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!

Official Spring Practices Thread

Uncle Luko said:
Hmm, folks might want to realize, Tucker isn't ****ing around. Hope he gets another shot, either at CU or somewhere else.
Click to expand...

If as reported it doesn't involve any legal violations he should be able to get that second chance.

Hate that this happened from the standpoint of the player and the hit to our depth chart but HCMT is in a position right now where he has to stick by the rules he put down and apply them to everyone. We have had coaches in the past who got in trouble when the rules were different depending on who was involved.
 
MtnBuff said:
If as reported it doesn't involve any legal violations he should be able to get
MtnBuff said:
If as reported it doesn't involve any legal violations he should be able to get that second chance.

Hate that this happened from the standpoint of the player and the hit to our depth chart but HCMT is in a position right now where he has to stick by the rules he put down and apply them to everyone. We have had coaches in the past who got in trouble when the rules were different depending on who was involved.
Click to expand...
He had a reason, that much, I'd pretty much promise you. I doubt it had much to do with the depth chart.
Click to expand...
 
We are going to be explosive on offense. The team is deep at receiver and running back, just have to get the OL right and limit Montez interceptions. Sam Noyer throws a nice deep ball, looks good. Will get a lot of playing time in the fall.
 
bigbang2 said:
We are going to be explosive on offense. The team is deep at receiver and running back, just have to get the OL right and limit Montez interceptions. Sam Noyer throws a nice deep ball, looks good. Will get a lot of playing time in the fall.
Click to expand...
o_O Unless you think we will be getting blown out every game, no idea where this is coming from. He might get playing time if the Buffs blow out CSU and AFA, other than that, not much opportunity for blowouts.
 
Bread said:
o_O Unless you think we will be getting blown out every game, no idea where this is coming from. He might get playing time if the Buffs blow out CSU and AFA, other than that, not much opportunity for blowouts.
Click to expand...
Agreed. New system means this team will likely make a lot of mistakes, especially early. I think they’ll handle CSU. AFA presents some things that are difficult to prepare for, especially at the second level in the defense where the buffs will be particularly vulnerable. I’d guess that game will be high scoring. Not a blowout.
 
skibum said:
You know it's possible for backup qbs to get playing time in games that aren't blowouts?
Click to expand...
I mean, only if they are truly a viable option that can play at a high level and/or bring a skill set to the table that the starter can’t (ie running threat). If there’s a disparity of competency, there shouldn’t be a backup QB getting playing time in close games.
 
TSchekler said:
I mean, only if they are truly a viable option that can play at a high level and/or bring a skill set to the table that the starter can’t (ie running threat). If there’s a disparity of competency, there shouldn’t be a backup QB getting playing time in close games.
Click to expand...
I really disagree with you here.

The only way to actually develop depth at *any* position, but especially QB, is to get your backups playing time.

There's a reason many head coaches put their backup QB in for a series or two in the 2nd or 3rd quarters (frequently the 3rd) regardless of whether the game is "close" or not.

Depth at QB doesn't just magically happen - it happens by getting your backups playing time, even in games that are close.
 
skibum said:
I really disagree with you here.

The only way to actually develop depth at *any* position, but especially QB, is to get your backups playing time.

There's a reason many head coaches put their backup QB in for a series or two in the 2nd or 3rd quarters (frequently the 3rd) regardless of whether the game is "close" or not.

Depth at QB doesn't just magically happen - it happens by getting your backups playing time, even in games that are close.
Click to expand...
Find me a coach at a successful school that does this consistently when it's not in the situation that Schek mentioned? And no I don't count Clemson last year as they were trying to decide who would be the guy going forward. Did Ohio State? Did Oklahoma? Georgia, Texas, Wazzu? I could go on. If they have the same skillset as the starter, good to great teams will not just throw in their QB2 in a close game just for experience. I don't know about you but I'd prefer Tucker to want CU to be a good to great team, not a mediocre team trying to get more experienced at QB2.
 
