Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Blake Griffin Slam Dunks: NBA Jam Style

A play-by-play assessment of Zach Maynard's 1st Cal performance: Intriguing player, but unimpressed with him as a passer and QB

Cal won on Saturday against Fresno State, but I got over that before the game ended.   Excuse me for not getting delirious.

Watching the second half of the game I couldn't help but continually revert back to how poor Maynard was playing.  With a 19-point lead, I was surprisingly agitated watching the game in the second half, watching Maynard make poor pass after poor pass.  It occurred to me that Maynard was poor at both reading defenses and delivering the ball accurately — two really important skills for a QB — and that he should be eating the Bulldogs alive with their soft secondary coverage and their minimal pass rush. 

So I wanted to see if my initial reaction to the game was an emotionally-charged aberration by going over the offensive passing plays once more.  To my chagrin, it wasn't.

Star-divide

60570_fresno_st_california_football_medium

via cdn0.sbnation.com

It seemed necessary to watch it again both to make sure I wasn't missing something everyone else was seeing, and also to provide some documentation for others who claim to believe Maynard both played well and is a lock to get much, much better.

So, in an effort be as fair as possible, I watched the game the morning after (instead of sleeping, my first preference usually) and jotted down the outcomes of passing plays and offered some quick analysis on how Maynard performed. (And, as I suspected, some of his big gains were actually bad throws, and some of his decent ones were incomplete.  That's football.)

This type of analysis will always be incomplete because I can't see what ZM is seeing down the field; but it's a start when attempting to confront a largely optimistic uniformity on CGB regarding ZM's performance and his upside.

For the most part, this is a quest to answer who ZM is right now. I would argue that the best assessments we can make on the future is by judging where a player is at right now.  We need to start by going off what we see.  And even if we discount for rustiness and a lack of familiarity with Tedford's offense, I don't think it is unfair to lean one way or the other in regards to his "ceiling."  I acknowledge that each week we will learn more about ZM.  How much/little he improves his throwing each week will help inform us of what his ceiling is.   But we need to know who he is right now, use what we know about what he has been in his collegiate career, in order to assess who he potentially can be. 

My concern going forward is that his greatest weakness is the most important skill set to have and the hardest to teach and correct: accuracy — a QBs ability to deliver the ball where it needs to be.  Touch on the football — throwing the ball with the proper trajectory and speed for optimal efficiency — is a subset of accuracy, and I saw that he struggled mightily with his accuracy when he attempted to finesse the ball to receivers.  Also troubling is he struggled with his accuracy on very short routes on multiple occasions.  You can chalk this up to being away from live action for almost two years — and you might be right — but accuracy and touch (and pocket awareness) were also his rap at Buffalo.  It's been well documented that he has never demonstrated the ability to be a consistent passer.  What makes one think that is all of a sudden going to change, particularly after such a poor performance throwing the football on Saturday?  It is not fair to think that a QB is going to all of a sudden change form being a wildly inaccurate passer — a label I would use to describe Maynard at this point — to a good one.   Some of his poor short passes were caught, others weren't.  He had the most success with hitch/stop routes and WR screens.  And though QBs can become vastly improved reading defenses and going through progressions — all parts of becoming an excellent decision maker, a skill that cannot be understated — with time and proper tutelage, I think it is irrational to just automatically assume that they will, especially when it contradicts analytical observation.  It seems to me you can find many examples of QBs who never improved in this area.  A lot of these guys I'm sure you have watched first hand.  Some of them wore the blue and gold.  Also, some QBs simply can't make quality throws without fixating on their primary receiver.  With the exception of a handful of plays, ZM locked onto his receivers.  As Cal's competition stiffens, ZM will start to pay for doing that. 

Here is a play-by-play analysis of Cal's passing plays.

1st Drive (15:00, 1st Q)

1. (play canceled due to illegal formation) Incomplete: dropped screen, but a perfect throw.

2. INT (1st and 15): could very well have been miscommunication.  MJ stopped short for a dig/hitch (where the receiver just stops and "sits"), while Maynard may have been looking for him to do an in route (where the receiver cuts sharply back towards the QB at either a 90 or 45 degree angle).  Maynard had very poor footwork, never setting his feet and throwing off his back foot.

Drive Summary (0-1, 0 yds, 1 INT): rough start, but perhaps because of route miscommunication.  Maynard on the pick after the game:

Well, I rushed the pass a little bit. I just felt as if it was going to break earlier for me, but it didn't. I threw it up field and it got picked.

Not sure what "it" is (the ball or the receiver?).  Sounded like he meant the ball.  Was he trying to throw a curveball?

 

2nd Drive (13:11, 1st Q)

3. Incomplete (2nd and 3): Very bad throw on an easy pass pattern, a 3-yd quick slant to KA.  Thrown well behind him.  Not a catchable pass.

4. Complete (3rd and 3): GREAT THROW.  Soft touch on a deep corner post route to KA for 24 yards. KA was well guarded too.

5. Incomplete (2nd and 10): WR screen intended for KA, thrown wide left by about 4 feet. Rarely do you see a screen pass to a stationary receiver thrown so terribly at any level.

6. Complete (3rd and 10):  GOOD THROW.  10-yd out route to MJ on the left side for 11-yd gain.  Throw was slightly off the mark, but it was towards the sideline where only MJ could catch it, and it was very catchable.  Thrown on a line. Good footwork, stepped into his throw.

7. Complete (1st and 10): GOOD THROW.  Rollout to his strong side (left) and good footwork in delivering a seed to Miller (slightly behind him) on a crossing route for 8 yards.

Drive Summary (3-5, 43 yds)  A 67 yard drive ending with a TD run by Isi Sofele.  Maynard made three good/excellent throws, two of them on crucial 3rd downs, yet his two incompletions were short passes that were awful and nowhere close.  This becomes a theme for Maynard in this game.

 

3rd Drive (7:07, 1st Q)

8. Incomplete (1st and 10): Strong throw rolling out to his left for a deep out/comeback, but receiver was well guarded, and a catchable throw would have been intercepted or batted away.  Not Maynard's fault.

9. Complete (2nd and 10): A  20-yd pickup that was all MJ, no ZM.  A quick, 3-yd out from the slot, Maynard threw it well behind MJ, twisting him around.  If he hadn't caught it, it wouldn't be his fault.  That MJ turned it into a 20 yard gain after twisting himself around to catch it and then eluding two would-be tacklers is impressive.  But ZM's inaccuracy -- both short and long -- becomes a theme, especially in the 2nd half.

Drive Summary (1-2, 20 yds): One first down, two passes.  The pass that went for 20 yards to MJ was actually a horrid throw despite it being a very easy, short pass, while the incompletion was not necessarily a bad throw. 

 

 

4th Drive (5:40, 1st Q)

10. Complete (3rd and 10): GREAT THROW.  Almost under-thrown enough to be batted away, but overall it was well placed with nice touch, 31-yd completion to KA on a deep skinny post route, where he had beaten double coverage.  Perhaps more impressive: Maynard set himself, planted his feet, and delivered close to a strike as the pocket was collapsing.  He got rid of it just in time, as he was hit the moment he let it go.  Another 3rd-and-long conversion.

11. Completion (1st and 10): GREAT THROW.  Timing route (a QS to KA out of the slot) delivered on the money, in stride, and in time, just as KA created the separation he needed.  KA streaks for a 19 yard gain — 15 coming after the catch.

12. TD Completion (1st and 10): A side-arm throw while rolling to his left, Maynard hits a wide-open MJ down the middle of the field on a deep post for a 42-yd TD.  The ball was thrown very poorly (under thrown and behind; it forced MJ to slow up, giving the defender a chance to tackle him once it was caught), and for some reason MJ was facing one-on-one coverage with no safety over the top.  Pac-12 teams are not that dumb, one would think.  It didn't appear FSU respected Maynard's throwing ability early on, or at least thought Tedford was going to be conservative early with the play calling.  Play looks good on paper, and the outcome was good, but not really an impressive play on ZM's part.

Drive Summary (3-3, 90 yards, 1 TD): ZM's two impressive throws set up the TD scoring play, which was an unimpressive throw and almost cost Cal an easy touchdown.  One timely 3rd down conversion.  The talent of Cal's WR duo was really on display during this drive.

