Blueblood said:

---

The two things that this last season has shown us is (1) that Chase Garbers is actually a fair-to-middling QB and (2) that he is absolutely critical to any future Cal success next season.

I realize that the above is not any earth-shaking pronouncement to the regular Bear fans here.

I only say such as in moderation of the domino-effect that the above pronouncement has apparently generated with respect to Cal doing what to me would be incredible things on the field of play for the 2020 season. However, I do admit that it is always possible with enough luck that Garbers could take Cal to the heights of Mount Olympus, but at this point, I'm not that convinced.

Again, Garbers is a good QB per my definition.

As I've put forth in the past, a "good" QB, like a "good" team, should be talented enough win those games that his team is expected to beat. From the final 2019 rankings of all CFB teams, Garbers seems to have done just that!

Cal was ranked at #38 out of 130 teams.

The Bears, when led by Garbers for the entire game, beat those below Cal's ranking - UC Davis (NR), North Texas (#116), Ole Miss (#74), stanfurd (#59), Wazzu (#52), ucla (#51), Illinois (#50), and Washington (#40).

It must be noted that a Garber-less Cal did beat Wazzu (#52); therefore, it's an easy extrapolation to say Cal would have won with the better QB too had he played. Yes, Cal did lose to the Beavers (#55) but Garbers didn't play in that game lost by only 4 points.

On the flip side, the Bears lost to those above its ranking - ASU (#37), Utah (#20), u$C (#19) and Oregon (#6) even though Garbers played almost two quarters in the ASU and USC contests. It's too bad that he missed the Utes and the Ducks games.

The above does support the contentions that Cal probably could've beaten the Beavers and maybe even the Sun Devils had Garbers been able to play the entire time in these games. Unfortunately he didn't. Otherwise, Cal might have had a 9 or 10 win overall record.

Can Cal with Garbers reach the magic 10-win brass ring this coming year like many here believe?

Yeah, if he stays healthy and if all else within the Pac-12 stays the same as it was in 2019, it would be in the realm of a realistic possibility, but such circumstance happening is super iffy.

The obvious shows that in the 7 full-games that Garbers did played in Cal won. What bothers me is that these victories were not by much (14 pts. over NR, 1 pt. over #40, 6 pts. over #116, 8 pts. over #74, 4 pts. over #59, 10 pts. over #51, and 15 pts. over #50) even though the teams that Garbers and the Bears beat were, albeit eventually, ranked across the gamut lower than Cal. Although Cal will essentially put the same team on the field next year, it's hard to say the same about the 2020 opponents. That is, will Garbers face a TCU like an Ole Miss or a 2020 UDub be like a 2019 UDub? Or, more hopefully, will he face a dirty 2020 furd like a 2019 dirty furd?

For now, let's answer "yes" to the above.

Still, I'm concerned about Garbers. In his seven successful full games, he averaged almost 12 rushes per game! His best passing games were against Ole Miss (357 yds.) and the furds (285 yds.) where he rushed 12 and 13 times, respectively. He had an incredible 18 rushes for 90 yards in the Bears' win over The Mean Green! He had 11 rushes in Cal's bowl game.

The above data represents running back stats. Running is a part of Garbers' QB prowess. Will Garbers and should Garbers try to emulate his 2019 running stats? I think it may be to his peril if he does, especially when defenses will be targeting him if he tries.

---

71Bear said:

---

My usual comment...

Garbers rushed the ball v. Stanford 10 times and was sacked 3 times. College football rushing stats are always skewed because they (stupidly) count sacks as rushing attempts. His stats in the other games you cited are also not accurate....

---

01Bear said:

---

The Musgrave Cal offense is a blank slate at present. We'll know a little more come spring practice. But from what has been reported, Coach Musgrave seems to cater his offense to his players' skillsets. With that in mind, he's probably aware that Garbers can run and scramble a bit. However, he's probably also aware that Cal really needs a healthy Garbers to be successful. [ I agree, ergo next season will not be the same or maybe even less so as 2019 if Garbers' running skillset is significantly dampened.] As such, I suspect next year's offense will include a handful of designed QB runs, but will likely be designed to get the ball out of Garbers's hands and into those of his receivers and runningbacks in open space. I'd also not be surprised if his plays will include some sort of backdoor/bailout option that allows Garbers to escape/run if he needs to, if the pocket collapses, or if the opposing defense gives him the option to do so safely and for positive yardage.

In other words, I expect Musgrave to rely primarily on his RBs to be the ones to carry the ball, the receivers (including the tight ends) to catch and run with the ball in space [You may be right, but to believe so is to me a tremdous leap of faith that these position players will signifcantly improve Cal to the level of the Bears winning the north division or even the Pac-12 championship. Like I point out I don't see the rest of the conference putting forth the same teams that they did in 2019. Do you? I'll explain later in my early predictions piece.], and only run Garbers sporadically but with the greenlight to run on most plays if it's viable and the wise thing to do.