Bread said:
Find me a coach at a successful school that does this consistently when it's not in the situation that Schek mentioned? And no I don't count Clemson last year as they were trying to decide who would be the guy going forward. Did Ohio State? Did Oklahoma? Georgia, Texas, Wazzu? I could go on. If they have the same skillset as the starter, good to great teams will not just throw in their QB2 in a close game just for experience. I don't know about you but I'd prefer Tucker to want CU to be a good to great team, not a mediocre team trying to get more experienced at QB2.
Click to expand...

Mizzu, with Daniels as a frosh 2nd stringer. He got 1 or 2 series in the 2nd quarter of every game, iirc.
 
Bread said:
Find me a coach at a successful school that does this consistently when it's not in the situation that Schek mentioned? And no I don't count Clemson last year as they were trying to decide who would be the guy going forward. Did Ohio State? Did Oklahoma? Georgia, Texas, Wazzu? I could go on. If they have the same skillset as the starter, good to great teams will not just throw in their QB2 in a close game just for experience. I don't know about you but I'd prefer Tucker to want CU to be a good to great team, not a mediocre team trying to get more experienced at QB2.
Click to expand...

Successful is only limited to playoff contenders now?

CU is trying to be a consistent bowl team right now, so why are we talking about top ten teams?
 
BehindEnemyLines said:
Mizzu, with Daniels as a frosh 2nd stringer. He got 1 or 2 series in the 2nd quarter of every game, iirc.
Click to expand...

Duff Man said:
Successful is only limited to playoff contenders now?

CU is trying to be a consistent bowl team right now, so why are we talking about top ten teams?
Click to expand...
Did Daniels get that series in the biggest games on the schedule or in games that were extremely close?

I only listed playoff contenders but I also said good to great as a benchmark. If Mizzou did so then, I'm wrong but just look around the PAC then. ASU didn't play multiple guys, Utah didn't, Oregon didn't, UCLA sort of did I suppose but they aren't a good to great team currently. No one that was a good to great team over here was giving the 2nd string guy a run unless it was a blowout. Why should we?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
skibum said:
I really disagree with you here.

The only way to actually develop depth at *any* position, but especially QB, is to get your backups playing time.

There's a reason many head coaches put their backup QB in for a series or two in the 2nd or 3rd quarters (frequently the 3rd) regardless of whether the game is "close" or not.

Depth at QB doesn't just magically happen - it happens by getting your backups playing time, even in games that are close.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between getting your backup QB meaningful reps when the game is no longer in doubt, and getting him meaningful reps in a close game. The former is great for development, while the latter is a disaster waiting to happen if the backup is not competent.
 
TSchekler said:
the latter is a disaster waiting to happen if the backup is not competent.
Click to expand...
No **** sherlock.

Of course this is dependent on having a competent backup.

And the way you get a competent backup (aka "future starting QB") is by recruiting good QBs who know that they will be given meaningful snaps in meaningful games - even if there's an "entrenched starter" ahead of them on the depth chart.
 
Bread said:
Did Daniels get that series in the biggest games on the schedule or in games that were extremely close?

I only listed playoff contenders but I also said good to great as a benchmark. If Mizzou did so then, I'm wrong but just look around the PAC then. ASU didn't play multiple guys, Utah didn't, Oregon didn't, UCLA sort of did I suppose but they aren't a good to great team currently. No one that was a good to great team over here was giving the 2nd string guy a run unless it was a blowout. Why should we?
Click to expand...

Mizzu wasn't a title contender but they had some decent teams. I think Daniels and Smith (?) were the 2 qb's.
 
Mizzou keeps getting brought up with Chase Daniel. But honestly, that’s an outlier and Daniel was the obvious heir apparent to Brad Smith. It’s very, very unusual for a backup to get meaningful reps in games that matter outside of an injury situation.

What isn’t unusual, though, is having the backup actually run the regular offense when he does get into the game in garbage time. That’s where we have failed miserably the last several years.
 