 

5th Drive (14:13, 2nd Q)

13. Incomplete (2nd and 2): Bad throw, bad read/decision, bad footwork.  ZM misses MJ on a skinny post over the middle fo the field where he had no chance of catching anything.  Unclear what other options ZM had, but it was clear he was fixated on MJ, and he did not step up in the pocket to make the throw.  Backfoot throws over the middle into double coverage often spells P-I-C-K S-I-X.  Fortunately it was overthrown by 5 feet.  Ideally ZM would under-throw those types of passes so that balls don't get batted in the air or picked.

Drive Summary (0-1, 0 yds): A 3-and-out series, featuring one pass by ZM that shouldn't have been thrown and was way off the mark (which worked out for Cal).

 

6th Drive (10:28, 2nd Q)

14. Incomplete (1st and 15): Intended WR screen, ZM hits offensive lineman in the head.  A pretty unacceptable pass (he is oddly having trouble with the short ones at this point), but film shows FSU had that screen sniffed out and MJ would have been dropped the moment he caught it for no gain (at best). 

15. Completion (2nd and 15): Risky throw, and a bit behind (again).  A  5-yd out to Miller out of the slot is thrown to the wrong shoulder where it was almost picked.  Was thrown and caught at Miller's right hip as he was moving towards the right sideline (should have been the left hip).  A split second later and it would have been a pick six.  Gamble by FSU defender turns 5 yard gain into a 24 yard pass play.

16. Incomplete (1st and 10): Dropped ball by KA, wide open on a deep post corner.  Throw was short and behind (becoming redundant), forcing KA to turn his hips around and completely face the QB, but a very catchable ball that was an easy play for KA; he just muffed it. 

17. Sack (3rd and 12): What can you say?  FSU blitzed 6 defenders, Cal had 5 blockers in a  5 WR 0 HB formation.  However, replay shows Maynard had a hot route open -- a QS by MJ on the right side  -- but Maynard's head was fixated on the left side, which seemed to be long developing routes.  One would think Maynard will see this in film review and realize he always needs to be aware of that option, especially on 3rd down (which this play was).  The QS would have been a huge gain being that there was nobody around MJ.

Drive Summary (1-3, 24 yds): Had trouble with his reads this drive, but did find KA for what should have been a huge gain.  Drive could have ended in points.  He wasn't particularly accurate on any of his three passes.

 

7th Drive (6:49, 2nd Q)

18. FSU touchdown: muffed snap.

 

8th Drive (4:10, 2nd Q)

19. Complete (2nd and 5): Good read, PERFECT THROW.  A short hitch/stop route at the sideline to Calvin for about 5 yards.  Perfect 3-step drop by Maynard, good footwork, stepped into it and the timing was perfect, ball delivered on the money at the numbers. 

20. Incomplete (1st and 10): Poorly thrown 20-yard post corner route towards the right sideline intended for KA into double coverage.  Bad read -- KA was double covered and too close to the sideline.  Ball shouldn't have been thrown at all, but if it was, it should have been thrown much earlier.  ZM was off balance, throwing with his momentum going to the sideline rather than towards the receiver (he was concerned about the blitz even though he had a lot of pocket to step up in), and the ball was about 7 yards overthrown. Replay showed Calvin was wide open underneath KA's route.  No excuses.  Maynard was looking in that direction, but it shows he was again fixated on KA and couldn't get away from it despite the double coverage.

(Next play was an easy throw but  well designed screen to KA, thrown on the money right, caught in stride, for a huge gain, but it was brought back due to a penalty)

21. Complete (2nd and 25): PERFECT EVERYTHING. Out of the shotgun, Maynard has a perfect drop back, sets his feet, steps into the throw, and throws a strike to MJ on a post route for a 21 yard gain over the middle.  Timing was perfect; it was thrown soon enough before the DB stepped up and closed in.  (Again, though, ZM fixated on MJ from the get-go, and ZM will be put to the test when he teams take away his first and second read.  He's had trouble up to this point in making plays when that first read is taken away.)  When will FSU start trying to take away MJ and KA by not giving them so much cushion?

22. Incomplete (1st and 10): A 10 yard sideline comeback intended for MJ.  Well thrown given the circumstances: low, and away from the defender.  Well covered by FSU.  Unclear as to whether ZM could have gone elsewhere with the ball.  He did have time in the pocket.

(Another Cal 1st down called back.  Maynard escapes broken pocket to find WR tip-toeing the sideline for a 1st down.  Hopefully this becomes Maynard's forte).

23. Complete (2nd and 30): Quick screen to KA on crossing towards the middle from right side for 13 yards.  Simple, short WR screen pass, delivered on time and on the numbers.  ZM seems to like scooting backwards and jump-throwing those WR screen passes towards the middle.

24.  Incomplete (3rd and 17): Intended for Calvin on a 10 yard sideline comeback.  ZM throws off his back foot (feeling the pressure) and again throws far wide of intended receiver.  Didn't give Calvin a shot to make a play.

25. Incomplete (4th and 17): Sums up Maynard's greatest strength and weakness.  Broken play, ZM rolls left, then back all the way to the right sideline, throws 50 yards deep into the endzone only to overshoot both a wide-open MJ and KA.  ZM's talent afforded himself all day to find somebody, but when he did, his greatest weakness, in my view -- his accuracy -- cost Cal six points before the half.  Looks like it was intended for KA streaking towards the right corner of the endzone, though it seemed to come closer to an open MJ streaking up the right sideline.

Drive Summary (3-7, 39 yards): Accuracy and reads are the main issue again in this drive to end the 1st half.  Penalties hurt the drive indeed, but ZM missed badly on three passes, one of them in the end zone.  His scrambling ability was on display, though, but penalties negated one of his flushes out of the pocket in which he converted for a 1st down.

 

HALFTIME

 

9th Drive (12: 37, 3rd Q)

25. QB Option (3rd and 6): Maynard scampers down the wide-open right sideline for 48 yards.  (That's why he's starting right?) Another crucial 3rd down conversion by ZM, and this time he did it all by himself (sort of).

* (penalty play, but worth including) :  Worst pass of the game.  Maynard does everything right until the ball leaves his left hand.  Great play action and footwork, but he fails to deliver the ball anywhere close to where it needs be.  KA beats his man on a post route from the left slot position, and ZM under-throws it -- and throws it well behind him.  Interference was caused by the bad throw, but play should have been an easy six points.  ZM tried to finesse the ball and it was one of his worst -- and most costly -- throws of the game. ZM will have to deliver the ball to open guys to beat good teams. Guys won't be as open as often as they were against FSU.

26. TD Completion (3rd and 8): Simple 10-yd out route to MJ at the right sideline, breaks a tackle and gets into the endzone for a 23 yard TD.  ZM dropped back, took his time in a well protected pocket, and delivered well to MJ coming back towards the LOS.  After that it was all MJ.

 

10th Drive (9:12, 3rd Q)

27. Complete (2nd and 15):  completed QS over the middle to KA for 9 yards.  Comcast was feeding us token Mike Pawlawski highlight reels instead of the live play, so I  can't say much about the throw.  I do know Maynard delivered a completion with a DL running right at him.  He got rid of it just in time, and was awarded a 15-yard penalty for roughing the passer.

28. Scramble (1st and 10): ZM doesn't see anybody, scrambles to the left for 3 yards.

29. Incomplete (3rd and 4): Didn't find anyone (who knows if there was someone open), forced to scramble out of the pocket and did the only positive thing he could do as he was running backwards and towards the sideline: throw it away.

Drive Summary (1-2, 9 yards):  After 1st down and penalty, drive stalled.  ZM showed some pocket presence (getting rid of it under pressure; throwing it away).

 

11th Drive (1:53, 3rd Q)

 

20. Incomplete (2nd and 10): Jittery foot work in a collapsing pocket, then a jump throw 25 yards down the middle of the field, and miraculously on the money in between tight coverage. In and out of the hands of the receiver.  More than anything it was good coverage, tough to catch, and a good throw.  Not sure whether in the film room Tedford will congratulate him on making such an accurate throw in between tight coverage, or scold him for jump-throwing a deep pass over the middle in the middle of a lot of defenders.

