This, I've said it from the start.
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!
Press Conference
- Thread starter cmgoods
- Start date
This, I've said it from the start.
Can't say I'm a fan of the Polk comment..
I agree - would love to find out I am wrong and suddenly we play better defense with his return.
I think we will play better, I just don't like it because it's an excuse. We would've beat CSU if we had Polk!
a) that throws his replacement under the bus
b) it shows they didn't have the backup ready
c) who honestly knows whether or not Polk would have stopped a couple of TDs
I'm not sure the Polk comment throws anyone under the bus. I think it says that Polk is the captain of the defense and Embree feels that the secondary needed his experience in game 1. Why is that so bad? I've been critical of this staff, but I don't think we need to create an issue where none exists.
If you were the guy that replaced Polk and you were just essentially painted as the cause for our CSU loss, you wouldn't be feeling a little guilty?
Because it implies plays like the Goodson fumble and the failure to convert 4 and 1 (i.e, plays directly attributable to coaching decisions) are secondary in that loss.
It's the only way to go!
Yikes, you're right. If I hear the phrase "work on the little things" than I believe an immediate dismissal is in order :huh: :lol:
if your aunt had one ball she'd be lance armstrong
That may be true, but we are certainly one play away from 0-5.
It's why a coach should not even be bringing up losses from a month ago.
MontanaBuff
Well-Known Member
Embree was asked about Ray Polk coming back, and here was his response:
“He’s back this week and it means a lot. The communication and all of that; we’ll see how he feels today, but I think we’ll have him back. If not, for some reason if we don’t, we have to continue to move forward. He does a great job of getting guys lined up in formation. When you have young guys back there, it’s important to have someone back there that not only knows what needs to be done, but is good about communicating it and not whispering it. He yells and makes sure guys see what’s going on and then if it doesn’t happen, he’s able to cover for someone. When he went down at the CSU game, I knew in my heart that if he had been in there, two of their touchdowns wouldn’t have happened. That’s how big it is having someone like Ray Polk in the game.”
Did Embree have to bring up the CSU game? No. But he was just answering a question that was posed to him, and giving an example of how much it means to have a senior in the defensive backfield with a bunch of freshmen in the lineup. I don't think that Embree can be chastised for mentioning Polk being lost during the CSU game. His point is valid - if Polk was in the secondary against CSU, the game might well have had a different outcome.
“He’s back this week and it means a lot. The communication and all of that; we’ll see how he feels today, but I think we’ll have him back. If not, for some reason if we don’t, we have to continue to move forward. He does a great job of getting guys lined up in formation. When you have young guys back there, it’s important to have someone back there that not only knows what needs to be done, but is good about communicating it and not whispering it. He yells and makes sure guys see what’s going on and then if it doesn’t happen, he’s able to cover for someone. When he went down at the CSU game, I knew in my heart that if he had been in there, two of their touchdowns wouldn’t have happened. That’s how big it is having someone like Ray Polk in the game.”
Did Embree have to bring up the CSU game? No. But he was just answering a question that was posed to him, and giving an example of how much it means to have a senior in the defensive backfield with a bunch of freshmen in the lineup. I don't think that Embree can be chastised for mentioning Polk being lost during the CSU game. His point is valid - if Polk was in the secondary against CSU, the game might well have had a different outcome.
I didn't listen to the conference. In the context in which it was mentioned, I agree with you. He wasn't throwing anyone under the bus. He was giving an example of the importance of Ray Polk being back there.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
I don't know why he has to say anything about CSU at all. His point was made without even throwing CSU into the comment.
Adding CSU makes it sound like he's giving himself an excuse for losing that game. "If Polk plays the whole game we win by 2 touchdowns." So what? Polk didn't play the whole game. CU lost. If CSU had their best defensive player, CU might not have scored a point. It's just stupid for a coach to talk about "what might have been" - certainly about a game that happened FOUR (4) games ago, and even moreso since he brought up CSU.
Adding CSU makes it sound like he's giving himself an excuse for losing that game. "If Polk plays the whole game we win by 2 touchdowns." So what? Polk didn't play the whole game. CU lost. If CSU had their best defensive player, CU might not have scored a point. It's just stupid for a coach to talk about "what might have been" - certainly about a game that happened FOUR (4) games ago, and even moreso since he brought up CSU.
As MontanaBuff said, he was discussing the importance of Polk to the team. I get your point as well. It isn't worth arguing about.
agreed with montana here. Comment is innocuous in context, bad in isolation.
Sorta reminds me about a comment about a kicker....
Is Polk really that dominant of a safety that the lack of his presence hurts that much? From what I recall of his safety play, he was routinely out of position and had a bad habit of hitting guys late out of bounds. He has a decent amount of tackles but only 1 forced fumble and 1 INT. What am I missing here?
That he works as a convenient excuse because he hasn't been in. Once he's in and we still get easily handled the coaching staff will have move to another excuse.
The depth at safety is pretty bad. Polk is by far the best option back there.
Have you watched Terrel Smith?
BlackNGold
Club Member
The point was not that he was dominant but that his experience with the defensive formations is invaluable when you are starting multiple true frosh on the defense.
yup. he stressed the communication, more than the talent, issues when Polk went out.
JWP303
Well-Known Member
Gotta disagree - if I'm Polk's backup I hate Jon Embree even after hearing the context. He's not a good enough coach to be throwing players under the bus.
Well, I would hope our players aren't so sensitive.