Story Poster
Photo by ULM Athletics
Cal Football Recruiting

Chandler Rogers and the Search For the Next Cal QB

January 2, 2023
36,099

While he hasn’t yet chosen the Bears, Cal is in a good position to land the services of a transfer QB,

Chandler Rogers was a Group of 5 level QB recruit out of high school, who choose to attend Southern Mississippi before going to a Junior College and lastly, Louisiana-Monroe.   He’s no taller than 6’1 and he’s not blessed with a cannon for a right arm.  So how is he a possible (likely?) upgrade for the Bears at the QB position?

It starts with a deeper dive into his productivity this past season at ULM.   Football is a game of interdependence.   You give a QB all day to throw, great weapons at WR, and a solid run game, and that QB is going to win a lot of games and post some impressive statistics.  Conversely, if your OL is a sieve and your skill talent is poor, even a great QB is going to struggle.

Chandler Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year.  He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball.  Let’s relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022.   Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time.   As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM’s was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

Rogers was also plagued with a receiving corps that couldn’t catch the ball. ULM finished 4th in the nation in yards lost to receiving drops.  And their running game?   ULM's leading rusher gained only 507 yards with a 3.7 yards per carry average.  Their second-leading rusher was Rogers, who scored 5 rushing TDs and gained 353 yards, even with the negative yardage added in from his 42 sacks.   Compare that to Cal, where Ott posted nearly 900 yards on a 5.3 ypc average and Plummer ended up with -126 yards despite having taken 11 fewer sacks.

Despite all these challenges, Rogers posted a more than respectable 141.7 QB rating.  A rating that was 6th in the Sun Belt on a team that finished tied for 11th in the conference.  Rogers is highly accurate, with a 67.5% completion rate.   Adjusted for drops, his completion rate was an exceptional 76.5%.   If Rogers had attempted the same number of passes as Plummer had last season, he would have passed for more yards, as his yards per attempt was higher than Jack's.   Rogers threw a few interceptions but never had a game with more than one.  It’s also important to note that Rogers has had two years as a full-time starter, and his freshman year at ULM numbers was not far behind what he posted in 2022.  

Rodgers is blessed with explosive running ability.  Beyond his impressive numbers last season at ULM (when adjusted for sacks), he gained over 1000 yards during his senior year in HS (inclusive of sack yards) and scored 10 TDs while averaging over 7 yards per carry.  Compare that to Kai Milner, who rushed for half the number of yards and 6 TDs as a Senior averaging 5.4 ypc.   For something more visceral than his stats, check out this clip from his HS days - Some Serious Juice

Watching his film, it’s not hard to fathom what has Spavital so excited.  Rogers is tailor-made for Spav’s offense.  A fast decision-maker who gets the ball out quickly, Rogers is going to get the ball out to his weapons in space early and often.   Naturally accurate, he throws a WR-friendly ball that often catches his receivers in stride on a host of WR screens, crossers, seams, and quick outs.  For someone with as explosive a pair of legs as Rogers has, he’s far more patient in the pocket than one might expect, working through his progressions to find the open receiver.  While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer’s, it’s likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.  It’s hard to know how well he throws the deep ball as he rarely had time for post routes or deeper outs.  

A more fulsome view of his passing ability

Until he does it in the Pac-12, there are going to be questions about how Rogers projects at the Power 5 level.   His size isn’t ideal nor is he blessed with a big-time arm.  However, his legs are clearly a weapon, his innate accuracy, decision-making, quick release and consistent production without any type of a supporting cast are all reasons to believe he may be a very good fit in Spavital’s 2023 Cal Offense.

Discussion from...

Chandler Rogers and the Search For the Next Cal QB

24,545 Views | 87 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




2016 was 7 seasons ago. Plus Webb was from Texas Tech, an Air Raid qb who lost his starting position to Patrick Mahomes, the next era of Air Raid QBs.

I was a critic of Baldwin and Musgrave but I always waited to see the product on the field before making any conclusions. I have my doubts about Spavital, but let's see what we look like in the Spring.
I don't see why Plummer couldn't operate like Webb did in a Spav. offense. It seems to be unnecessary to not guarantee Plummer the job. Now where are we? The answer is that nobody knows.

Why should a player be "guaranteed" the job?
Because he had already won it. Did they have to tell that to Goff, Garbers, Rodgers when they were coming back for a second year as a starter? Plummer just had one of the top 10 passing performances in Cal history, getting pummeled in the process by a failing OL and playing through injury. HE EARNED IT!!!!!

Going in as the frontrunner, sure. But being guaranteed the job by a new OC running a different offense, nope. What happens if the player is outplayed by someone else?


Agree. This is a new OC installing a new system. Plummer and Kai are both unknown quantities. A new OC shouldn't make any guarantees other than to guarantee that the player that performs the best will be the starter.