---

dimitrig said:

---

I agree. Garbers is an adequate QB with a ceiling outside of the top QBs in the conference. So far that is all he has shown. I don't expect he will break into the elite. That said, I also agree that we have a new OC now and so what happened in the past needs to be evaluated with that in mind. We will know more a few games in next year.[ I'm not so sure we will. I mean, what does sweeping Nevada, TCU, and Cal Poly really tell us compared to passed sweeps of the OOC schedule?] Right now Garbers is the guy so let's give him our support. [I can go along with that, at least as I've said to the point of maybe taking the Pac-12 North.]

---

jy1988 said:

---

one thing to remember re margin of victory: I believe the underlying philosophy of JW strategy is to keep the opponent under 24 pts and win by scoring close to 30. He has built and recruited the team to that style of play. So we won't generally see blowout wins against most of our competition. Not that JW wouldn't want to score 40+ pts everytime. So looking at how much we win our games by is not an overall indicator of how we are doing.

---

Blueblood said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

I agree. Garbers is an adequate QB with a ceiling outside of the top QBs in the conference. So far that is all he has shown. I don't expect he will break into the elite. That said, I also agree that we have a new OC now and so what happened in the past needs to be evaluated with that in mind. We will know more a few games in next year.[ I'm not so sure we will. I mean, what does sweeping Nevada, TCU, and Cal Poly really tell us compared to passed sweeps of the OOC schedule?] Right now Garbers is the guy so let's give him our support. [I can go along with that, at least as I've said to the point of maybe taking the Pac-12 North.

---

---

okaydo said:

---

Is Gravers' endorsement of Warren on topic or off topic?

---

01Bear said:

---

The Musgrave Cal offense is a blank slate at present. We'll know a little more come spring practice. But from what has been reported, Coach Musgrave seems to cater his offense to his players' skillsets. With that in mind, he's probably aware that Garbers can run and scramble a bit. However, he's probably also aware that Cal really needs a healthy Garbers to be successful. As such, I suspect next year's offense will include a handful of designed QB runs, but will likely be designed to get the ball out of Garbers's hands and into those of his receivers and runningbacks in open space. I'd also not be surprised if his plays will include some sort of backdoor/bailout option that allows Garbers to escape/run if he needs to, if the pocket collapses, or if the opposing defense gives him the option to do so safely and for positive yardage.

In other words, I expect Musgrave to rely primarily on his RBs to be the ones to carry the ball, the receivers (including the tight ends) to catch and run with the ball in space, and only run Garbers sporadically but with the greenlight to run on most plays if it's viable and the wise thing to do.

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I certainly hope that Garbers will have freedom to run when the designed play breaks down. The last 3 games were won because Garbers had the freedom to run whe the opposing D took away the pass.

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I certainly hope that Garbers will have freedom to run when the designed play breaks down. The last 3 games were won because Garbers had the freedom to run whe the opposing D took away the pass.

---

While it is true that Garbers was injured on a scramble, I seem to recall reading a study that indicated that most QB injuries occurred on sacks rather than runs, because it is easier to protect yourself when running (e.g., sliding)

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I certainly hope that Garbers will have freedom to run when the designed play breaks down. The last 3 games were won because Garbers had the freedom to run when the opposing D took away the pass.

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I certainly hope that Garbers will have freedom to run when the designed play breaks down. The last 3 games were won because Garbers had the freedom to run whe the opposing D took away the pass.

---

While it is true that Garbers was injured on a scramble, I seem to recall reading a study that indicated that most QB injuries occurred on sacks rather than runs, because it is easier to protect yourself when running (e.g., sliding)

---

Sebastabear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

The OP makes fair points, but the title of the thread indicated "Medicare for all" would help alleviate the problem. Garbers gets arguably the best medical care now, and it is paid for by the private insurance coverage provided by the football program. Under Medicare for all, Garbers would be getting health care from the Federal Government, and that care would be substandard compared to the medical care he has gotten today. How much care he'd get, what type of care he would be permitted to have, and how quickly he'd get the care would be decided by government bureaucrats, not by the Cal football program and their doctors. Medicare as it exists today has bureaucrats enforcing rules which decide what drugs a patient is allowed to have, what procedures a patient is allowed to have, how long a patient may stay in a hospital, the amount of out-patient therapy he can have, and how often he may have a medical exam of any kind. Medicare bureaucrats also decide whether you can have an ambulance or not. Often they will refuse to let you used an ambulance to transport you home from the hospital, even if you doctor says it is imperative that you have one. That one will cost you about $2,000 out of pocket. Of course, the patient today has access to any of these things which he is not permitted under Medicare, by paying for them himself, or paying for private insurance. It is not clear whether Medicare for all will allow private pay or supplemental private insurance to pay for these drugs and services. If it did allow this, presumable the football program would foot the bill for the private insurance or payments. As far as I know, there are only two countries in the world which have a pure government run health care system, Taiwan, and Canada, and both of those systems have some problems. Most industrialized countries which have a government run health care system for all, also have one or more private healthcare options. Be careful what you wish for.