30. Incomplete (3rd and 10):  Hit as he threw a sideline out.  Shit happens.

Drive Summary (0-2):  Rough series.  Time for some more WR screens.

 

12th Drive (15:00 4th Q)

31. Incomplete (1st and 10): Easy six, but an overthrown ball to a streaking CDJ out of the backfield.  Nobody was around him. Maynard had time, pump-faked, and flat out missed CDJ on an easy throw.  Ugh.  Accuracy being the central issue ... again.  He needs to know that if there is ever a time to under-throw a receiver slightly in order to guarantee a reception, that was it.

32. Complete (2nd and 10): Easy screen pass to KA for a loss of 2 after running into his own man.

33. Sacked (3rd and 12):  Held the ball too long; by the time he made up his mind to run, it was too late. It looked like he was going through his progressions, and though it could have been the case that nobody was open, it also could have been the case that he went through his progressions too late and missed somebody.  Where are you Madden Cam?

Drive Summary (1-2, -2 yards):  ZM continues to struggle in the second half, where it appears FSU is starting to give Cal WRs less cushion, taking away ZM's first/second choices.  How ZM deals with this in future games is key.

 

13th Drive (10:27 4th Q)

34. Incomplete (2nd and 9):  Overthrows MJ on a post route by about 8 feet. ZM looked good dropping back out of the shotgun, looked to the right first to freeze the defender, then set his feet, then stepped into his throw.  It all looked good until it left his hand. He just sailed the throw.  Jones was open and had ample space between himself and the defender.  This needs to be a cinch of a completion down the road in games.

34. Complete (3rd and 9): Nice 12 yard out route to KA delivered on the money, in stride.  Good drop back and footwork. 

35. Incomplete (1st and 10):  Poor read, throwing the ball way too high for a double covered receiver (Miller) streaking across the field toward the left end zone pylon.  Didn't step into the throw despite dropping back well.  Ball shouldn't have been thrown anyways.  A good throw might have been picked.

36. Incomplete (2nd and 10): A hitch route delivered on time, on the money to the left sideline.  Just dropped by MJ; was right in his hands.

37. Complete (3rd and 10): Screen to KA for 7 yards.  ZM used his jump-backwards throw on the WR screen cutting across the field.

Drive Summary (2-5, 19 yds): Unable to sustain a drive again with some poor reads and some profoundly inaccurate passing.  A solid 3rd down conversion to KA for 12, but a throw all QBs not named Brock Mansion make.

 

14th Drive (3:29, 4th Q)

38. Incomplete (3rd and 7): Quick 5-yd out thrown way wide right to an open MJ.  Not even close ... again ... ugh.

FINAL STATS for ZM: (16-35, 266 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT)

Quick summary from my analyses:

- 12 of his 19 incomplete passes were uncatchable.  A few of them were much worse than uncatchable.  This does not include throw aways, or plays in which he was hit as he threw.  You could add one more uncatchable to the number 12 if you count the pass intended for KA, which should have gone for six, that was cancelled due to interference.

60377_fresno_st_california_football_large_medium

via cdn0.sbnation.com

 

 

Though not a particularly strong TV crew, Barry Tompkins said in so many words that Maynard struggled, saying after the game "I think Cal is going to live and die on their defense this year" even though Cal had put up 36 points.  It was evident to local TV — I repeat, a local broadcast team —  that a 36 point performance was underwhelming and could not fully obscure Maynard's struggles.

The poor completion percentage stood out less than actually observing ZM miss so badly on so many throws, some of them short and easy ones.  More discouraging to us Cal fans — and more damning to the idea that Maynard played well Saturday —  is that Tedford protected him with quite a few WR screens, slants and hitch routes.

It was clear that ZM played much better in the first half.  Why this is I don't know.  You'd think, if he was fighting off the cobwebs, he'd improve as the game wore on.  FSU did seem to tighten up coverage mid-way in the 3rd quarter, taking away passing lanes/options that were there in the 1st half; but also penalties killed some of Cal's drives in the second half. 

It's fine to believe ZM will improve his understanding of Tedford's scheme, and thus will become better at deciding when/where to deliver the ball.  But based on his performance and the types of struggles he had, I think at minimum we can acknowledge that Maynard struggled mightily on Saturday and proceed cautiously when singing the "he's really inconsistent now but he'll turn into a quality QB" slogan. 

Can we acknowledge that we are intrigued by ZM's added dimension at the QB position while still acknowledging that — objectively — he threw the ball very poorly on Saturday?  Whether you think that is an aberration or should not factor into what we expect in the future is up for debate (I guess), but I wanted to emphasize that, based on his performance Saturday and what we know about him already, there is very little reason to think that Cal will beat good teams unless Maynard improves — drastically.  (Then comes the awful and uncomfortable question of whether we have good reasons to believe he will fix his most glaring flaws.)

It seems far more objective to assess future outcomes based on what we already have observed than it is to just assume that he will get much better, particularly when no more than a small portion of his struggles were, or have been, mental. It had to do with his physical ability to deliver the ball accurately enough to receivers.  Once Maynard demonstrates an ability to throw the ball in the vicinity of receivers, can check down to his 2nd/3rd/4th receiver consistently, and improve his footwork (which will improve his accuracy) I will begin to feel good about mentioning Cal in the top-tier of the conference, and ZM as a legit QB. 

Poll
What do you expect from Zach Maynard based on what you know from his Buffalo days and his 1st performance as a Bear?
A top-tier Pac-12 QB
13 votes
A middle-of-the pack Pac-12 QB
39 votes
One of the most dynamic QBs in the country who will eventually start to gain nationwide recognition
6 votes
A solid but inconsistent QB
38 votes
To be wearing a head set by midseason
6 votes
Check back with me after Oct. 13 (USC game)
20 votes

122 votes | Poll has closed

The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.

Comment 94 comments  |  6 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Thanks for doing this. I'm not sold on Maynard, either.

Betting Bridgford is a more accurate passer, but Maynard won out because of his mobility and his connection with KA.

by elbarto83 on Sep 4, 2011 8:46 PM PDT reply actions  

a bit comforting to know I'm not alone on this one

I think we can assume Bridgford is more accurate, and I think Avinnash was right pointing out months ago that Tedford may have suspected a sub-par O-line and wanted a guy who can make plays when things break down. The connection with KA is an interesting x-factor too. But it will take more than poor play from ZM for him to lose his job. Cal has to lose games as well. I’m hoping for the best, I just would feel better if ZM started giving me some good reasons to.

by salary_cap on Sep 4, 2011 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Haven't Watched The Game

So can’t really comment on his performance, but I do appreciate all the work you put into this post. You seem very passionate about what you are saying and Cal football in general.

However, I’m going to point out, as others have, that it’s his first game in two years, under a new system, under new coaches in a different school on a different coast. I really think it’s WAY too early to be sold or not sold on Maynard yet. Remember, after the WSU game last year, that people thought Mansion wasn’t that bad an option. Now, people are delighted that he’ll only see the field during PATs and FGs (and not even that yesterday, apparently). The point is, we just don’t know yet how he will turn out.

You may not want to hear this, but in Tedford I trust. Give the kid a few games under his tutelage before we start writing Maynard off or crowning him as a savior. Tedford took another inaccurate QB (Boller) and turned him into a 1st rounder in one year. Not expecting it to happen with Maynard, but you just can’t say at this point if it will or will not.

by KikiRevenge on Sep 4, 2011 9:00 PM PDT reply actions  

I'm not sold either nor am I writing him off

I just wanted to emphasize there are few reasons at this point to think that the “real” Zach Maynard is just waiting to be exposed. I’m cautiously pessimistic at this point, but by no means am I writing him off or saying he absolutely won’t become the quarterback that we’d all like him to become.

And I concede the discounting for his 2 years off, and the new system. This is why I am very intrigued to watch next week’s game on the road, and other games that follow, in order to see how this guy performs.

by salary_cap on Sep 4, 2011 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Cool. Agreed on being intrigued. Your tone just seemed a little more dismissive earlier.

by KikiRevenge on Sep 4, 2011 9:27 PM PDT reply actions  

Wow!

This was a well-written and researchpost, and I see now more than before where you’re coming from. The notes about the footwork are especially interesting to me, because that’s often how interceptions start (happy feet).