Plummer didn't EARN anything in 2022 that entitles him to a guarantee in 2023.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




I would not say that Rubenzer was the heir apparent
Rubenzer was one of my favorite players. But not as
QB.
I loved his heart and his toughness and his ability to anticipate plays. But after his first year I felt he was sorely lacking in accuracy. I was happy for him when he switched to Defense. He was so good at that. And he really appeared to be having a lot of fun out there.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




2016 was 7 seasons ago. Plus Webb was from Texas Tech, an Air Raid qb who lost his starting position to Patrick Mahomes, the next era of Air Raid QBs.

I was a critic of Baldwin and Musgrave but I always waited to see the product on the field before making any conclusions. I have my doubts about Spavital, but let's see what we look like in the Spring.
I don't see why Plummer couldn't operate like Webb did in a Spav. offense. It seems to be unnecessary to not guarantee Plummer the job. Now where are we? The answer is that nobody knows.

Why should a player be "guaranteed" the job?
Because he had already won it. Did they have to tell that to Goff, Garbers, Rodgers when they were coming back for a second year as a starter? Plummer just had one of the top 10 passing performances in Cal history, getting pummeled in the process by a failing OL and playing through injury. HE EARNED IT!!!!!

Going in as the frontrunner, sure. But being guaranteed the job by a new OC running a different offense, nope. What happens if the player is outplayed by someone else?
All he wanted to know was that he was the front runner. Instead they looked for replacements. They blew it with him, plain and simple. You do realize that the WRs loved him and some are seriously thinking of transferring. So don't be surprised if they do.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Haven't thought about Rubenzer in a while. I wish that guy had had a bit more arm talent, because the rest of him was great.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HearstMining said:

okaydo said:

Question: Who we're the last 5 great Cal quarterbacks?
Really great? Moraga sort of covered that in another recent thread, but I'd say in reverse chronological order:
1. Goff
2. Rodgers
3. Roth
4. Bartkowski
5. Morton

You can make arguments for Campbell, Taylor, Barr, Barnes, Boller, but the above all had at least one great season at Cal and substantial if not great NFL careers.


Gotta have Pawlawski on there.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




2016 was 7 seasons ago. Plus Webb was from Texas Tech, an Air Raid qb who lost his starting position to Patrick Mahomes, the next era of Air Raid QBs.

I was a critic of Baldwin and Musgrave but I always waited to see the product on the field before making any conclusions. I have my doubts about Spavital, but let's see what we look like in the Spring.
I don't see why Plummer couldn't operate like Webb did in a Spav. offense. It seems to be unnecessary to not guarantee Plummer the job. Now where are we? The answer is that nobody knows.

Why should a player be "guaranteed" the job?
Because he had already won it. Did they have to tell that to Goff, Garbers, Rodgers when they were coming back for a second year as a starter? Plummer just had one of the top 10 passing performances in Cal history, getting pummeled in the process by a failing OL and playing through injury. HE EARNED IT!!!!!

Going in as the frontrunner, sure. But being guaranteed the job by a new OC running a different offense, nope. What happens if the player is outplayed by someone else?
All he wanted to know was that he was the front runner. Instead they looked for replacements. They blew it with him, plain and simple. You do realize that the WRs loved him and some are seriously thinking of transferring. So don't be surprised if they do.
That is likely incomplete. They looked for replacements because of and while he decided his next steps - Senior Bowl and NFL a draft, IIRC. During that time they found someone they liked a lot. At that point it likely became a delicate dance where someone wasn't going to be happy.
hoop97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Excellent points on NIL. Hoping others will get on board sooner than later.
Very disappointed to hear about admissions. I was under the impression that a little more leniency was part of the deal with the Wilcox extension.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




2016 was 7 seasons ago. Plus Webb was from Texas Tech, an Air Raid qb who lost his starting position to Patrick Mahomes, the next era of Air Raid QBs.

I was a critic of Baldwin and Musgrave but I always waited to see the product on the field before making any conclusions. I have my doubts about Spavital, but let's see what we look like in the Spring.


Spring never tells us anything outside of relative performance within a position group. Is Chandler better than our other qbs? That can be answered. Is he, or the broader offense going to lead us to victories? No one knows. Excitement on offense is just a sign that our defense sucks and vice versa.


Well, first Spring more Fall. That is when those of us in attended knew Aaron Rodgers would be special: that is when it was clear Goff was better than Kline and would excel in the Air Raid.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




2016 was 7 seasons ago. Plus Webb was from Texas Tech, an Air Raid qb who lost his starting position to Patrick Mahomes, the next era of Air Raid QBs.

I was a critic of Baldwin and Musgrave but I always waited to see the product on the field before making any conclusions. I have my doubts about Spavital, but let's see what we look like in the Spring.
I don't see why Plummer couldn't operate like Webb did in a Spav. offense. It seems to be unnecessary to not guarantee Plummer the job. Now where are we? The answer is that nobody knows.


