FLounder
Think Positive and life will be Positive.
The ole FLounder curse. Damn.
You just opened up a whole realm of bumped threads.
The ole FLounder curse. Damn.
Your assuming he'll be the starter in '17? To me, he adds to our depth and gives us better odds of having a good to very good quarterback. It's more about depth and competition for the position.Awesome to get him. Look forward to seeing him play in 2017. Just wish we had him (or a grad transfer) for this year. We need help now.
You just opened up a whole realm of bumped threads.
Not assuming he's the starter. Just expect a kid with his talent to likely get PT. I'd be psyched if Montez is better.Your assuming he'll be the starter in '17? To me, he adds to our depth and gives us better odds of having a good to very good quarterback. It's more about depth and competition for the position.
Chip Diller? Yes you may.Thank you, sir. May I have another?
Bet you say the same thing reading a Radio Shack catalog.I just got wood reading this.
Sears & Roebuck Catalog lingerie section, baby.Bet you say the same thing reading a Radio Shack catalog.
and tougher competition at practice will make the D better.Your assuming he'll be the starter in '17? To me, he adds to our depth and gives us better odds of having a good to very good quarterback. It's more about depth and competition for the position.
I think this may be your point, but it's not just having a good scout quarterback; if he's a credible DT, as they say, it will give the D better practice for some of the specific skill sets they'll face in conference play.and tougher competition at practice will make the D better.
He has to be right eventually, doesn't he?The ole FLounder curse. Damn.
This means nothing unless our coaching staff can start developing our QBs. Based on the very mediocre (at best) development of the other Qbs on our roster, I'm starting to have serious doubts if we would do better even if we landed the next Payton Manning. More fodder for the cannon is good but we are currently not short on fodder... JMO.
Musburger likes to declare touchdown when the guy is around the 20, sometimes as far back as the 40.It also gives us a REALLY cool name on our roster. I can see Brent Musburger now: "And Sheriron Jones is under center and takes the snap. Sheriron Jones back to throw it. NOBODY OPEN, SHERIRON JONES TUCKS IT AND RUNS. SHERIRON JONES AT THE 50, THE 40, THE 30, THE 20, 10, 5! TOUCHDOWN SHERIRON JONES!!!"
I'm fine adding him to the roster, more fodder, but I'm getting very cautious about my expectations on the kind of impact he will make to the buffs given the development of our current QBs.So we shouldn't bother adding blue chip QBs to the roster?
He has to be right eventually, doesn't he?
Musburger likes to declare touchdown when the guy is around the 20, sometimes as far back as the 40.
I'm fine adding him to the roster, more fodder, but I'm getting very cautious about my expectations on the kind of impact he will make to the buffs given the development of our current QBs.
I remember when we thought Sefo was our QB of the future, and before him is was Web, and before him it was Hirshman (or Woods), then Dillon, then ..(many others I missed). When those guys announced they were coming to CU many fans hailed them as the solution to our QB woes. None of them lived up to our initial expectations/hopes despite the fact that some had descent talent.
Call me crazy but, given our track record with QB development, I think it's foolish to expect any new QB is going to move the needle much for CU util we start growing them into better QBs.
Hmm. I think you have an awfully small sample size to evaluate. Also, I still think Sefo was pretty injured much of last season. Not that that would have effected his decision making.I'm fine adding him to the roster, more fodder, but I'm getting very cautious about my expectations on the kind of impact he will make to the buffs given the development of our current QBs.
I remember when we thought Sefo was our QB of the future, and before him is was Web, and before him it was Hirshman (or Woods), then Dillon, then ..(many others I missed). When those guys announced they were coming to CU many fans hailed them as the solution to our QB woes. None of them lived up to our initial expectations/hopes despite the fact that some had descent talent.
Call me crazy but, given our track record with QB development, I think it's foolish to expect any new QB is going to move the needle much for CU util we start growing them into better QBs.
Fair enough. But we do have a tendency to see our latest QB acquisition as "the one" and then find out that they don't really have it. Some of that may be talent but some of that, IMO, is because our QBs never develop the talent they had after coming here.Call me crazy, but I'm not sure it's fair to judge this staff on the lack of development of Dillon, Hirschman and Webb.
I think we can agree that we've had marginal QBs for close to 10 years, so is your stance is that we've sucked at recruiting QBs for a decade?Maybe it's as simple as the fact that none of them were very good. Sefo's been the most successful and we all knew that he brought more in toughness, character and IQ than he did in arm strength, agility, speed or quick release. Michelangelo wouldn't have delivered what he did with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel if he'd been limited to finger paints in primary colors. Most of college football (at least 80%) is about having the most talent. Development is more about managing the roster well to be more veteran and, within that, doing the right things with nutrition & strength training to get guys as good as they have it in them to be. Jared Goff isn't Jared Goff because of Cal's coaching.
I think we can agree that we've had marginal QBs for close to 10 years, so is your stance is that we've sucked at recruiting QBs for a decade?