes sense for coaches to be a bit more forthcoming in order to build good will among the supporters who ultimately pay their salary. Not that the fans are "entitled" to it, but that it builds good will and, therefore, makes strategic sense for the good of the program.

---

I disagree with your final paragraph.
If the coach believes there is some disadvantage in being too forth coming, I have no problem with him not disclosing information that he believes is important.
I just don't want the coach to lie to the media.
After all this is not politics where SOME spokesperson feel they can lie to the media whenever they want.

---

I don't have a problem lying to the media. It's not the like the media is "entitled" to the truth, nor are they the bastion of it. As an activist the media has bent over backwards to misrepresent me and my sympathizers over and over again. I grew up in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s, for example. I saw first hand that the protests were driven largely by moderate middle class level headed residents of the area. It was a powerful cross section of citizens who saw the truth about civil rights and the vietnam war. But thanks to the media, to this day most Americans think the whole thing was driven by freaks and hippies. So, I really think I would prefer to lie to the media, they are going to generate their own narrative anyway. And it's more fun.

However, I like a lot of the beat writers that cover Cal football like Rusty Simmons. I think they deserve respect but they are not entitled to the truth. And then again, there's always that "you can't handle the truth" line from Jack Nicholson. Gotta love that one.

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity:

I think there are several issues here. I fully agree regarding to what we as fans/alumni are "entitled to." As I see it, we are entitled (as supporters, ticket buyers, alumni who are--for better or worse--identified with Cal) to the following:

A program that will play by the rules and not embarrass the university by cheating.
A team that will give a genuine effort.
Players who will represent the university honorably on and off the field.

Beyond that, I agree, we aren't entitled to anything. If as a fan, I want more and don't get it, I have the right to stop supporting the team.

OTOH, some here have noted that regardless of what fans are entitled to, it makes sense for coaches to be a bit more forthcoming in order to build good will among the supporters who ultimately pay their salary. Not that the fans are "entitled" to it, but that it builds good will and, therefore, makes strategic sense for the good of the program.

---

I disagree with your final paragraph.
If the coach believes there is some disadvantage in being too forth coming, I have no problem with him not disclosing information that he believes is important.
I just don't want the coach to lie to the media.
After all this is not politics where SOME spokesperson feel they can lie to the media whenever they want.

---

I don't have a problem lying to the media. It's not the like the media is "entitled" to the truth, nor are they the bastion of it. As an activist the media has bent over backwards to misrepresent me and my sympathizers over and over again. I grew up in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s, for example. I saw first hand that the protests were driven largely by moderate middle class level headed residents of the area. It was a powerful cross section of citizens who saw the truth about civil rights and the vietnam war. But thanks to the media, to this day most Americans think the whole thing was driven by freaks and hippies. So, I really think I would prefer to lie to the media, they are going to generate their own narrative anyway. And it's more fun.

However, I like a lot of the beat writers that cover Cal football like Rusty Simmons. I think they deserve respect but they are not entitled to the truth. And then again, there's always that "you can't handle the truth" line from Jack Nicholson. Gotta love that one.

---

Wow. I thought I was cynical, but you win! BTW, I was in Berkeley in the 60's as well and saw a lot of faulty reporting, but much of it was because the "media" was lied to, so I guess you don't have a problem with that.

SFCityBear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

You write as if we are all ciphers - independent, thinking globs of protoplasm with no connection with one another in any way. It's as if the team owes us nothing. Give money? That's your business. Buy tickets? You're getting something out of it.

Any two of us may disagree in every other way, but we share experiences and totems that bond us in a common culture and activity - one that helps give meaning to our lives. That culture includes shared hopes and fears for the well-being of that which joins us. We may disagree about it, but when the disagreements are resolved (or not), we come back to our cultural foundations.

So, if I and others express our interest and concern about how it's going, you'll excuse us if we tell you to shove it.

Go Bears.

---

Many students and parents feel college is too expensive today and are demanding that their children be entitled to a free college education, never mind that as citizens they have done nothing to prevent the costs of college from rising astronomically. They have voted in politicians who write laws to set up public colleges and they increase the salaries of the college administrators to levels which are unsupportable, except by raising tuition, fees, and taxes.