Maybe he could be, but Plummer is not very accurate on short throws, which is critical in the Air Raid. Again, more importantly, Webb had years in the Air Raid at Texas Tech before playing a single final year at Cal in the Air Raid. Plummer has one year left, is it best spent learning a new system? You cannot minimize the importance of knowing the system for a QB, especially the Air Raid which is VERY QB centric.
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

Quote:

Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year. He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball. Let's relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022. Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time. As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM's was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

...

While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer's, it's likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also very decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are is because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.


I think this is fair, but the issue was Plummer "demanding" he be recognized as the front runner. If Spavital does that, it is tougher to recruit QBs, not just Rodgers, but likely a bigger name too. Plus, it is not honest. The position is wide open, that is the truth. Plummer might be the best, but he is going to have to compete.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




2016 was 7 seasons ago. Plus Webb was from Texas Tech, an Air Raid qb who lost his starting position to Patrick Mahomes, the next era of Air Raid QBs.

I was a critic of Baldwin and Musgrave but I always waited to see the product on the field before making any conclusions. I have my doubts about Spavital, but let's see what we look like in the Spring.
I don't see why Plummer couldn't operate like Webb did in a Spav. offense. It seems to be unnecessary to not guarantee Plummer the job. Now where are we? The answer is that nobody knows.

Why should a player be "guaranteed" the job?
Because he had already won it. Did they have to tell that to Goff, Garbers, Rodgers when they were coming back for a second year as a starter? Plummer just had one of the top 10 passing performances in Cal history, getting pummeled in the process by a failing OL and playing through injury. HE EARNED IT!!!!!

Going in as the frontrunner, sure. But being guaranteed the job by a new OC running a different offense, nope. What happens if the player is outplayed by someone else?
All he wanted to know was that he was the front runner. Instead they looked for replacements. They blew it with him, plain and simple. You do realize that the WRs loved him and some are seriously thinking of transferring. So don't be surprised if they do.


How is Spavital going to recruit more QBs without saying the position is wide open, which is the truth? Plummer has some positives, but he would need to prove it to a new coach in a new system. Furthermore, I can't imagine a WR that was fine with Musgrave's system but doesn't want to play in the Air Raid out of loyalty to a QB that was at Cal less than a year?

Again, I have my doubts about Spavital, but not declaring Plummer the front runner is both truthful and smart at this point.
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

Quote:

Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year. He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball. Let's relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022. Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time. As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM's was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

...

While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer's, it's likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also very decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are is because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I think this is fair, but the issue was Plummer "demanding" he be recognized as the front runner. If Spavital does that, it is tougher to recruit QBs, not just Rodgers, but likely a bigger name too. Plus, it is not honest. The position is wide open, that is the truth. Plummer might be the best, but he is going to have to compete.
Within the the team competition should rule but prospective recruits are not on the team yet. I think a lot of the talk about how important it is to preserve totally open competition beyond the boundaries of our team can only be maintained because Plummer is only a very modestly valuable QB. If he was a star I bet most people would definitely not bring in a QB transfer if he didn't want one. Same with a condition made by a star HS QB recruit that he's the only QB we take in that class. I would agree if I thought we would not get any other HS QB as good while telling the recruit up front that once he's on the roster he'll have to earn the job against everyone else on the team.

If I understand correctly, Plummer did not demand to be recognized as the starter, only that the staff didn't bring in a transfer that would be expected to contend against him for the job. If Milner or Mendoza beat him out, that's different.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




2016 was 7 seasons ago. Plus Webb was from Texas Tech, an Air Raid qb who lost his starting position to Patrick Mahomes, the next era of Air Raid QBs.

I was a critic of Baldwin and Musgrave but I always waited to see the product on the field before making any conclusions. I have my doubts about Spavital, but let's see what we look like in the Spring.
I don't see why Plummer couldn't operate like Webb did in a Spav. offense. It seems to be unnecessary to not guarantee Plummer the job. Now where are we? The answer is that nobody knows.

Why should a player be "guaranteed" the job?
Because he had already won it. Did they have to tell that to Goff, Garbers, Rodgers when they were coming back for a second year as a starter? Plummer just had one of the top 10 passing performances in Cal history, getting pummeled in the process by a failing OL and playing through injury. HE EARNED IT!!!!!

Going in as the frontrunner, sure. But being guaranteed the job by a new OC running a different offense, nope. What happens if the player is outplayed by someone else?
All he wanted to know was that he was the front runner. Instead they looked for replacements. They blew it with him, plain and simple. You do realize that the WRs loved him and some are seriously thinking of transferring. So don't be surprised if they do.


How is Spavital going to recruit more QBs without saying the position is wide open, which is the truth? Plummer has some positives, but he would need to prove it to a new coach in a new system. Furthermore, I can't imagine a WR that was fine with Musgrave's system but doesn't want to play in the Air Raid out of loyalty to a QB that was at Cal less than a year?