Whether you think that is an aberration or should not factor into what we expect in the future is up for debate (I guess), but I wanted to emphasize that, based on his performance Saturday and what we know about him already, there is very little reason to think that Cal will beat good teams unless Maynard improves — drastically.

I will disagree with this statement, however. Cal’s defense should (hopefully! knock on wood) keep us in most games, so Maynard doesn’t have to be a world beater. He has to be above average for sure, but not at the level of Luck, Barkley, etc. So I think that you’re a little over-worried on that front.

But again, this is the level that all fanposts should endeavor to match. Thanks for sharing!

Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian

by boomtho on Sep 4, 2011 9:37 PM PDT reply actions  

maybe Maynard will be asked to run more against better teams – seemed almost under utilized given his success – which I believe loosens up the coverage and allowing him to get away with throwing passes in the general vicinity of an awesome receiver.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 5, 2011 2:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

i formally welcome salary cap into the venn

of hatters. your post makes it clear you’re one of us, even though we may not agree on what to hat.

Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!

by GoldBlooded on Sep 4, 2011 9:50 PM PDT reply actions  

I have no idea what you just said, but thank you … I guess.

by salary_cap on Sep 4, 2011 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think he si saying that you appear to be a person who focuses more on the negatives than the positives. Similar to him.

This performance from Maynard had a lot of positives and a lot of negatives. Its sort of a Rorschach test for people. Those who are pre-disposed to look towards the negative will focus on those negatives. Those who are predisposed to look towards the positive will focus on the positives.

You appear to be extraordinarily focused on the negative. Thus, the similarity to Goldblooded.

I should note that although I have a much more positive view of Maynard’s play on Saturday, I did rec this post, bc you put a lot of effort into it. I might disagree with your conclusion, but I respect your work and your rational thought process.

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 4, 2011 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

ah, I see.

I suppose my gf might agree with that. I will tell you that while it might be easy to conclude one is a “half empty” kind of guy, my motivation for writing this (and other so-called “negative” analyses) is to seek the input of others who care about said topic. When I am seeing what others are not, or if I’m not seeing things other people are, I become intellectually restless and seek some interactiveness to come to an equilibrium, or, if not, to be comforted that I publicly expressed my thought process. You’re right, I could have talked about the 5 throws Maynard made that were excellent, and then raved about how we might have the answer to all our problems. But everyone is saying these things to some degree and I would simply be one of many shouting voices lost in the noise. If I thought Maynard was good, I wouldn’t say he wasn’t to be a contrarian, but I wouldn’t take the time to write about it — mainly because there are others who are saying it for me. So, I guess, I focused on the negative here because 1) the negative far outweighed the positive in my view, and 2) there seems to be an orgy of positive sentiment here, which, though natural, is I think a dissonance to what really happened on Saturday. By no means am I “searching” for reasons to say Maynard sucks.

You said you disagree with my conclusion. I think my conclusion was that Maynard didn’t play very well on Saturday and that it is no certainty to assume he will fix the flaws that were evident on Saturday, since they were, in my view, more physical (that which is innate in him) than mental. Do you disagree? Why? (This is the other reason why I wrote this: Maybe I’m drinking the Kool-Aid. I wanted to start discussion as to why people are so optimistic that ZM will be “good,” whatever that means.

by salary_cap on Sep 4, 2011 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

First of all, let me commend you on the time and detail you put into this post. It took a lot of work and I appreciate you doing so for everyone’s benefit.

In all honesty, I usually skim through most of your posts because whether intentionally or not, your overall tone is consistently negative. I can see from your explanation that you’re trying to be more of a “devil’s advocate” type looking at it from all angles. But, it comes across as a bit over the top, like you’ve already made up your mind to be put something down. At that point, it looks like answering would be arguing just for the sake of arguing and that’s not a productive discussion. I don’t mean to insult you here, that’s just the impression I get from your posting history.

With regards to your overall conclusion about Maynard’s performance, I don’t disagree with the bottom line. He didn’t play well. By his own admission, he thought he only was 4-4.5/10 and Tedford classified his performance as “okay.”

So, why are people generally optimistic about him?

1) He ain’t Riley or Mansion. Sad, but true. He’s the exciting new toy. We haven’t picked apart all of his warts yet. He hasn’t lost a game in heartbreaking fashion, failed in the clutch moment, tantalized us, or left us crying in our beer.

2) Emphasis on exciting. Athleticism + running ability + gunslinger mentality + strong arm means exciting plays. Now, some of these may very well end up being more exciting for the other team. But, he’s a breath of fresh air from a litany of recent quarterbacks who all seemed more afraid to make a mistake than to make a play.

3) Where you see flaws, many people see potential. We’ve seen first-hand what dual-threat quarterbacks can do, even if their passing skills are only modest. (Kaepernick, Masoli, Thomas, etc.) But although we’ve admired from afar, we’ve never had a quarterback during the Tedford era who actually looked like they could win games with this different style. He flashes an ability to be a playmaker. Whether he reaches that potential or not will be a big question mark moving forward.

4) Insufficient sample size. It was one game against an opponent of questionable competitiveness. Maynard could still be the second coming of Mansion or Ayoob. But, he could also be something more. It’s not unreasonable to think that with more reps, more practice with his receivers, more coaching from a proven quarterbacks mentor, more film study, and more confidence that his performance will improve. In particular, I think that confidence will play a big role in the accuracy of his throws. When he can just let it rip instead of thinking about the throws or aiming the throws, it’s reasonable to expect that he’ll be more precise.

The fact is, none of us are football or quarterback experts. We don’t see what Tedford sees in practice or in the film room. We just see the results which were mixed. That leaves us with a choice to be optimistic or pessimistic. Most people prefer to have hope until it’s proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (Mansion, Ayoob) that it just ain’t happening.

Your analysis is thorough and thoughtful. But, your opening and closing remarks come across as being dismissive and with a sense of finality. In some ways, writing Maynard off as not being capable of improvement or becoming a good quarterback this early in his Cal career is just as short-sighted as you claim other fans are being with their “orgy of positive sentiment.”

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 5, 2011 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

Kodiak makes a lot of good points here.

Another point I wanted to add (something that I think has been echoed a lot) is that while Maynard’s completion percentage is down from where we would all like to see it, there were some rough drops by receivers.

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 5, 2011 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

I appreciate the thoughtful criticism

And you will learn that very little offends me personally.

I would never consider myself a Cal fan without hope this year. If my critique of ZM (which I thought was pretty focused) gave the impression that I feed off negativity and hold no hope on the basis of one game, then perhaps that is the result of my shortcomings as a writer because that is not how I feel.

I was both intrigued and cautiously optimistic heading into Saturday, and perhaps that is why I felt so disappointed. And upon entering CGB threads that night, I felt it was nothing by sunshine pumping, so I felt I needed to address this, if not to simply correct the error of my own ways. In all honesty, watching ZM perform in the second half ruined the viewing experience for me. I was so discouraged and disappointed with his ability to hit receivers, and since no one seemed to feel the same, I decided to write a FP with some objective evidence.

This doesn’t mean, however, that I’ve lost hope on the season or that I’m certain ZM will be mediocre forever. I was simply arguing that the reasons/evidence for him becoming a good passer are lacking comparatively to reasons for him continuing his inconsistent ways.

And the sample size is small, but not as small as you think. His play at Buffalo counts. Not the same, but it counts. From what I’ve read the same red flags were raised back there. Good arm, inconsistent thrower, poor pocket presence/awareness. But make no mistake, I’m hoping for the best.

Did I say he definitely won’t improve? (serious question, I don’t think I did, but if I did, that was a mistake). I believe I said it is wrong to simply ASSUME he will improve his greatest flaws (accuracy, in my view). I understand that many like yourself assume the best (optimistic) until they prove otherwise, which is mighty gracious of you, but he’s had a year of demonstrating he has serious flaws, and with this first game, I will assume he is who he has shown until he proves otherwise. If it was Bridgford with the performance, of course, you would not see a post from me.

