As the QB debates rage on, allow me to attempt to interpret how the coaches came to the decision to play 3 QBs against UNC, and thereby use that knowledge to project who is more likely to start going forward.
As we all know, all offseason, Bowers had been in effect stenciled in as the starter. Coaches raved about how far he had come, and how he had taken command of the offense. Most notably, the coaches didn't even give lip service about a QB competition. They let it be understood, without having to spell it out, that this was Bowers' team. Bowers got almost all of the first team reps in camp. Bowers was the one who gave post-practice press conferences.
Meanwhile, the coaches mixed in some McIlwain situationally, to see if they could develop a limited package for him to play, so that they could take advantage of his legs. McIlwain was never really in contention for the starting job, but Trace and others reported that the coaches were exploring ways to get him into the game situationally. So as camp progressed, the plan was quite clear: Bowers was the QB, and McIlwain would get some run here and there in the Rubenzer role from a few years ago.
Towards the end of camp, however, fans and observers started noticing that the QB who was most effective at moving the ball and connecting downfield wasn't Bowers or McIlwain. Chase Garbers, who was running with the 2nd and 3rd string offense, started to consistently put up better numbers. Some observers thought that the eye test showed Garbers to be the most talented QB on the roster (Robbie Rowell excepted, of course). The coaches stayed mostly mum on this development, while some Cal fans on fan boards started to speculate about a QB competition. However, through the end of camp, Garbers got almost no reps with the first team. This was still Bowers' show.
We leap ahead to UNC. After a week plus of closed practices, Bowers started, and then was quickly replaced by Garbers. Bowers came back in late in the half, but then sat out the entire second half. McIlwain only came in for short packages. There are no reports of injuries to Bowers. What happened? Why was the plan to play Bowers, with a smattering of McIlwain, scrapped, and instead replaced with Bowers plus Garbers, with a smattering of McIlwain?
Let's start here: Evidently Garbers forced his way into the conversation with his practice performances. While some of us thought that his production with the back ups, and against the back ups, didn't really affect the QB picture, the coaches were watching and evaluating. Even though he was not in their immediate plans - hence the lack of first team reps - it became apparent that this kid had more upside than the incumbent.
I believe that this became even more apparent when Garbers ripped off a huge TD run in practice during the dying embers of camp. The coaches were impressed by his arm talent, but did not know how his legs translated, as he, unlike McIlwain, had never gone live. Seeing him use his legs to gash the defense showed the coaches that they might have another weapon to add to an undertalented offense gasping for air.
Garbers' camp performance earned him 1st team reps during the closed practices prior to the UNC game. 1st team reps are precious, especially as you game prep. Evidently Garbers did nothing throughout the week to dissuade the coaches. In essence, he forced his way in, and when given the opportunity, he did not let it slip.
So now the coaches had a decision to make. Play Bowers, the known commodity, or play Garbers, the higher upside guy who outplayed Bowers in fall camp? There is little doubt that Bowers would have been the guy unless Garbers clearly outplayed Bowers, but outplay him he did, and now the coaches were forced into an unexpected quandry.
You may ask: If Garbers won the QB competition, why didn't the coaches start him and just bench Bowers? You would have to ask the coaches, but my interpretation is that the coaches needed to see one more thing from Garbers before they made their final decision: Live game reps. While Garbers outperformed Bowers in practice, Bowers had a season's worth of experience operating the offense. While the 2017 offense had been subpar, Bowers did get the team in and out of the huddle and display some competence making the easy plays. The coaches needed to see if Garbers could operate under the lights. Playing both would allow them to evaluate both, hedge their bets a little, and also give Bowers, the incumbent team leader who did a great job through the summer, one last opportunity to win back his job.
If they were going to play both, it made sense to start Bowers, and use Garbers as a surprise change-of-pace. So that's what we got against UNC, with Garbers ultimately playing the most snaps, and Bowers sitting the second half.
While Garbers did not set the world on fire, he did operate the offense better, and showed that his legs could be a weapon. Instead of making an argument for why he should remain the starter, Bowers performed below the standards that he set last year. If the coaches were already leaning towards Garbers, and they must have been in order to scrap their best laid plans to start Bowers, then nothing in that game would change their mind.
Given this trajectory, I would be shocked if Garbers does not start against a BYU team that looked half decent in their first game. Moreover, I would be surprised if Bowers got more than mop up duty, unless Garbers falls flat on his face. I project that this is now Garbers' team, and maybe McIlwain will get some plays here and there. But we may never see Ross start again for the Golden Bears.