Drive or walk by a homeless encampment. There you will see some pretty fine tents, brightly colored and some very new ones. I read a story about a homeless man who walked into a Walmart, I think it was, found a tent he liked, and walked out with it, and no employees challenged him. He felt entitled, and the management felt it wise not to interfere. In my city, the government feels the homeless are entitled to a place to live, and they are going to build housing for them, and taxpayers will pay for it with increased taxes, so apparently the taxpayers feel the homeless are entitled to a home as well. Why is that ? Why is it their right, and not someone else's right?

Is it because you gave a million bucks to Cal sports? In that case, I can see why you might feel entitled, but you are no more entitled than the fat cat who gave his millions to Stanford athletics. Is it because you bought a season ticket every year for 40 years? Well. I can see that one too. But if you just watch Cal on TV in your man cave, there is no investment there.

---

Like many, you have confused several things with entitlement.

Regarding free college. Maybe people think it is good policy. Maybe people think it is something that should be done to ensure the brightest students get the best education, not the richest. Maybe they think it is smart economic policy not to saddle the middle class with debt so that they can instead invest. Or maybe they think that since a college education is so vital these days it is the right thing to do. Or maybe they think it is the fair thing to do considering prior generations received that benefit. Maybe they feel that it is a service the government should provide the same way I assume you felt you should get a K-12 education or I'm sure you feel about the police coming to your aid or the fire department or that the potholes on your street should be fixed. Someone could easily tell you those are entitlements. By the way, college costs skyrocketed when the generation who got a free education set the policy, not when parents and kids of today controlled government.

The homeless guy was a thief. Doesn't mean he felt entitled. Maybe he did. Maybe he felt it was wrong but was desperate. Or didn't care. Or hates Walmart. Or wants to stick it to the man.

And Maybe the taxpayers feel that building housing for the homeless will help clean up the streets. Or maybe it is a charitable act. When I give to charity I don't think they are entitled to it. Maybe I just feel generous and that they can use the benefit more than I can.

I'm curious what you think of much of the teachings of Jesus, and while I will tell you I am not a capital C Christian because I think he was mortal, I think his teachings are beautiful. Do you think Jesus was preaching "entitlement"? The meek are entitled to the earth?

I don't know man. I think it is perfectly reasonable to oppose tax payer funded housing as forced charity or bad policy, but the cynicism of many in your political persuasions to think that every act of caring for the less fortunate is borne out by of entitlement rather than the desire to do good. The homeless didn't enact that policy. The policy was enacted by people who knew they would not get the most benefit.

I remember when I was young that conservatives would refer to "bleeding hearts" and liberal "do gooders" as if they were basically naive or promoting bad policy. The change to the implications being that the less fortunate are greedy people who are entitled to charity is sad to me. We don't feed the hungry or shelter the homeless because they are entitled. We do it because we have empathy.

IssyBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

SFCity:

I think there are several issues here. I fully agree regarding to what we as fans/alumni are "entitled to." As I see it, we are entitled (as supporters, ticket buyers, alumni who are--for better or worse--identified with Cal) to the following:

A program that will play by the rules and not embarrass the university by cheating.
A team that will give a genuine effort.
Players who will represent the university honorably on and off the field.

Beyond that, I agree, we aren't entitled to anything. If as a fan, I want more and don't get it, I have the right to stop supporting the team.

OTOH, some here have noted that regardless of what fans are entitled to, it makes sense for coaches to be a bit more forthcoming in order to build good will among the supporters who ultimately pay their salary. Not that the fans are "entitled" to it, but that it builds good will and, therefore, makes strategic sense for the good of the program.

---

I disagree with your final paragraph.
If the coach believes there is some disadvantage in being too forth coming, I have no problem with him not disclosing information that he believes is important.
I just don't want the coach to lie to the media.
After all this is not politics where SOME spokesperson feel they can lie to the media whenever they want.

---

I don't have a problem lying to the media. It's not the like the media is "entitled" to the truth, nor are they the bastion of it. As an activist the media has bent over backwards to misrepresent me and my sympathizers over and over again. I grew up in Berkeley in the 60s and 70s, for example. I saw first hand that the protests were driven largely by moderate middle class level headed residents of the area. It was a powerful cross section of citizens who saw the truth about civil rights and the vietnam war. But thanks to the media, to this day most Americans think the whole thing was driven by freaks and hippies. So, I really think I would prefer to lie to the media, they are going to generate their own narrative anyway. And it's more fun.