Again, I have my doubts about Spavital, but not declaring Plummer the front runner is both truthful and smart at this point.
A lot of QBs went to UCLA knowing the position was held down by DTR. If you have to tell a QB the position is wide open to get them to come, you aren't doing your job very well. I'm sorry about your lack of imagination regarding WRs, but an insider has informed me of a certain RFr. all-conference WR.
4thGenCal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

Quote:

Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year. He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball. Let's relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022. Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time. As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM's was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

...

While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer's, it's likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also very decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are is because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I think this is fair, but the issue was Plummer "demanding" he be recognized as the front runner. If Spavital does that, it is tougher to recruit QBs, not just Rodgers, but likely a bigger name too. Plus, it is not honest. The position is wide open, that is the truth. Plummer might be the best, but he is going to have to compete.
Within the the team competition should rule but prospective recruits are not on the team yet. I think a lot of the talk about how important it is to preserve totally open competition beyond the boundaries of our team can only be maintained because Plummer is only a very modestly valuable QB. If he was a star I bet most people would definitely not bring in a QB transfer if he didn't want one. Same with a condition made by a star HS QB recruit that he's the only QB we take in that class. I would agree if I thought we would not get any other HS QB as good while telling the recruit up front that once he's on the roster he'll have to earn the job against everyone else on the team.

If I understand correctly, Plummer did not demand to be recognized as the starter, only that the staff didn't bring in a transfer that would be expected to contend against him for the job. If Milner or Mendoza beat him out, that's different.
Correct on last on last question/He was fine with the competition from w/in. and he fully supported that He would continue to need to earn His starting role. His concern was that with the new system/new OC and new transfers being recruited - that He was not the Guy that was clearly wanted. Doubts were created in his mind and He then transferred were He was told He was wanted more. It has created some tension and hopefully all will be smoothed over.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4thGenCal said:

kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

Quote:

Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year. He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball. Let's relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022. Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time. As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM's was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

...

While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer's, it's likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also very decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are is because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I think this is fair, but the issue was Plummer "demanding" he be recognized as the front runner. If Spavital does that, it is tougher to recruit QBs, not just Rodgers, but likely a bigger name too. Plus, it is not honest. The position is wide open, that is the truth. Plummer might be the best, but he is going to have to compete.
Within the the team competition should rule but prospective recruits are not on the team yet. I think a lot of the talk about how important it is to preserve totally open competition beyond the boundaries of our team can only be maintained because Plummer is only a very modestly valuable QB. If he was a star I bet most people would definitely not bring in a QB transfer if he didn't want one. Same with a condition made by a star HS QB recruit that he's the only QB we take in that class. I would agree if I thought we would not get any other HS QB as good while telling the recruit up front that once he's on the roster he'll have to earn the job against everyone else on the team.

If I understand correctly, Plummer did not demand to be recognized as the starter, only that the staff didn't bring in a transfer that would be expected to contend against him for the job. If Milner or Mendoza beat him out, that's different.
Correct on last on last question/He was fine with the competition from w/in. and he fully supported that He would continue to need to earn His starting role. His concern was that with the new system/new OC and new transfers being recruited - that He was not the Guy that was clearly wanted. Doubts were created in his mind and He then transferred were He was told He was wanted more. It has created some tension and hopefully all will be smoothed over.


The reality is that once a guy transfers he is more likely to transfer again. When you bring in mercenaries you should expect that. It is not a surprise.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

Cal_79 said:

heartofthebear said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

Isn't this a similar write up to Luke Rubenzer, who couldn't even hold a back-up QB job at Cal?

Why should we expect anything more of Chandler?

Also, it's news to me that Spav. needs a mobile QB.
When Spav. came to Cal under Dykes, Rubenzer was the heir apparent, but Spav. brought in Davis Webb.
How is Davis Webb more mobile than Rubenzer?
Also, Webb turned out to do quite well in Spav's system as a mostly pocket QB.
So, another question is why did Plummer decide to leave when he is more like Webb than anyone else?




2016 was 7 seasons ago. Plus Webb was from Texas Tech, an Air Raid qb who lost his starting position to Patrick Mahomes, the next era of Air Raid QBs.

I was a critic of Baldwin and Musgrave but I always waited to see the product on the field before making any conclusions. I have my doubts about Spavital, but let's see what we look like in the Spring.
I don't see why Plummer couldn't operate like Webb did in a Spav. offense. It seems to be unnecessary to not guarantee Plummer the job. Now where are we? The answer is that nobody knows.

Why should a player be "guaranteed" the job?
Because he had already won it. Did they have to tell that to Goff, Garbers, Rodgers when they were coming back for a second year as a starter? Plummer just had one of the top 10 passing performances in Cal history, getting pummeled in the process by a failing OL and playing through injury. HE EARNED IT!!!!!