We'll always have the flip against Washington State.
As we all know, all offseason, Bowers had been in effect stenciled in as the starter. Coaches raved about how far he had come, and how he had taken command of the offense. Most notably, the coaches didn't even give lip service about a QB competition. They let it be understood, without having to spell it out, that this was Bowers' team. Bowers got almost all of the first team reps in camp. Bowers was the one who gave post-practice press conferences.
Meanwhile, the coaches mixed in some McIlwain situationally, to see if they could develop a limited package for him to play, so that they could take advantage of his legs. McIlwain was never really in contention for the starting job, but Trace and others reported that the coaches were exploring ways to get him into the game situationally. So as camp progressed, the plan was quite clear: Bowers was the QB, and McIlwain would get some run here and there in the Rubenzer role from a few years ago.
Towards the end of camp, however, fans and observers started noticing that the QB who was most effective at moving the ball and connecting downfield wasn't Bowers or McIlwain. Chase Garbers, who was running with the 2nd and 3rd string offense, started to consistently put up better numbers. Some observers thought that the eye test showed Garbers to be the most talented QB on the roster (Robbie Rowell excepted, of course). The coaches stayed mostly mum on this development, while some Cal fans on fan boards started to speculate about a QB competition. However, through the end of camp, Garbers got almost no reps with the first team. This was still Bowers' show.
We leap ahead to UNC. After a week plus of closed practices, Bowers started, and then was quickly replaced by Garbers. Bowers came back in late in the half, but then sat out the entire second half. McIlwain only came in for short packages. There are no reports of injuries to Bowers. What happened? Why was the plan to play Bowers, with a smattering of McIlwain, scrapped, and instead replaced with Bowers plus Garbers, with a smattering of McIlwain?
Let's start here: Evidently Garbers forced his way into the conversation with his practice performances. While some of us thought that his production with the back ups, and against the back ups, didn't really affect the QB picture, the coaches were watching and evaluating. Even though he was not in their immediate plans - hence the lack of first team reps - it became apparent that this kid had more upside than the incumbent.
I believe that this became even more apparent when Garbers ripped off a huge TD run in practice during the dying embers of camp. The coaches were impressed by his arm talent, but did not know how his legs translated, as he, unlike McIlwain, had never gone live. Seeing him use his legs to gash the defense showed the coaches that they might have another weapon to add to an undertalented offense gasping for air.
Garbers' camp performance earned him 1st team reps during the closed practices prior to the UNC game. 1st team reps are precious, especially as you game prep. Evidently Garbers did nothing throughout the week to dissuade the coaches. In essence, he forced his way in, and when given the opportunity, he did not let it slip.
So now the coaches had a decision to make. Play Bowers, the known commodity, or play Garbers, the higher upside guy who outplayed Bowers in fall camp? There is little doubt that Bowers would have been the guy unless Garbers clearly outplayed Bowers, but outplay him he did, and now the coaches were forced into an unexpected quandry.
You may ask: If Garbers won the QB competition, why didn't the coaches start him and just bench Bowers? You would have to ask the coaches, but my interpretation is that the coaches needed to see one more thing from Garbers before they made their final decision: Live game reps. While Garbers outperformed Bowers in practice, Bowers had a season's worth of experience operating the offense. While the 2017 offense had been subpar, Bowers did get the team in and out of the huddle and display some competence making the easy plays. The coaches needed to see if Garbers could operate under the lights. Playing both would allow them to evaluate both, hedge their bets a little, and also give Bowers, the incumbent team leader who did a great job through the summer, one last opportunity to win back his job.
If they were going to play both, it made sense to start Bowers, and use Garbers as a surprise change-of-pace. So that's what we got against UNC, with Garbers ultimately playing the most snaps, and Bowers sitting the second half.
While Garbers did not set the world on fire, he did operate the offense better, and showed that his legs could be a weapon. Instead of making an argument for why he should remain the starter, Bowers performed below the standards that he set last year. If the coaches were already leaning towards Garbers, and they must have been in order to scrap their best laid plans to start Bowers, then nothing in that game would change their mind.
Given this trajectory, I would be shocked if Garbers does not start against a BYU team that looked half decent in their first game. Moreover, I would be surprised if Bowers got more than mop up duty, unless Garbers falls flat on his face. I project that this is now Garbers' team, and maybe McIlwain will get some plays here and there. But we may never see Ross start again for the Golden Bears.
We'll always have the flip against Washington State.