However, I like a lot of the beat writers that cover Cal football like Rusty Simmons. I think they deserve respect but they are not entitled to the truth. And then again, there's always that "you can't handle the truth" line from Jack Nicholson. Gotta love that one.

---

Wow. I thought I was cynical, but you win! BTW, I was in Berkeley in the 60's as well and saw a lot of faulty reporting, but much of it was because the "media" was lied to, so I guess you don't have a problem with that.

---

I don't really see where I went cynical. Do you really think most people respect the media enough to tell them the truth? It is a common, very middle of the road attitude to dislike the media these days. However, like I said before, that does not mean we can't appreciate the guys who do most of the solid reporting, the beat writers and the investigative reporters. But, if the stories we hear most of the time on the news were driven by their work and not by the agenda of their underwriters then we would all feel much better about the media.

Turns out he's eligible

heartofthebear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Does anybody really think Modster is the answer?

---

No idea. But I do know I've seen some of worst thrown balls out of a QB's hands that I've ever seen from our current starter and I know that our offense has been pathetic enough that trying someone else is justified.

---

I've seen some very inaccurate passers. Randy Gold comes to mind (when he was on the run). Garbers certainly makes more off-target throws than most. McIlwain rifled the ball in there, nice spiral, but too hard to catch, and he overthrew a lot too.

Best looking passes I ever saw, where they were just effortless spirals that seemed to just float in there and hit the receiver in the hands were those of Craig Morton and Joe Roth.

I love to see good-looking passes, but on the other hand, Joe Kapp himself threw a lot of balls that were not perfect spirals - in fact, most of them fluttered through the air, but as he described, "I always got the ball to the receiver with the laces up." Easier to catch, presumably.

Garbers is as good a runner as we've had at QB, and maybe when his line blocks better and he can stay longer in the pocket, his passing will improve. I sure hope so.

Picks and fumbles are often the result of bad decisions or breakdowns in blocking or receivers running a lss than perfect rout. So far Garbers seems to have improved in this area. Right now he ain't Morton, Roth or Kapp, but then again he is only a sophomore.

---

You do realize that these days, with the speed and athleticism on opposing defenses, Joe Kapp's wobbly passes would get intercepted more often than not. He played in a different era, he was great and I'm sure, if he played today, he would compete as hard as ever, but he'd have to learn to throw the ball with more zip than Garbers does currently. Also, I'm not a Garbers hater BTW, I argued for him last year long before most did, but his issues exist equally whether or not he is getting good protection. I agree that the OL has as many issues as anybody, especially the number of holds and false starts in critical situations, but 2 competing issues can be equally true at the same time. It's Garbers, it's our OL and it's also Baldwin and some of his staff on O. We can't change the issues with the OL, which are largely a product of injuries and we are stuck with the staff for now. We can change the QB, especially if there is a qualified replacement.

Modster may not be better than Garbers and he may not be eligible, but he proved enough at UCLA to be a qualified option should we need to try someone else at QB. So his eligibility is a legitimate issue for a team looking for more options in the passing game than they currently exhibit.

---

I understand and perhaps you are right. But we are not being quite fair to Joe Kapp, unless we also consider the time in which he played, and the system he played in. Joe Kapp was a running QB, whose most successful year was his Rose Bowl Year, in Pete Elliot's split T offense, where most plays consisted of Kapp running laterally behind his line, and then either handing off to a running back, pitching out to a running back, or keeping the ball and running it himself. He threw very few passes, and most were thrown on the run, where touch is arguably more important than arm strength Throwing on the run adds another complication for the QB, and is not easy to do successfully.

So in light of this, you might consider that the method of tackling in the modern game is usually to tackle with the hands, or hit with the helmet, and Joe Kapp, who preferred to run the football and run over people, instead of dodging them, would make mincemeat out of modern defenders (with the exception of a few like Evan Weaver or Jordan Kunasyk, who will hit the runner with a punishing shoulder first).

As to passing ability, Kapp was an accurate passer for his day, but passer accuracy has much improved across the board today. Kapp averaged 51% on less than about 9 or 10 attempts per game. And he threw a lot of interceptions. Garbers averaged 60% completions on about 24 attempts per game. Still, my eyes told me that in the past, Garbers and McIlwain threw a lot of passes that the receiver had no chance to catch. Garbers' Ole Miss game was a special one for him, not just his accuracy, but his decision making, and leadership. I hope he at least continues this type of play, and that he will improve it.