Going in as the frontrunner, sure. But being guaranteed the job by a new OC running a different offense, nope. What happens if the player is outplayed by someone else?
All he wanted to know was that he was the front runner. Instead they looked for replacements. They blew it with him, plain and simple. You do realize that the WRs loved him and some are seriously thinking of transferring. So don't be surprised if they do.


How is Spavital going to recruit more QBs without saying the position is wide open, which is the truth? Plummer has some positives, but he would need to prove it to a new coach in a new system. Furthermore, I can't imagine a WR that was fine with Musgrave's system but doesn't want to play in the Air Raid out of loyalty to a QB that was at Cal less than a year?

Again, I have my doubts about Spavital, but not declaring Plummer the front runner is both truthful and smart at this point.
A lot of QBs went to UCLA knowing the position was held down by DTR. If you have to tell a QB the position is wide open to get them to come, you aren't doing your job very well. I'm sorry about your lack of imagination regarding WRs, but an insider has informed me of a certain RFr. all-conference WR.


They were/are looking to be DTR's successor.

Musgrave was the one who picked Plummer from Purdue and made him a starter. We won 2 conference games last year. Plummer had good passing stats, but as I pointed out before, when you factor in running/sacks, Garbers was a far more effective QB in yards per play and you cannot deny that we had far better WRs and RBs last year than any time with Garbers. The bottom line is Spavital would not have picked Plummer from Purdue for his offense. Plummer would be starting from scratch in an entirely new offense, you cannot compare him to Davis Webb who was a veteran of the Air Raid. If Spavital said starting experience at Cal last year gave him an advantage over a QB who started in an Air Raid last year he would be lying. If Spavital even said it would factor into his choosing Plummer over Mendoza he would probably be lying. Spavital would probably lean toward the guy with more eligibility remaining.

If Plummer is trying to get JMS to transfer to Louisville with him, then I don't see why you or JMS are being so loyal to him. Plummer has his Purdue degree and Cal grad certificates. He is not looking after JMS' interest, certainly not Cal's. He is looking only after his own, trying to make the NFL, which I respect if he does not blow up the place upon departure (like Tosh).
Boot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So we've thrown in the towel on recruiting great or really good QB's?
Where's Justin Vedder when you need him.
concernedparent
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't have a problem with the stats. I don't like that we're competing with Liberty and Indiana. Shows that nobody with a football team worth a damn thinks he's the guy.
hbear777
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nobody with a team wants Chandler? it needs a match/need/fit

Pllummer is going to re unite with Brihm at Louivlle, his mentor at Purdue, correct?

a bit balsy to leave when he will again have a capable play caller like at purdue in Spav, and is there better WR/TE/RB group to work with in the United States?

Plug and play portal OL should not be unrealistic: it is the reality played out in the last 2 yrs of FBS

a QB with experience, high accuracy under duress and low talent, big quickness,..under recruited due to height and power arm.... a prove it to us recruit/player. I think I have seen this QB type do major things in the college game, especially in AIR RAID.

.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boot said:

So we've thrown in the towel on recruiting great or really good QB's?
Where's Justin Vedder when you need him.


I highly doubt that is the case. The QB musical chairs around the country will continue. Expect a lot of moves after Spring. If we don't get anyone else besides Rodgers I think one of the UCLA QBs or a QB in an Air Raid system will come to Cal.
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

Quote:

Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year. He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball. Let's relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022. Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time. As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM's was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

...

While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer's, it's likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also very decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are is because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I think this is fair, but the issue was Plummer "demanding" he be recognized as the front runner. If Spavital does that, it is tougher to recruit QBs, not just Rodgers, but likely a bigger name too. Plus, it is not honest. The position is wide open, that is the truth. Plummer might be the best, but he is going to have to compete.
Within the the team competition should rule but prospective recruits are not on the team yet. I think a lot of the talk about how important it is to preserve totally open competition beyond the boundaries of our team can only be maintained because Plummer is only a very modestly valuable QB. If he was a star I bet most people would definitely not bring in a QB transfer if he didn't want one. Same with a condition made by a star HS QB recruit that he's the only QB we take in that class. I would agree if I thought we would not get any other HS QB as good while telling the recruit up front that once he's on the roster he'll have to earn the job against everyone else on the team.

If I understand correctly, Plummer did not demand to be recognized as the starter, only that the staff didn't bring in a transfer that would be expected to contend against him for the job. If Milner or Mendoza beat him out, that's different.

I am not sure what Plummer demanded/asked for.
But IMO asking an incoming OC with plans to install a new system to not bring in a new QB through the portal would have been unreasonable.

That OC is going to be judged on his performance immediately (especially where the two previous OC's had woefully underperformed). That OC is going to be coming into a "hot seat" situation. He would want to control his own fate and not want to put it into the hands of some young kid who might not be the best alternative available
And that includes the best available candidate through the Portal
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
There was a ton of unhappiness with the play of Plummer on the board this season and if the staff came out and said we're good at QB, we're not looking to add from the portal, there would've been a lot of fan dissatisfaction, to say the least and they really wouldn't have been doing their job to do everything they can to build a better offense.