Medicare Beneficiary

---

Can we please, please avoid just once veering wildly off topic and into politics on the first page of a thread?

BB is making a joke to make a serious point that next year's fortune will heavily depend upon Garbers health (a point I agree with) and raising concerns that his health could be jeopardized if he runs as much as he did last year (a concern I share), while noting that's one of Garbers' strengths. These are all good points and worthy of debate. Whether the US needs Medicare for all is not the topic and I think many of us don't really care to have to wade through a debate on it to find the posts about Cal football.

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Canada also has a private option, depending upon the province.

---

Blueblood said:

---

01Bear said:

---

The Musgrave Cal offense is a blank slate at present. We'll know a little more come spring practice. But from what has been reported, Coach Musgrave seems to cater his offense to his players' skillsets. With that in mind, he's probably aware that Garbers can run and scramble a bit. However, he's probably also aware that Cal really needs a healthy Garbers to be successful. [ I agree, ergo next season will not be the same or maybe even less so as 2019 if Garbers' running skillset is significantly dampened.] As such, I suspect next year's offense will include a handful of designed QB runs, but will likely be designed to get the ball out of Garbers's hands and into those of his receivers and runningbacks in open space. I'd also not be surprised if his plays will include some sort of backdoor/bailout option that allows Garbers to escape/run if he needs to, if the pocket collapses, or if the opposing defense gives him the option to do so safely and for positive yardage.

In other words, I expect Musgrave to rely primarily on his RBs to be the ones to carry the ball, the receivers (including the tight ends) to catch and run with the ball in space [You may be right, but to believe so is to me a tremdous leap of faith that these position players will signifcantly improve Cal to the level of the Bears winning the north division or even the Pac-12 championship. Like I point out I don't see the rest of the conference putting forth the same teams that they did in 2019. Do you? I'll explain later in my early predictions piece.], and only run Garbers sporadically but with the greenlight to run on most plays if it's viable and the wise thing to do.

---

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

The Musgrave Cal offense is a blank slate at present. We'll know a little more come spring practice. But from what has been reported, Coach Musgrave seems to cater his offense to his players' skillsets. With that in mind, he's probably aware that Garbers can run and scramble a bit. However, he's probably also aware that Cal really needs a healthy Garbers to be successful. As such, I suspect next year's offense will include a handful of designed QB runs, but will likely be designed to get the ball out of Garbers's hands and into those of his receivers and runningbacks in open space. I'd also not be surprised if his plays will include some sort of backdoor/bailout option that allows Garbers to escape/run if he needs to, if the pocket collapses, or if the opposing defense gives him the option to do so safely and for positive yardage.

In other words, I expect Musgrave to rely primarily on his RBs to be the ones to carry the ball, the receivers (including the tight ends) to catch and run with the ball in space, and only run Garbers sporadically but with the greenlight to run on most plays if it's viable and the wise thing to do.

---

I certainly hope that Garbers will have freedom to run when the designed play breaks down. The last 3 games were won because Garbers had the freedom to run when the opposing D took away the pass.

---

01Bear said:

---

You're right I'm projecting an unfounded expectation on to Musgrave's offense. But given what others have said about him (that he designs his offense around his players'' strengths), I expect him to be the type of OC who will maximize his players' efficiency through play design and play calling. While you're also likely right that the teams (specifically the defenses) Cal will play next year may not be similar to the ones from this past year, then again, neither will our offense be the same.

Yet, even aside from the obvious change in OCs, the offensive skill players appeared much improved by season's end. Given this progression in their abilities, I would expect that Cal's offense wouldn't have been the same next year as it was this year, anyway. Whether that hypothetical Cal offense would've been enough to overcome the hypothetical defenses it would've hypothetically faced is unknown and unknowable.[What you posit goes without saying. I just worry too about the hypothetical offenses that Cal's hypothetical defense will face next season given the close scores of Cal's victories this last season.]

---

Blueblood said:

---

01Bear said:

---

You're right I'm projecting an unfounded expectation on to Musgrave's offense. But given what others have said about him (that he designs his offense around his players'' strengths), I expect him to be the type of OC who will maximize his players' efficiency through play design and play calling. While you're also likely right that the teams (specifically the defenses) Cal will play next year may not be similar to the ones from this past year, then again, neither will our offense be the same.

Yet, even aside from the obvious change in OCs, the offensive skill players appeared much improved by season's end. Given this progression in their abilities, I would expect that Cal's offense wouldn't have been the same next year as it was this year, anyway. Whether that hypothetical Cal offense would've been enough to overcome the hypothetical defenses it would've hypothetically faced is unknown and unknowable.[What you posit goes without saying. I just worry too about the hypothetical offenses that Cal's hypothetical defense will face next season given the close scores of Cal's victories this last season.]

---

---