Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

'18 CO QB Blake Stenstrom (SIGNED to COLORADO)

So it looks like we may have ended up with better QB's for our 2017 and 2018 classes than if we had McCaffrey in 2017. I doubt Blake would have come to CU if McCaffrey was at CU.
 
his stock should only rise with more playing time. He was backing up the McCaffery kid who went to Michigan, so I'm thinking that could account for his lower * status and overall rankings.
 
I went to school with his Dad. He was a great QB. He played ahead of Rob Johnson (Rob was a year behind and played WR and only QB 1 year in HS). Both had success in the Pac and went to the NFL. I expect a lot from Blake.
 
Tony G. said:
I went to school with his Dad. He was a great QB. He played ahead of Rob Johnson (Rob was a year behind and played WR and only QB 1 year in HS). Both had success in the Pac and went to the NFL. I expect a lot from Blake.
Click to expand...

Seems from all the interviews to be a very mature and good kid. Especially important with the QB next year because he's likely going to need to be a great team guy ("star in your role, whatever it is") for a few years, considering the young QB depth on the roster.
 
Is there any reason to think we might take more than one QB this cycle? I only ask because ESPN was touting the '18 QB class in California to be one of the best in recent history. It would surprise me if Colorado would target a QB who has yet to play a starting role with all that talent coming within their recruiting footprint.
 
Duck Dog said:
Is there any reason to think we might take more than one QB this cycle? I only ask because ESPN was touting the '18 QB class in California to be one of the best in recent history. It would surprise me if Colorado would target a QB who has yet to play a starting role with all that talent coming within their recruiting footprint.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not with all our QBs being underclassmen.
 
I think Stenstrom is a much better QB than the coaches thought they were getting. If you look at their QB recruiting, they seem to have gone after a potential starter in odd years (Montez in 15, Lytle in 17), and gone after depth guys in even years. From early indications, they might have gotten a potential starter in Stenstrom.

Not a bad problem to have, but it does make for some interesting class balance issues 2-3 years down the road, potentially. If, for the sake of argument, Montez starts 17, 18, & 19, there's a huge battle going into 2020. Again, not a bad problem to have, and a far cry from what we have dealt with the last ten years.
 
sackman said:
I think Stenstrom is a much better QB than the coaches thought they were getting. If you look at their QB recruiting, they seem to have gone after a potential starter in odd years (Montez in 15, Lytle in 17), and gone after depth guys in even years. From early indications, they might have gotten a potential starter in Stenstrom.

Not a bad problem to have, but it does make for some interesting class balance issues 2-3 years down the road, potentially. If, for the sake of argument, Montez starts 17, 18, & 19, there's a huge battle going into 2020. Again, not a bad problem to have, and a far cry from what we have dealt with the last ten years.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing earlier when I saw his numbers posted here. I'm getting very excited he could be an absolute stud of a QB. Bad teams with good QB's can be competitive, we've seen this on multiple levels. Its good that we seem to be set at QB for a few years now.
 
sackman said:
I think Stenstrom is a much better QB than the coaches thought they were getting. If you look at their QB recruiting, they seem to have gone after a potential starter in odd years (Montez in 15, Lytle in 17), and gone after depth guys in even years. From early indications, they might have gotten a potential starter in Stenstrom.

Not a bad problem to have, but it does make for some interesting class balance issues 2-3 years down the road, potentially. If, for the sake of argument, Montez starts 17, 18, & 19, there's a huge battle going into 2020. Again, not a bad problem to have, and a far cry from what we have dealt with the last ten years.
Click to expand...

At the least, they knew that were recruiting a guy with the locker room character who wouldn't become a problem if he had to wait his turn for 3 or 4 years. Doesn't mean he won't win the job ahead of schedule, though.
 
Not only does this mean we are likely to be solid with our starter for a few years to come it also means that our entire season is tied to one guy being both good and healthy all year.

We saw this last year when Sefo went down. In the two prior years had Sefo been hurt we had no hope (sorry Gerke and Apsay) because we didn't have a P5 QB or even a guy who would eventually be a P5 QB. I still contend that Sefo was damaged in his development because he was forced to play before he was ready as we had zero other real options.

We continued to see in the prior years Sefo hobbling out there because there was no other choice. Stenstrom looks to me like a guy who can eventually contend to start. he also looks like a guy who up till that point can also handle the mental and emotional side of being a back-up, ready to perform even when he doesn't know when he will be called on. Playing this last season behind McCaffrey will help him in that regard. How many HS QBs as good as he is weren't starting for their teams? Very few.
 
I actually think the coaches were always really high on Stenstrom given when they accepted his commitment and how much they'd seen of him. It's not like we were in a Noyer situation where we'd struck out multiple times, Stenstrom was seemingly our top choice aside from maybe DTR. I think we thought we'd gotten a hidden gem.
 
That answers all the non-throwing physical questions anyone could possibly have. Next up: is he an athlete or a QB?
 
Weren't there rumors of him transferring to Creek a couple years ago? I think he would have quite a few offers if he did that instead of sitting until his senior year.
 
sackman said:
I think Stenstrom is a much better QB than the coaches thought they were getting. If you look at their QB recruiting, they seem to have gone after a potential starter in odd years (Montez in 15, Lytle in 17), and gone after depth guys in even years. From early indications, they might have gotten a potential starter in Stenstrom.
Click to expand...

They didn't do that and nobody does that, I find it laughable actually.

You go get the best guy you can, each year. You never know about attrition and development success rates.
They thought Montez had a high ceiling, but he also needed to develop. He wasn't their first choice because development is a risk and they had no room to take risk.
They went after a bunch of tier-1 guys and dropped to Noyer, not by design. They also felt he had a high ceiling, but again, would need to develop.
Stenstrom was right near the top of their list from the get go.
 
So glad 'holic is around to tell us what's laughable and what's not. 'Cause, you know, just voicing an opinion on what appears to be the case on something might be laughable. Hip, hip hooray for our resident laughable detector.
 
sackman said:
So glad 'holic is around to tell us what's laughable and what's not. 'Cause, you know, just voicing an opinion on what appears to be the case on something might be laughable. Hip, hip hooray for our resident laughable detector.
Click to expand...
For sure. Reminds me of someone else's antics in the expansion threads (or basically every other thread).
 
sackman said:
So glad 'holic is around to tell us what's laughable and what's not. 'Cause, you know, just voicing an opinion on what appears to be the case on something might be laughable. Hip, hip hooray for our resident laughable detector.
Click to expand...
We are all allowed our opinions Sacky, as you say. Just because you've been wrong at every juncture, and never willing to change your position, shouldn't keep me from continuing to point out when your logic makes no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top