Just firing Musgrave and Angus wasn't going to do the trick.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Boot said:

So we've thrown in the towel on recruiting great or really good QB's?
Where's Justin Vedder when you need him.
I highly doubt that is the case. The QB musical chairs around the country will continue. Expect a lot of moves after Spring. If we don't get anyone else besides Rodgers I think one of the UCLA QBs or a QB in an Air Raid system will come to Cal.
... or one of the Washington QBs, or Ty Thompson from Oregon, or some 4-star QB who grew up in California and is languishing on his current team's depth chart...
DoubtfulBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MoragaBear said:

There was a ton of unhappiness with the play of Plummer on the board this season and if the staff came out and said we're good at QB, we're not looking to add from the portal, there would've been a lot of fan dissatisfaction, to say the least and they really wouldn't have been doing their job to do everything they can to build a better offense.

Just firing Musgrave and Angus wasn't going to do the trick.
Agree that Plummer isn't the answer to rejuvenating the team, but when compared the the slate of elite Pac12 QBs we will face next season, I don't think Rogers is sufficient in getting us to bowl eligibility.
tequila4kapp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You know, it occurs to me that everyone was down on Plummer last off season, too. "Only" a Purdue guy. "Only" a guy who got beat out by someone else and replaced mid season. Etc, etc.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"There was a ton of unhappiness with the play of Plummer on the board this season and if the staff came out and said we're good at QB, we're not looking to add from the portal, there would've been a lot of fan dissatisfaction,"

Are you serious? This coach who is paid millions to run a D1 program is swayed by a couple of dozen posters on this site?

I think the few monied supporters, who essentially pay his salary, have the only input that matters. After all, they paid the 2022 Coach of the Year to go away, and make room for a square jaw.
MoragaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
Bobodeluxe said:

"There was a ton of unhappiness with the play of Plummer on the board this season and if the staff came out and said we're good at QB, we're not looking to add from the portal, there would've been a lot of fan dissatisfaction,"

Are you serious? This coach who is paid millions to run a D1 program is swayed by a couple of dozen posters on this site?

I think the few monied supporters, who essentially pay his salary, have the only input that matters. After all, they paid the 2022 Coach of the Year to go away, and make room for a square jaw.
Wilcox is the last guy who would read a message board, especially looking for advice.

I'm saying a lot of people want it both ways, as in our QB's good enough then when they leave and are replaced, it's woe is me, how could we lose him?

I don't think Rogers would be the only QB addition this offseason. We'll see if the replacements fare better. And Millner might not be gone for sure either.
Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There's a lot going on here. As someone hip deep in all of these personnel issues (and eyebrow deep in NIL) let me throw in a few personal thoughts. Take them for what they are worth as these are just one man's views.

1. I like Jack Plummer a lot. I thought he was a mature, quality leader and a pure warrior for the Bears. He kept going long after a lesser man would have thrown in the towel. He deserves a lot of respect and gratitude. He also had the respect of our incredibly talented WR room who are justifiably concerned about who is going to be throwing them the ball (and would have been fine if that guy was Plummer). We desperately need them here and happy and I am working for hours ever single day to make sure that's the case and that they feel the considerable love of our fanbase for them.

2. So why in the world is Plummer gone then? Why get rid of someone like that? The fact of the matter is it's because the coaches made a choice. They would not have told Plummer they wanted to see if they could find someone better suited to Spavital's system unless they were 100% convinced they could get someone better. Not probably could. Not almost certainly could. 100% could. Otherwise they would've worked hard to keep him here as a fallback. They did not do that. The coaches know what they need far better than anyone on this board. Better than our wide receivers. Better than the quarterbacks themselves. Spavital has been an incredibly successful OC. He knows what he needs and he knows it's out there.

3. Our coaches intently evaluated DJ Uiagalelei (the Clemson 5* QB going to Oregon State). He was interested in Cal. At the end of the day he is there and not here because we made a CHOICE. We did. Spavital simply liked Chandler Rogers better. It's not about the pedigree or the name of the former school. It's about what thIs player can do here and Chandler is simply the better fit.

4. This article is trying to provide some of that context. It helps bring you a little bit into Spavital's thinking process and understand that this is not a situation forced on us by outside forces. This is a dynamic of our own making. We want a new quarterback. We think Rogers could be that quarterback. But as Greg has mentioned, there are more players who want to start at the P5 level than there are slots. There are a lot of options. So far of all the players the coaches have evaluated Rogers is the best fit. But even if he chooses not to come here for some reason, and I have no reason to believe that's going to be the case, it's going to be fine. There is an embarrassment of riches at this position in particular and if anything it's hard to sift through all of the options. But for the moment they have offered Rogers and really would like him to commit because they know that with him at the helm and our current wide receiver room we can make some noise in the conference.