And again, if my tone “closed the door” on debate as to whether Maynard will improve, that is my shortcoming as a writer not clearly expressing my thoughts.

by salary_cap on Sep 5, 2011 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I really appreciated this post

Count me among those that wasn’t thrilled with the tone of your posts in the post game thread. Something about them rubbed me the wrong way; there was almost a sense of finality ZM’s struggles (It could be my misinterpretation). I think everyone saw ZM’s very inconsistent performance but you just came to different conclusions than most. Most saw the good throws/decisions and saw hope. You seemed to see the bad throws/plays and saw a bad quarterback. In reality, both sides were doing the same projections based on limited evidence, but being a fan blog (even if it’s a cal blog), optimistic assumptions are going to be favored. You stood out for taking the opposite viewpoint.

I enjoyed this article because you articulated (even with a big mistake in the broadcaster comment as discussed ad nauseam below) your point of view well. Although I may disagree with a few of your assessment on particular plays, overall the write-up was really good.

Personally, I just lean more towards the optimistic side because I think ZM showed a lot of potential. It’s true that good/great QBs are that way because they’re consistent, which he lacked. However, I’m not saying he’s good now, but he showed the ability to be good. He made good reads at times, he made accurate throws at times and was generally calm in the pocket (super important IMHO). Sure, he wasn’t consistent, but most good/great QBs weren’t consistent from the very beginning. A lot of guys don’t pan out, but I’m willing to hold out hope that ZM can. I think we’re actually completely on the same page (ZM was inconsistent and needs to improve on that to become good) in many respects, I just lean more towards his problems being solvable ones.

by jali on Sep 5, 2011 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fair point

and perhaps my emotion so soon after the game colored my comments in that thread you spoke of. I would never insinuate that I know the future, I was just skeptical after what I saw. I’m holding out hope too — these next few games will be intriguing to say the least — that Maynard will show more consistency on his throws, but also remember that Maynard is not a Freshman, he’s not a Junior with no experience. He is a junior transfer with 1 year of starting games under his belt (albeit at a small school Buffalo). But yes, the sample size is still small, and we need a bigger sample size of him playing with this team after a long time away from live action. You seem to have seem this FP for what it was, which is a sigh of relief.

by salary_cap on Sep 6, 2011 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

And also...

my teams are Cal, SF niners, and the Oakland A’s. If you see that my posts are typically “negative” (though unintentional) you just have to look at the recent success of these teams. I mean, Cal was 5-7 last year, and have been getting their arse kicked handily by good teams the last few years. They’re not even competing in some high-profile match ups. the niners and A’s speak for themselves. Please forgive me for not having the strength to be constantly shine pumping every which way. I never lose hope, and though I enjoy the infrequent shine pumping also, I prefer to leave the abject homerism to the guys I hate talking to about sports in the real world. I’m finding some take it personally when I try to offer a substantive criticism, something I thought at a Cal blog, with uber-educated community, would be open to.

by salary_cap on Sep 5, 2011 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fair enough

I didn’t mention leadership because it is an intangible so to speak, its not measurable; its very hard to qualify. Certainly it is a factor, and can have a tangible effect, but I try to steer away from using that because lots of bad quarterbacks have great leadership qualities. And what makes a great leader? Lots of people have lots of different answers to that.

by salary_cap on Sep 5, 2011 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Though not a particularly strong TV crew, Barry Tompkins said in so many words that Maynard struggled, saying after the game “I think Cal is going to live and die on their defense this year” even though Cal had put up 36 points. It was evident to local TV — I repeat, a local broadcast team — that a 36 point performance was underwhelming and could not fully obscure Maynard’s struggles.

This is utterly meaningless, who the hell cares what the local broadcasters say? This post has an extreme dissonance between it’s conclusion (at the moment Maynard sucks), and your description of what actually happened in the game. QB’s who “suck” don’t make that many great and good throws. I’ve seen plenty of bad QB’s (Ayoob anyone?) but Maynard didn’t look like one of them.

I don’t feel that your conclusions have all that much to do with the facts you presented, and frankly, I question your perspective. An odd post.

Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?

by Cugel on Sep 4, 2011 9:53 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

The quote is meaningless in terms

of what ZM will actually be, but I used it to illuminate that despite so many points scored, a politically correct homer-ish broadcast team had the audacity to say Cal would have to live off its defense. In other words, in my view, they understood what I did, which is simply that Maynard didn’t play very well.

I think the ratio of good/excellent throws to other throws (including the terrible ones) is presented in the play-by-play … and the ratio is not good. I think terrible QBs can make excellent throws from time to time, so I respectfully disagree with you there. Consistency is what makes average QBs good or great. Ayoob made good throws from time to time, just not enough to say he was any good.

In your last paragraph, are you saying you question my motives when you say “perspective”? I’m unclear as to what you meant by that. I fully understand many are going to disagree (if I didn’t I wouldn’t have bothered to write it) and I appreciate all the feedback, both positive and negative. I think the analysis of the plays corresponds to my assessment of Maynard, so is it odd in that I’m criticizing a Cal player after a win?

by salary_cap on Sep 4, 2011 10:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Technically 7 of those points stemmed from a defensive TD.

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 4, 2011 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

and not until then was the game in hand, so to speak. At 26-14, I did not concede the game to Cal at that point with FSU in possession of the ball. FSU never really threatened Cal once Cal made it 26-14 after halftime, but by no means was this a “blowout,” even though Cal dominated on both sides of the ball yardage wise.

by salary_cap on Sep 4, 2011 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

particularly when no more than a small portion of his struggles were, or have been, mental.

[citation needed]

Are you someone who actually knows quarterbacks? Have you played/coached?

"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3

by Swamphunter on Sep 5, 2011 12:42 AM PDT reply actions  

That’s my only question.
The rest was well written and had good stuff to back up your thoughts.

I personally am in the camp that is willing to give him a few games to gel with the team and system before making solid judgements.

There’s reasons like this that we play guys like Presbyterian in our schedule – on field experience that counts towards the season (even if the opponent is a cupcake).

"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3

by Swamphunter on Sep 5, 2011 12:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

Then why bother posting?

CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/

by BearStage on Sep 10, 2011 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

ZM offers hope...which we haven't had for a long time

I enjoyed recapping the throws…I really liked how he stepped it up on 3rd downs. With Riley, I felt like we might as well punt on 3rd and loing cuz it sure as hell wasn’t going to be a first down.

As I was watching the game I thought, “man, he needs to thank BakBak that he’s not throwing to Boateng, Tucker, and Ross.” Jones and Allen have stepped it up and look monsterous.

I think we need to get the running game going in the coming weeks. More QB runs, more zone read, more power. Find out who your TB really is. The running game will loosen up the coverage and allow Maynard to get away with some poor throws that it appears he will frequently and consistently have.

Outside of SC, who didn’t look all that great against Minnesota at home, which teams have “really good defenses?” I’m not afraid of Oregon’s or Stanfurd’s (to beat those guys you have to stop ’em on offense first). Maybe ASU with Burfict? Oregon St just lost to Sacramento! St for gods sake. How Utah look on defense? Cal very well could have the best D in the league.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 5, 2011 3:08 AM PDT reply actions  

Keep Hope Alive!

ZM ends the Longshore-Riley slough of despond!

by bearacious on Sep 5, 2011 5:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Another topic that's interesting

Is what I felt was a general mediocore pass rush in the first half. I thought those guys would be blowing up Fresno’s line. In the 2nd half it was awesome. I have a couple of ?’s:

-Were the DLmen rotating in/out in the first half, or were we looking at mostly Owusu, Guyton, and Payne?
-Did Cal just wear them out by the 2nd half, or was it because we went to an incredibly strong and fast second unit with fresh legs?

To me, from a pass rush perspective, it was a complete change from the first to the second half.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 5, 2011 3:12 AM PDT reply actions  

I think line play, unless there is an absolute unbalance of ability – really asserts itself in the second half. Especially in game one. But the winner of the line battle usually makes itself known in the early second half – when games turn from close into being blowouts.

There was a steady rotation of d-linemen though – it wasn’t just Owusu, Guyton and Payne. Saw Tiptoli and Moala in there as well.

But when I went to check the paritcipation logs, I found something strange – apparently we started a 2-4-5 defense?

