BOL Round Table

No. It sets a bad precedent and undermines legitimate recruiting efforts.

Package deals just don't pay off in the long run. Yes you get a stud player but it costs you a valuable scholarship for the 'package' that a player that might actually contribute or at least add depth could have used.

If Maynard is better than Ely then we are beyond awful at QB. Maynard is just so comically bad.

Then Ely is terrible because Maynard is one of the worst I have seen. He can't throw.

This, if you do it for one then you pretty much have to do it for every major recruit you pursue. Could cause problems in the locker room as well.

Not sure if serious? Maynard is atrocious. Literally cannot throw it 35 yards. His best chance of success is throwing bubble screens to his brother, who is a freak.

Exactly. He can't throw a pass down the field. He is a horrible QB.

think deeper

i would rather have maynard than a long snapper

you take maynard, you basically have wasted a ship. but you also get a franchise type receiver

you take a long snapper, and well you have a long snapper, something you can have without using a scholarship

either way, IMO, you have wasted a scholly, but at least once scenario gets you keenan allen

im not in support of package deals, btw

Well on some level I agree with you but to go deeper. In your scenario you have to assume that the package deal does absolutely nothing to the team dynamic and attitude or future issues with recruiting. Assuming that's correct then I agree you probably burn a scholarship to land a Keenan Allen or a Robert Nkemdiche. However, being that that's not likely the case, I am not sure if you should do it.

On the long snapper issue, I don't think that all walk on long snappers are created equal. I agree if there was an endless supply of Carson Tinkers just sitting around waiting to walk on, then offering one a scholarship is silly. However, being that that's not likely the case, it might make more sense.

Lots of people here who haven't even looked up maynards stats or seen him play for longer than 30 seconds.

The question is not is maynard the QB we would want over AJ, but whether he would be a good backup QB. He has thrown for more TD's and had a higher QB rating than JPW did his last 2 years here, and john parker STARTED for us (in a low time I know). To argue that we are better off with a brand-new Ely vs. a junior maynard is a hard argument to make.

I'm not saying we should have taken the deal at the time, but to look back and say we would be worse off with Keenan Allen and an average junior backup QB now would be wrong.

I don't agree with this and I watched Cal several times last year (admittedly against the better competition in the Pac 10 which as you know would be bottom tier in the SEC). Obviously JPW ran a different offense and played in the SEC so comparing box scores is beyond silly. Maynard is terrible. The run a ton of screens and slants, mostly designed to get Allen or Jones the ball in space. Anything that goes over 20 yds in the air is highly suspect and could cause serious problems. SEC defenses would press and eat him alive.

Now look it is fair to say that I do not know how bad Ely would be if it came to that, but Maynard is so awful that I can’t imagine he would survive in the SEC.