5. Last, to the point that this article is "cringy", welcome to modern college football. The world of NIL and the transfer portal makes constant communication a must. We no longer have the luxury of assuming that the players on the current roster and their families will happily sit back and wait for information to be provided to them by the coaches after the coaches have made a decision. Every day they are deciding if their academic and athletic needs are best met here or elsewhere. So giving some educated analysis as to why Cal is doing the things they are doing is no longer a nice to have. It is a must have. You can tell me that's dumb to think the players and their families are getting information from an article like this, but believe me every bit helps. And this article helps.

Thanks to the staff for writing it.
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

Quote:

Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year. He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball. Let's relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022. Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time. As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM's was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

...

While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer's, it's likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also very decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are is because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I think this is fair, but the issue was Plummer "demanding" he be recognized as the front runner. If Spavital does that, it is tougher to recruit QBs, not just Rodgers, but likely a bigger name too. Plus, it is not honest. The position is wide open, that is the truth. Plummer might be the best, but he is going to have to compete.
Within the the team competition should rule but prospective recruits are not on the team yet. I think a lot of the talk about how important it is to preserve totally open competition beyond the boundaries of our team can only be maintained because Plummer is only a very modestly valuable QB. If he was a star I bet most people would definitely not bring in a QB transfer if he didn't want one. Same with a condition made by a star HS QB recruit that he's the only QB we take in that class. I would agree if I thought we would not get any other HS QB as good while telling the recruit up front that once he's on the roster he'll have to earn the job against everyone else on the team.

If I understand correctly, Plummer did not demand to be recognized as the starter, only that the staff didn't bring in a transfer that would be expected to contend against him for the job. If Milner or Mendoza beat him out, that's different.
I am not sure what Plummer demanded/asked for.
But IMO asking an incoming OC with plans to install a new system to not bring in a new QB through the portal would have been unreasonable.

That OC is going to be judged on his performance immediately (especially where the two previous OC's had woefully underperformed). That OC is going to be coming into a "hot seat" situation. He would want to control his own fate and not want to put it into the hands of some young kid who might not be the best alternative available
And that includes the best available candidate through the Portal
IMO a starting QB requiring the coaches not to bring in a transfer rival is no more or less unreasonable than coaches asking their established starter in his final year of eligibility to compete for the starting job against a transfer (specifically brought in to rival the incumbent) while that starter could be assured of starting for other teams. These are opposite sides of the same coin and I imagine both are going to be part of a common dynamic in the new world of college free agency.

Moreover, this dynamic should be implicit whether Plummer clearly expressed his requirement or not. The probability that you will lose your incumbent starter immediately upon bringing in a rival transfer QB should be understood by the coaches when they make the decision to recruit that rival QB, provided of course that your incumbent is a bonafide starter at another decent program. I strongly expect our coaches fully understand this and knew that bringing in Rogers (or whoever) in all likelihood means moving on from Plummer.

I don't criticize Wilcox/Spav for choosing Rogers over Plummer, I only criticize those of our fans who don't accept that this was entirely their option and obscure the issue with references to the philosophy of competition. Our coaches made a pure personnel decision -- go forward with this QB or that one -- and at the end of the day will deserve credit or blame based on how their choice works out.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

Quote:

Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year. He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball. Let's relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022. Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time. As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM's was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

...

While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer's, it's likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also very decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are is because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I think this is fair, but the issue was Plummer "demanding" he be recognized as the front runner. If Spavital does that, it is tougher to recruit QBs, not just Rodgers, but likely a bigger name too. Plus, it is not honest. The position is wide open, that is the truth. Plummer might be the best, but he is going to have to compete.
Within the the team competition should rule but prospective recruits are not on the team yet. I think a lot of the talk about how important it is to preserve totally open competition beyond the boundaries of our team can only be maintained because Plummer is only a very modestly valuable QB. If he was a star I bet most people would definitely not bring in a QB transfer if he didn't want one. Same with a condition made by a star HS QB recruit that he's the only QB we take in that class. I would agree if I thought we would not get any other HS QB as good while telling the recruit up front that once he's on the roster he'll have to earn the job against everyone else on the team.

If I understand correctly, Plummer did not demand to be recognized as the starter, only that the staff didn't bring in a transfer that would be expected to contend against him for the job. If Milner or Mendoza beat him out, that's different.


Plummer did not decide to come back. He was deciding to go to the senior bowl or stay or transfer. Meanwhile, the world turned. So the staff had to get someone in. We did not have a high school kid and you always need at least one or two QBs. Plummer may have been fine for next year, or he may have wanted to go to the NFL. A week is a long time in the portal era.
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oski87 said:

kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

Quote:

Rogers played for a bad ULM team last year. He was sacked 42 times with only 320 pass attempts, meaning he was sacked on nearly 12% of the snaps where he attempted to pass the ball. Let's relate that to Cal and Jack Plummer in 2022. Jack was sacked 31 times (a tremendously high number) against 484 attempts or 6% of the time. As bad as the Bears' pass protection was last season, ULM's was FAR worse (with regard to sacks per attempt, twice as bad).