POS ## DEFENSE
  DE 92 Guyton, Trevor
   DE 95 Owusu, Ernest
  OLB 44 Wilkerson, Davi
ILB 3 Holt, D.J.
      ILB 30 Kendricks, Mych
  OLB 43 Camporeale, Dan
 CB 2 Anthony, Marc
S 11 Cattouse, Sean
S 7 Campbell, D.J.
  CB 0A Williams, Steve
  NB 23 Hill, Josh

by LeonPowe on Sep 5, 2011 3:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

ah yes, that’s, the brilliant defense clancy trotted out vs. Oregon last year with Cover Zero coverage. Speed everywhere.

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 5, 2011 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Good questions, carp.

Surprisingly, we didn’t rotate as much on the Dline as I thought we would. Tipoti and Moala did get some snaps, and Coleman was in there a little bit. But the lion’s share went to Owusu/Guyton/Payne.

The difference in the 2nd half is the youngsters. We were getting consistent pressure on Carr because McCain, Whiteside, Scarlett, Wilkerson were able to beat their guys one on one out of our base look. (only rushed 4) I think this was a huge development because it really could make the defense tough if we don’t have to blitz in order to apply pressure.

Why not earlier in the game? Part of it could be that Cal wore them down. They lost their starting center early, were down to their backups, and certainly had depth issues. Part of it could be that the Cal defenders could pin their ears back with a big lead. And give credit to Carr – for a first-game starter, he was very quick getting the ball out. We might not have had sacks or big hits on him throughout the first half, but he was consistently under pressure. A lot of the throws he missed might have been completions if he had more time. I think our front 7 did just fine.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 5, 2011 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

sweet!

"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark

by carp on Sep 5, 2011 7:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

We might not have had sacks or big hits on him throughout the first half, but he was consistently under pressure

Agree with this.

Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?

by Cugel on Sep 5, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's a matter of perspective

Some people look at the Good/Great/Perfect throws and believe that he will be able to increase the ratio of those throws to the bad ones.

Some people look at the bad throws and think that’s who he really is and he will eventually throw a lot more of those against better and better defenses.

I don’t think that Maynard has indicated either way which way his season will go – except for downgrading his own performance. While its athlete speak, I think the fact he wasn’t satisfied with his debut combined with Tedford’s more hands-on approach will tilt the result more towards the first scenario.

by LeonPowe on Sep 5, 2011 3:12 AM PDT reply actions  

I guess in the scheme of things, what Barry Tompkins did or did not say seemed like the least of his argument. I found that whole section to be odd, bc I dont really care what the broadcasters say. Local, regional, nation, or intergalactic. But I didnt see the need to argue over what they said as it didnt really relate to how Maynard played.

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 5, 2011 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree that it goes to his credibility overall, fiatlux. And if you read that and say “Well, why should I even read the rest of his argument bc itll prolly just as misrepresented” then salary_cap done screwed up. But I think you can still read the rest of his argument and judge that solely on its individiual merits. He did put a lot of effort into his post and does appear to have a rational thought process, even if its too negative in my view.

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 5, 2011 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Count me a’s one who doesn’t care what broadcasters say; I clarified why I included that part, and what I meant by it, in my response to cugel. You can dispute the relevance of including that part, and I might have been wise to leave that out, but calling me a liar is absurd. And I think, beyond a reasonable or objective doubt, my main point - that Maynard didn’t play well and had the same issues we’ve heard before- was supported quite well.

by salary_cap on Sep 5, 2011 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

I certainly accept the criticism that I mischaracterized what Tompkins said, in the sense that he said much more than that. I owe an apology to him, more than anything else. One of the benefits of writing in, and for, a community like this is that the comm polices eachother, making sure one doesn’t get carried away and is confronted with refutations, counterarguments, facts, etc. I’m not trying to hide from this or back-pedal; I acknowledged the mistake in my earlier response to you. I heard the comment on TV, reacted, and failed to encompass the rest of the announcers context. I think it was clear that they thought Maynard struggled, but it was certainly unfair of me to cite that quote, in many respects, out of context. Live and learn.

You seem to have fixated on this, as in some sort of gotcha will deflect attention from the discussion at hand. I can help broadcast this mistake if you like, I’m not shying away from it. But, considering the context of my column, and how the announcer bit was not relevant (hence it should not have been used) to the argument being offered, your diatribe is like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I realize you and many others like to “enjoy the victory” as you call it, and I certainly don’t want to take that away from anybody, and I think its clear that is not my intention at all.

You claim the Tompkins quote as reason to refute the entire post, and that this debate is “stupid” because it was started by someone who was unimpressed by an under thrown deep ball. If you choose not to engage on this basis, that’s fine, but I don’t see the productiveness of your diatribe without offering some counterweight to what I was arguing.

You may not agree with that particular analysis, but I documented every play, demonstrating the ratio of poor passes, and if that doesn’t move you an inch nothing will. This confrontational style is a mechanism to be free of responsibility from confronting the point of view that I am expressing. I am learning that it might not be a good idea to be critical of a Cal player after a win on this blog because it is incovenient to many who like to bask in their “good feelings.” What is intellectually honest (I’m not necessarily accusing you or anybody else of this) is to deliberately obfuscate the question posed — how well did ZM really play on Saturday, and what does that mean going forward? — and to to deliberately disregard some well documented, damning evidence that is contrary to your preconceived conclusions about Saturday, and Cal in general. One can have hope and be optimistic about their school without going on the offensive when a notion one has is being challenged.

by salary_cap on Sep 5, 2011 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

You do indeed have trouble letting things go

But that’s okay (I have that problem too sometimes). But I suppose this will be the last time I will respond to a post that includes another attack of being called a “liar” because there is just no climbing above that well. When someone calls someone a liar that is usually when the conversation ends

by salary_cap on Sep 5, 2011 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

sorry, but when someone lies, they’re a liar. Don’t know what to say. If you had simply said “Yeah, you know, i totally misrepresented that… probably was hearing something i wanted to hear instead of what was actually said” we would be ok. but you won’t do that.

by fiatlux on Sep 5, 2011 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Isn’t it possible that salary_cap just mis-remembered what the announcers said? And that he might have regarded what the announcers said as a minor point, so he didn’t bother going back to double check? I agree that getting what the announcers said wrong detracts from the credibility of his assessment, because it may indicate a bias. And I also feel that he is being overly critical of and unfair to Maynard based on one game. But calling him a “liar” repeatedly is a pretty over-the-top personal attack. And human nature being what it is, once a person gets attacked like that, it becomes very difficult for that person to back down and admit that he or she may have been mistaken. Starting a discussion by saying that the person told an “out-and-out lie” and “intentionally misrepresented” the facts is only going to cause anger and bad feelings, and prevent any possibility of a useful exchange. What’s wrong with just pointing out that what he said is inaccurate, without throwing around words like “liar”?

Official Acceptor of TwistNHook's Unconditional Surrender Person of CGB and Queen of Spite Recs

by CalBear81 on Sep 5, 2011 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I don't think that was the case

Background… immediately after the game he posted literally dozens of comments about how bad Maynard is and called into question people who disagree. He promised to prove his point the next day. So he posted what he did.

Certainly given his follow-up, I believe he intentionally misrepresented what Tompkins said. This is an old standard trick. Throw a bunch of stuff out there, claim someone in whatever position of “authority” or “expertise” agrees with you. Chances are no one will go and do the checking and so it becomes part of the record if you will. Whether the point was minor (and frankly I don’t care what Tompkins think) it was important for him to include it because it would validate what he was saying. When in fact, as I’ve pointed out, it was just the opposite.

He’s had multiple chances to clarify and he hasn’t. He keeps obfuscating. Given that, I think he intentionally misrepresented what Tompkins said OR he didn’t take the time listen carefully before posting.

It’s basically a hatched job on a CAL player in his first appearance … and then using what I objected to. Maybe I was too hard on him, but given his dozens of posts bashing Maynard it was enough. My opinion is once you’ve done that, once you’ve acted with such incivility, you sort of lose the right to be treated that way in return. Should I take the higher road? Yeah, I guess. But sometimes you need to call a spade a spade.

You seem to have an issue with a lot of what i post… it seems to me, like it’s almost if i say something is white, you’ll say it’s black.

by fiatlux on Sep 5, 2011 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I do have a problem with a lot of what you post, because instead of making legitimate points, you often resort to personal attack and insults.