Bread said:
o_O Unless you think we will be getting blown out every game, no idea where this is coming from. He might get playing time if the Buffs blow out CSU and AFA, other than that, not much opportunity for blowouts.
Click to expand...


From Blowouts or if Montez is struggling . Noyer is ready to play.
 
wyomingBUFF said:
is there a way to rewatch the spring game on Pac12 Networks? It starts soon on P12 Mountain, but is it saved for streaming anytime somewhere? can't seem to find it...
THanks
Click to expand...

On pac 12 website. Search for CU spring game . Will need to login with your TV provider to watch on demand.
 
Bread said:
Did Daniels get that series in the biggest games on the schedule or in games that were extremely close?

I only listed playoff contenders but I also said good to great as a benchmark. If Mizzou did so then, I'm wrong but just look around the PAC then. ASU didn't play multiple guys, Utah didn't, Oregon didn't, UCLA sort of did I suppose but they aren't a good to great team currently. No one that was a good to great team over here was giving the 2nd string guy a run unless it was a blowout. Why should we?
Click to expand...

I am saying why is that the benchmark for the 2019 season though.

The coaches have to make a true effort to get the backup QB reps this year. Any way possible. And that should include pulling Montez when he is ineffective.

Or we can go status quo and finish 5-7 with the backups playing sparingly and then Allbuffs wondering why the backups have zero experience.
 
Duff Man said:
I am saying why is that the benchmark for the 2019 season though.

The coaches have to make a true effort to get the backup QB reps this year. Any way possible. And that should include pulling Montez when he is ineffective.

Or we can go status quo and finish 5-7 with the backups playing sparingly and then Allbuffs wondering why the backups have zero experience.
Click to expand...

There have been teams that have been successful with winning and had a plan to get the backup QB meaningful playing time. Some coaches have had set plan, I.E. backup QB gets the second series of the second quarter every game.

Some coaches have also been more open than we have seen to either putting the backup in for a series when things aren't going well. This both gives the backup real time while giving a chance to kind of reset the starter emotionally and get the teams attention.

Coaches can also give the backup a chance to run the offense before a lead or deficit becomes real garbage time. Could never figure out FHCMM being down by 4 TDs with 6 minutes left in the game and Sefo still in there trying to play out the game that everyone knew was lost.

Important for more than just future years. Reality is that a team is more than likely going to need the backup in live action at some point in the season be it for a couple of series or for multiple games. Throwing a guy out there who hasn't had real playing time running the offense with the starters is unfair to him and the rest of the team and likely to result in a bad ending.
 
skibum said:
No **** sherlock.

Of course this is dependent on having a competent backup.

And the way you get a competent backup (aka "future starting QB") is by recruiting good QBs who know that they will be given meaningful snaps in meaningful games - even if there's an "entrenched starter" ahead of them on the depth chart.
Click to expand...
Well then don’t say you really disagree with me when I originally qualified my statement by saying the backup needs to have a similar level of competency and can’t simply be getting reps in close games so he can develop.

ZandiBuff said:
Tim
Motherf*cking
Tebow
Click to expand...
Also, as I stated earlier, Tebow brought a completely different element to the game, which is why he saw playing time early in meaningful situations.
 
Duff Man said:
I am saying why is that the benchmark for the 2019 season though.

The coaches have to make a true effort to get the backup QB reps this year. Any way possible. And that should include pulling Montez when he is ineffective.

Or we can go status quo and finish 5-7 with the backups playing sparingly and then Allbuffs wondering why the backups have zero experience.
Click to expand...
Ok maybe there was a disconnect with what I said. I absolutely agree that if there’s a blowout in either direction OR if Montez is struggling then Noyer/Lytle should get a shot. My issue is with the idea that CU has the luxury of putting either of them out on the field in a close game if Montez isn’t struggling. That makes 0 sense to me. CU is not good enough at this point to do that. I also don’t believe that Noyer/Lytle will be the starters at any point. I think Stenstrom or 2020 QB take over next year but that’s just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top