...

While Rogers's arm is not as big as Plummer's, it's likely better than Garbers and he delivers it from a far more consistent base.
Assuming the explanation for the sack counts in the respective OL strengths discounts the possibility that Plummer was better at not taking sacks. Plummer was very tough in delivering the ball under pressure, not excessively looking to run or discarding opportunities to throw despite knowing he would take a hit without being able to fully protect himself. Plummer was also very decisive, taking very few sacks because he simply couldn't decide what to do in time. I've only watched a few of Rogers' games but I don't think he matches Plummer in these attributes. I think Rogers is more likely to give up on a play and scramble or consciously take the sack along with the opportunity to protect himself from the blow. Note I don't say this is necessarily bad, just different.

I don't agree that Rogers' arm is stronger than Garbers'. I'd give Chase the slight edge on this test. I think the Maynard comparisons seem more fitting than they really are is because Rogers' arm strength very much resembles Maynard's, one of the weaker arms among Cal starting QBs of my time. This is unfortunate given how strong our WR corps will be in 2023.

Rogers obviously has compensating strengths. He has outstanding mobility, has good accuracy and throws a very soft, catchable ball. He's a good operator of a spread passing attack. Rogers' combination of passing skill and mobility opens up huge sections of the playbook that would have been closed to Spav with Plummer. With the kinds of weapons he's going to have, I expect Rogers to be much more productive than Plummer was last season but I don't think he's actually an upgrade in overall QB quality. I think they're comparable talents with a very different set of strengths and weaknesses.
I think this is fair, but the issue was Plummer "demanding" he be recognized as the front runner. If Spavital does that, it is tougher to recruit QBs, not just Rodgers, but likely a bigger name too. Plus, it is not honest. The position is wide open, that is the truth. Plummer might be the best, but he is going to have to compete.
Within the the team competition should rule but prospective recruits are not on the team yet. I think a lot of the talk about how important it is to preserve totally open competition beyond the boundaries of our team can only be maintained because Plummer is only a very modestly valuable QB. If he was a star I bet most people would definitely not bring in a QB transfer if he didn't want one. Same with a condition made by a star HS QB recruit that he's the only QB we take in that class. I would agree if I thought we would not get any other HS QB as good while telling the recruit up front that once he's on the roster he'll have to earn the job against everyone else on the team.

If I understand correctly, Plummer did not demand to be recognized as the starter, only that the staff didn't bring in a transfer that would be expected to contend against him for the job. If Milner or Mendoza beat him out, that's different.
Plummer did not decide to come back. He was deciding to go to the senior bowl or stay or transfer. Meanwhile, the world turned. So the staff had to get someone in. We did not have a high school kid and you always need at least one or two QBs. Plummer may have been fine for next year, or he may have wanted to go to the NFL. A week is a long time in the portal era.
That's not what others have reported in other threads. Reportedly, Plummer told the coaches he would return if no transfer QB was brought in who would be expected to immediately compete for the starting job. The coaches in turn told him they intended to bring someone in. My comments on the matter have assumed the truth of these reports, as have many of the replies to my comments. I have no personal knowledge either way.
HearstMining
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sebastabear said:

There's a lot going on here. As someone hip deep in all of these personnel issues (and eyebrow deep in NIL) let me throw in a few personal thoughts. Take them for what they are worth as these are just one man's views.
.
.
.

Thanks to the staff for writing it.
Sebastabear, thank you for the excellent synopsis. Do you (or any other contributors on BI) have any insight into what conversations Spav had with Millner? It's been said that the most popular player on a losing team is the backup QB, but the little we saw of his play was intriguing.
Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HearstMining said:

Sebastabear said:

There's a lot going on here. As someone hip deep in all of these personnel issues (and eyebrow deep in NIL) let me throw in a few personal thoughts. Take them for what they are worth as these are just one man's views.
.
.
.

Thanks to the staff for writing it.
Sebastabear, thank you for the excellent synopsis. Do you (or any other contributors on BI) have any insight into what conversations Spav had with Millner? It's been said that the most popular player on a losing team is the backup QB, but the little we saw of his play was intriguing.
Will repeat here what I posted on the insider board. Basically I believe the situation with Kai was a bit more inadvertent, but nevertheless foreseeable. And unfolded much in the same way as the Plummer situation did and for similar reasons. Kai knew that he was being recruited over (again). He knew that Spavital thought we could do better. And he wants to play. All of these kids really want to play not just warm the bench. So he's out there testing the waters. But I'm not sure he's getting met with a lot of enthusiasm from other programs so he may well find himself without a home. It's too bad but it's what happens when players jump into the portal. I don't think he's coming back. But once again QB is the position I am really least concerned about. I think we'll be fine. What I am concerned about is landing a couple of quality offensive tackles. All eyes need to be on that.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.