At this point, do you believe a change in quarterback is warranted, or ill-advised?
Avinash: I think at this point they should just ride the pine out. I've seen what happens when backup quarterbacks enter games for Cal in the Tedford era. They do not perform well for whatever reason (complicated playbook, pressure of being pulled, lack of focus, poor coaching, whatever reasons you want to come up with) and it just further frustrates everyone. The season is close to being lost anyway.
Once the Bears revamp their coaching staff, we assess who the best QB is and start fresh.
Unclesam22, California Golden Blogs: Ill-advised. I don't see the point in exposing one of the backups to the beatings they would get behind the Oline and I think that Maynard is a good athlete that will make some plays with his feet that the other QB's may not. The trajectory of the season is set and changing quarterbacks at this point wouldn't solve anything.
TwistNHook, California Golden Blogs: I've been concerned about Maynard since USC last year where he threw 5 picks. It appears that he is out best option and it is true that he can be a pretty good QB. But he is not consistent. The fact that he is our best option is unfortunate in the sense that it means overall QB development is not great.
Kodiak, California Golden Blogs: I'd make a change at QB because we've seen enough film to know Maynard's ceiling. He's hot and cold and consistently inconsistent. The whole mobility factor is overblown because we rarely run him. He also shows very little pocket awareness and actual escapability under pressure due to poor footwork. Yes, our Oline is awful and any QB would struggle. However, I think that our short passing game could take pressure off the Oline if the QB could make quick decisions and accurate throws. We don't know if Bridgford or Hinder could do that given the extended opportunity. Even if they fail, at least you know where you stand heading into the spring.
Berkelium97, California Golden Blogs: At this point, I'm not too eager to throw Bridgford back there and watch him get destroyed by opponents. Austin Hinder is fairly mobile, so he might be a better option given the porousness of our O-line. Once we're bowl ineligible, however, there is no point in playing Maynard any further.
Atomsareenough, California Golden Blogs: Well, I think this is complicated. If I'm Jeff Tedford and I feel like my job is on the line, I'm not as worried about next year, as I need every win I can get right now. So I guess I can't blame him for playing Maynard if he things Zach brings us our best chance of winning in the present. As a fan, though, although I want to see them maximize their chances of winning, if bowl eligibility is pretty much out the window, then I'd prefer to see what Allan Bridgford or Austin Hinder can do. I'm not in favor of burning Zach Kline's redshirt.