Official Acceptor of TwistNHook's Unconditional Surrender Person of CGB and Queen of Spite Recs

by CalBear81 on Sep 5, 2011 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

oh to see ourselves as others see us, right?

by fiatlux on Sep 5, 2011 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Again I’ll pull out my Takes This Shit Way Too Seriously card and say that this isn’t necessary. We have DBDs for this.

"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.

It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0

by AERose on Sep 5, 2011 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

instead of making legitimate points?

odd you should say that. because what i did was post the specific, verbatim text of what Barry Tompkins and Mike Pawlawski said. To me that would be a legitimate, specific point. Maybe you would have preferred I prefaced it with “Excuse me salary, perchance do you think you might have missed what they actually said?” Given his dozens of posts slamming a CAL player… given what Barry and Mike said wasn’t nuanced and in fact they out and out said they were impressed with Zack, and given salary said he meticulously re-watched the game, I think reasonable people would infer that wasn’t the case. Now, if you thought I was being unfair, all you would need to do is read the whole of his Maynard posts. It is not a personal attack to call someone who steals a thief. Or… It may be indelicate or uncomfortably direct, but there’s a difference.

by fiatlux on Sep 6, 2011 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Okay, let's call a truce here

Everyone to their corners.

Let’s take a step back. For starters, are we actually arguing about what a talking head said or didn’t say? Seriously?

Having opposing points of view is fine. Constructive criticism is fine. Let’s not go name-calling, please. We’re better than that.

At this point, I’d appreciate it if you can both agree to disagree and drop this one. Let’s start looking forward to the myriad of ways Maynard will torch Colorado with his legs…or seeing a Marshall-“coached” oline (which gave up 7 sacks to Hawaii) try to slow down Clancy’s attack bears.

Fair warning: If I have to start deleting posts and getting officially involved, I will.

Old Toothwrangler

by Kodiak on Sep 6, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

Let's take a step back here folks

We’re all Cal fans – and we all want the best thing for Zach.

Let’s end this here and agree to disagree on how we see ZM and honestly, the next few games will determine who is right and who is overly positive/negative.

Just one thing for salary_cap – CGB in general has a reputation for having a sunshine pumping audience and group of authors. While I’m not sure that’s always deserved, we always welcome opposing viewpoints. Just be sure to be able to back up your points, because people around here do like to look on the positive side (generally).

by LeonPowe on Sep 5, 2011 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fiatlux, I think you have made your point. You have made it very clearly and based on the recs, many people agree with you. If people wish to discredit salary_cap here, then that is their prerogative. I’m not sure what value any further discussion on this particular (and in my view minor) point.

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 5, 2011 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

It wasn't a dig

You can’t see how I’m confused when a guy uses “it” to apply to a “person” or “play.” When substituting “Marvin Jones” or “play” for “it” it is a very unclear statement in that context.

“I just felt as if [Marvin Jones] was going to break earlier for me, but it didn’t.” The INT was caused because MJ stopped sooner than ZM anticipated, evidenced by the throw being ahead of MJ. This sentence doesn’t make any sense.

“I just felt as if [the play] was going to break earlier for me, but it didn’t.” Do you know what this means. I sincerely don’t.

If it seemed pessimistic and cynical, I think you are at least in part, correct. I was sincerely and emphatically disappointed with the performance, and I felt I had good reasons. It is not my intention to rub anybody the wrong way as a result. And there was nothing but sunshine after the game on CGB, so I felt this point of view needed to be expressed to the CGB community. I’m starting to learn that that was a mistake.

by salary_cap on Sep 5, 2011 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

pringle.

Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?

by Cugel on Sep 5, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

I was also a negative nancy

until I had a chance to view the game on my computer. When I was at Candlestick Park, I thought a lot of Maynard’s throws were late and floaters, but when I watched the broadcast, they didn’t seem so bad. I think I was down on Maynard after this first interception and thought “geeze, this is Kevin Riley/Brock Mansion all over again.”

I think I’m starting to believe in Maynard. Of course this was only his first game, and he was a bit rusty, but that was to be expected. Looking forward to next week’s game against Colorado.

Go Bears!

by ManBearColts on Sep 5, 2011 1:57 PM PDT reply actions  

thank you. thank you.

by fiatlux on Sep 5, 2011 9:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is a caricature

First, addressing the comparison to Andrew Luck. This would be relevant if I had said, based on ZMs performance Saturday (and his career at Buffalo), ZM will NEVER be good or better than he his today. The second difference is that AL was not only the 4th highest rated QB in the nation out of HS (and a pocket QB with NO reputation of having accuracy/throwing issues) but he was also playing his first collegiate game EVER. ZMs sample size is small, but he did play a full season at Buffalo. The problems arising Saturday were some of the same that arose in Maynard’s year at Buffalo. Third, we don’t know how well Luck really played because I assume neither you or I analyzed film of that game. We don’t know if his passes missed by 8 feet, or anything like that. We don’t know the nature of that poor completion percentage.

You insinuate that I’m closing the door on all future possibilities with ZM, and that is simply not true. I raised attention to the idea that ZM struggled Saturday (something many Cal fans who disagree with my pessimism on this thread easily acknowledged) and that evidence would go a long way to instilling (real) confidence. It was aimed at expressing a concern that, because this was his rap before, they may not be so easily rectified. And never did I used wording that gave me an “out” if ZM ended up being really good. I’m hoping that he does, I’m simply not as confident as all of you. I don’t know how you came up with that. You and me both hope that I am wrong. If one can acknowledge that ZM didn’t play very well, or at minimum was frustratingly inconsistent, then I don’t think it is unfair to say he needs to improve a lot in order to beat a team much better than FSU.

And the perpetual buzz put-downs obscures the fact that you haven’t countered the “sophistry” posed as analyses with anything other than false insinuations. Simply saying that is an out; you are no longer engaged in a conversation, you are freeing yourself from having to say anything substantive. I won’t go as low as saying your superficial attacks on this post are “insane” or that you, personally, are a “joke” but it certainly isn’t fair, nor does it do any justice to what I was actually saying.

by salary_cap on Sep 6, 2011 6:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

salary_cap

I have issues with this post (which I have stated), but I feel the reaction to it has been a bit over the top. I did find your post overly negative, but there’s nothing wrong with having a contrarian opinion.

Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?

by Cugel on Sep 6, 2011 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

Redonk you are a legend in your own time.

"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.

It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0

by AERose on Sep 5, 2011 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Are you the hero CGB deserves?

The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Sep 5, 2011 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm in awe of this thread

All the analysis I need (that I’ve done in my head) is:

 After fearing that the first series was a harbinger of things to come, I was happy with the way that Zach rebounded and I feel he put together a solid game, despite a sub 50% completion percentage.

 Zach has a lot of natural ability and talent.. his run was mystifying and I’ve been waiting for that kind of explosiveness for a while. It’s finally here. He also did well coping with the winds of Candlestick point. I think Niners fans would be thrilled to have that kind of performance.

 He has a lot of talent around him at WR and he’ll no doubt take advantage of that. I’m excited to see what he can do as the season progresses.

Kool-Aid refill anyone?

Fack Muck Brown!!

by Berkules on Sep 5, 2011 10:39 PM PDT reply actions  

On the 42-yard TD to Marvin in the 1st Q
The ball was thrown very poorly (under thrown and behind; it forced MJ to slow up, giving the defender a chance to tackle him once it was caught), and for some reason MJ was facing one-on-one coverage with no safety over the top. Pac-12 teams are not that dumb, one would think.

Wasn’t the reason for one-on-one that FSU blitzed on that play? Isn’t that why there was no safety help over the top? Cal picked it up, Marv beat his guy like a rented mule, ZM bought a little time, and ZM able to get the pass out of there. Underthrown, yes. Good play by Marv.

Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store

by Ohio Bear on Sep 6, 2011 11:47 AM PDT reply actions  

Maynard, if I remember correctly, had to scramble around and gunned it with his arm and with poor footwork (his body was parallel with LOS) – so a huge throw off bad footwork. Bad decision, but good arm.

So yes – poor decision, I get even said so. But on the other hand, there’s knowing that your wide outs are going to beat the DBs?

