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!

Bench Montez (9-14 edition)

Realistically, we've gotta roll with Montez and rally behind him. Only reason I posted it this week at half-time was superstition after having to eat crow after doing it last week.

With him, every remaining game is winnable if we get "good Montez" who makes 3 or 4 unbelievable plays while mostly avoiding mistakes. Unfortunately, when we get "bad Montez" it's a day when he doesn't make any highlight reel plays, still makes mistakes and also loses his mechanics & accuracy. We're gonna lose when we get a "bad Montez" game.

So...

Until we'd reach a point of being out of it for bowl eligibility, Montez has got to be our guy. With him, we know we've got a legit chance to win to go with that legit chance to lose.
 
I get that with good, four quarters of play from Montez, the Buffs are pretty good offensively. They are not pretty good defensively. They are unbelievably bad at generating any sort of pass rush. It is non-existent. I heard without verification the AF QB had a career day. Without a pass rush, they will struggle to win six and I think five is more likely now.
 
Buffnik said:
Realistically, we've gotta roll with Montez and rally behind him. Only reason I posted it this week at half-time was superstition after having to eat crow after doing it last week.

With him, every remaining game is winnable if we get "good Montez" who makes 3 or 4 unbelievable plays while mostly avoiding mistakes. Unfortunately, when we get "bad Montez" it's a day when he doesn't make any highlight reel plays, still makes mistakes and also loses his mechanics & accuracy. We're gonna lose when we get a "bad Montez" game.

So...

Until we'd reach a point of being out of it for bowl eligibility, Montez has got to be our guy. With him, we know we've got a legit chance to win to go with that legit chance to lose.
Click to expand...
Like OKC with Russell Westbrook.
 
Daaah said:
He's the leader and he sucks. Have you ever been on a team like that?
Click to expand...
I don't feel like he is a leader. He has been the starting QB for 3 years and he was never named a captain which is telling as the team votes for their captains (this year is different as they have different captains every game).

I'm stating the obvious but the book on 12 is hit him early and he starts to panic and plays afraid. When he gets hit, his body language is awful, always looking like he is injured. I don't feel like this instills confidence in the team.

Being a 5th year senior, 12 should be at the top of his game but he has actually regressed.

I hope this game isn't like the USC game last year when the OL fell apart, 12 was hit a lot and the offense fell apart.
 
BigAppleBuff said:
I don't feel like he is a leader. He has been the starting QB for 3 years and he was never named a captain which is telling as the team votes for their captains (this year is different as they have different captains every game).

I'm stating the obvious but the book on 12 is hit him early and he starts to panic and plays afraid. When he gets hit, his body language is awful, always looking like he is injured. I don't feel like this instills confidence in the team.

Being a 5th year senior, 12 should be at the top of his game but he has actually regressed.

I hope this game isn't like the USC game last year when the OL fell apart, 12 was hit a lot and the offense fell apart.
Click to expand...
Statistics say he actually has been better this year than the previous 2. In terms of his rating, he's actually been a lot better. Now...I'm pretty sure his rating was pretty high after the OOC portion of our schedule last year too.
 
SBG said:
How many dimes did Montez throw this game? He had that one really great one thrown to the AFA CB. Can’t seem to recall any outstanding throws, but I may be misguided.

He also doesn’t step up in the pocket when he needs to. Yeah, he may take a hit, but it comes with the territory of playing QB.
Click to expand...

What is a POCKET?
 
Med, his QBR is 61.8 after today, a little worse than 2018 and a little better than 2017.

He is who he is.
 
Is Lytle or Stenstrom any less skilled, qualified, or ready to play as 2016 Oregon Montez?

Either one can play as well as that guy on that day.
 
hawg1 said:
Med, his QBR is 61.8 after today, a little worse than 2018 and a little better than 2017.

He is who he is.
Click to expand...
I don't use or give any credence to ESPN QBR crap. Anything that weighs different parts of the game more differently is silly.
 
All I know is that today I saw some of the worst power 5 quarterbacking I think I have ever seen.
 
Medford M. said:
I don't use or give any credence to ESPN QBR crap. Anything that weighs different parts of the game more differently is silly.
Click to expand...
Whose system do you use? I just don’t buy his ratings are better than previous years, especially after today.

QBR correlates to EPA. EPA correlates to wins. Just saying.
 
hawg1 said:
Whose system do you use? I just don’t buy his ratings are better than previous years, especially after today.

QBR correlates to EPA. EPA correlates to wins. Just saying.
Click to expand...
Analytics are just using historical data to tell you what's "expected" to happen, which is to say, it doesn't mean anything.

Basically, analytics put numbers to a bunch of "no ****" stuff.

Things like run expectancy in baseball. Like, "no ****" you're more likely to score a run in an inning when you get a runner to third base with no outs. Guess what though? No amount of statistical data has any effect on the moment at hand.
 
Last edited:
Medford M. said:
Analytics are just using historical data to tell you what's "expected" to happen, which is to say, it doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...
We have a different view of EPA I suspect. That’s for another day.

Can you provide the ratings to support your claim that he is a lot better this year? I see the same honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top