Hey, I cringed quite a bit when I was watching the game myself, but I looked at the good-perfect throws and thought – we have a lot of potential here.

by LeonPowe on Sep 6, 2011 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I actually think it was a good decision, MJ was open. It was poor technique on the fadeaway throw. The blitz was actually picked up very well and he didn’t need to fade away (IIRC), but I think issues like those are very correctable.

by jali on Sep 6, 2011 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with you. So I’m cautiously optimistic – while correctable, they may not be corrected. But I think Tedford and experience will be good enough to account for most of the mistakes.

But the tools are there – the wheels and decent arm strength.

by LeonPowe on Sep 6, 2011 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yep yep. I’m cautiously optimistic as well. I was mighty afraid going into this game that I wouldn’t even be that after one game, so I’m pretty happy so far. Hopefully, we’ll see him build on it.

I admit, I can be pretty optimistic (I thought Mansion was decent enough at Wazzu for his first real game action), so I hope Maynard can make good on his promise.

by jali on Sep 6, 2011 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

hey leon… i’ve shown this play to about a dozen non cal fans and all of them had the same reaction… Basically DAMN that was a play!

by fiatlux on Sep 6, 2011 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was a hell of a play, but he threw it with his body parallel to the line and jump passed it.

it’s like when people make great passes off of jumping in the air and then deciding what to do, or shooting fade-away jump shots. Its not what you teach, but sometimes gifted athletes can throw the fundamentals playbook away.

by LeonPowe on Sep 6, 2011 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

An athlete but not a passer

If you look at his reaction after the deep pass he threw that went for a touchdown… he celebrated like he was the best qb in the ncaa. Maynard completely underthrew him and was lucky his receiver made a great play. Cal needs to be careful and stick to the running game otherwise this qb is going to cost them some games

by WWW.REPMYCOLLEGE.COM on Sep 6, 2011 3:21 PM PDT reply actions  

The running game? The one that went for 83 yards and was blown up multiple times in the backfield?

by LeonPowe on Sep 6, 2011 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

as in get Marshawn back on the field =)

by WWW.REPMYCOLLEGE.COM on Sep 6, 2011 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

My real answer is this – Maynard is going to be a much bigger part of the running game than any Tedford QB before him.

by LeonPowe on Sep 6, 2011 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hopefully, his option threat to the outside will help open up holes inside for the RBs eventually as well.

by jali on Sep 6, 2011 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Differing perspectives. You saw “celebrating like he was the best qb in the ncaa” and I saw “celebrating like he was pretty psyched to throw his first touchdown for Cal.” Which is as far as I’m concerned, a good thing.

"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.

It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0

by AERose on Sep 6, 2011 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I read that comment and shook my head.

by fiatlux on Sep 7, 2011 7:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Great in-depth devils advocacy salary_cap. I felt similarly to you in that Maynard missed a lot of throws, but I’m not sure how this compares to other QBs. A breakdown of a better QB playing a similar defense might be useful.

Either way, I think it’s important to have a dissenting, but well reasoned voice on these boards. I also completely understand the other posters’ negative overreaction. You threatened the small ember of hope even the bluest old blue has in the beginning of a season. I hope the reaction doesn’t run you off and I look forward to future posts.

Also can anyone refute this post with facts/serious analysis instead of personal attacks? Just because it makes you feel bad doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

by Kai on Sep 6, 2011 10:36 PM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Also can anyone refute this post with facts/serious analysis instead of personal attacks? Just because it makes you feel bad doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

One thing I don’t really agree with is the methodology. You can’t just go play by play and say “good play, bad play, bad play, good play” and then add them up and decide based on the # of good plays and bad plays if he had a good game. That’s just not how football works. Two bad plays can become meaningless if the QB makes a great play on 3rd down. It’s all about how many yards you can gain out of the # of plays you run, and if the yards you gain are useful (i.e. they contribute towards getting first downs). By those measures, Maynard had a pretty solid game.

I also don’t think that an analysis just of Maynard’s THROWS gives a full picture of his performance as a QB. Obviously he can run. His decisions on option plays are also part of the package. The terminology in this article is inconsistent as to whether we are evaluating Maynard as a PASSER only or as a QUARTERBACK. Those are two different things.

I deleted my DVR copy of the game, so I can’t refute on individual observations for the most part, though one I would disagree with is the conclusion that the TD throw to Marvin Jones was a bad play. Yes, the pass was a bit short. No, it was not a bad decision at all to throw to Jones open deep in single coverage; as we saw, even a mediocre throw results in a big play. Counting this as a bad play for Maynard seems wrong to me.

by sycasey on Sep 8, 2011 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Agreed...

y’all need to lighten the f*** up. I didn’t agree with everything, though some things I did. Overall, I didn’t think there was anything worth getting butthurt over.

So… yeah, calm down.

CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.

http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/

by BearStage on Sep 10, 2011 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

If you actually bothered to read everyone's comments

not everyone who disagreed threw out personal attacks.

"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3

by Swamphunter on Sep 10, 2011 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The California Sports Website that's .....different from all the rest.

GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Humpty_dance_1_small
100 Days and counting... Sneak peek inside Memorial
Cal_2_small
Cal Softball Playoff Video: First Cal vs. Arkansas Game - Reid Steals Home
Cal_2_small
Softball Playoff Video: Cal vs. Iona
Ajoceywcalhatpic_small
DBD 5/18/12:  Riddles!
Cal_2_small
Cal Men's Crew Earns Second Place at the Pac-12 Championships

Recent FanPosts

Ab_small
DBD 5.25.12 #YOLO
Cstcst3644_small
DBD 5.24.12 Philip Philips is a person who exists?
Ab_small
DBD 5.23.12 Meeting yourself
Small
Rugby 7s in Philly!!!
Small
Cal vs Ohio State-getting tickets
Ab_small
DBD 5.22.12 I've made a huge mistake
Noneedtobeupset1_small
DBD 5.21.12 Jimmy Rustling DBD
Logo1_small
Cal rugby?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Coach Tedford is mic'd up for spring practice. Listen to him talk, while people practice! It is...
Steve Bartkowski elected to College Football Hall of Fame
Shareef Abdur-Rahim earns his Cal degree 16 years later!  Better late than never, right?  We're all proud of him.  Go Bears!  (H/T John Montgomery's Twitter)

Click here for more on this story from The Sacramento Bee.
Cal Women's Crew Captures Pac-12 Championship

Recent FanShots

Alex Morgan returns to Diamond Bar High School
DANBURY MINT CAL MEMORIAL STADIUM REPLICA- Just wondering if anyone had...
Alex Morgan links
Natalie Coughlin feature on ESPN
warren long should be offered he has all cal needs really good kid is the word around town.
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
WSJ Writer Urges Pac-12 & Big Ten to Secede From BCS Playoffs
KTVU profiles the USA Olympic men's eight rowing hopefuls, and it includes interviews with former...
Former Cal football players make career in music
Cal has one of college football's best passing and catching duos

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

More great SB Nation Blogs

Pac-12 On SBN

Pacific Takes (Pac-12)

Pacifictakes-165x74_medium

NORTH

AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)

UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)

CougCenter: (Washington State)

BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)

Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)

CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)

 

SOUTH

BruinsNation: (UCLA)

ConquestChronicles: (USC)

HouseOfSparky: (ASU)

Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)

TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)

Block U: (Utah)


Marshawnthusiasts!

Bear_small ragnarok

Script_cal_small HydroTech

Cal_football_2005_09_16_roll_07_012_small CBKWit

Cstcst3644_small TwistNHook

1262541127_small yellow fever

Avinash6_small Avinash Kunnath

Jahvidtician

Bear__small norcalnick

Monty_in_cal_gear_small Ohio Bear

Giorgiorope_small Berkelium97

Ajoceywcalhatpic_small Kodiak

Mbc_small ManBearCal

Members Of The Follettariat

Oski_mini_small LEastCoastBears

Sofele20squarecal_stanford2011_small solarise

47081_1264898881265_1793562355_517598_1551191_s_small FrankCohen

Rugby_split_small RugbyVet

Sam_i_am_small unclesam22

The Hit Squad

1129748640_small LeonPowe

Atom_small atomsareenough

Basketball_desktop_small CALumbus Bear

Humpty_dance_1_small Cugel