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!

Pregame Thread: CU v Oregon State, 1pm MT kickoff, P12N

This week, we shouldn’t need Viska.

As for QB, I think MM has done about as much as can be expected of him in terms of getting reps for the backups this year. Only two real blowouts, and the backups got reps in both.

I expect we will see Lytle and Noyer (maybe Stenstrum?) in this game, but neither will be running the full offense. It’s not like this is some giant deviation from accepted game management. It’s pretty rare to see backup QBs getting meaningful playing time in close games on any team. Not just CU.
 
onealcd said:
Coaches know what they have in the fridge from being at countless amounts or practices with kids, not by what he does against the 128th ranked defense in the country in garbage time.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about OL recruiting?
 
Not Sure said:
This week, we shouldn’t need Viska.

As for QB, I think MM has done about as much as can be expected of him in terms of getting reps for the backups this year. Only two real blowouts, and the backups got reps in both.

I expect we will see Lytle and Noyer (maybe Stenstrum?) in this game, but neither will be running the full offense. It’s not like this is some giant deviation from accepted game management. It’s pretty rare to see backup QBs getting meaningful playing time in close games on any team. Not just CU.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine a scenario where Stenstrom gets on the field this year. We haven't seen much of Noyer and Lytle, so there's no way I see the 4th string QB getting time. It needs to be about Lytle, IMO.
 
Again, the problem is MM refuses to do either. If you are going to play backups, run the offense. There is no effort to develop backups at any position and then it is a scramble when injuries pop up followed by the inevitable excuse-making for guys being inexperienced. In year six, a head coach should understand the ramifications instead of brushing it off with a lame "I don't want to run up the score" mindset.
 
TSchekler said:
I can't imagine a scenario where Stenstrom gets on the field this year. We haven't seen much of Noyer and Lytle, so there's no way I see the 4th string QB getting time. It needs to be about Lytle, IMO.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right, but with the new resshirt rules, I could see the possibility in the right circumstances. Those circumstances would be when Stenstrom has played particularly well in practice and both Noyer and Lytle have had a drive or two in a game.

I guess I take a different approach than a lot of you. In an ideal world, you get your backups time. Football is rarely representative of the ideal world. MM wants to win games. Plain and simple. It’s not like every other team in a similar stage of program development plays a bunch of backups.
 
Boise beat CSU 56-28
Bama beat Tenn 58-21
OU beat TCU 52-27
Cal beat OSU 49-7
Mizzou beat Memphis 65-33

All the above except Mizzou/Memphis were examples of last week's conference matchups where one team beat the other by 4+ scores. It'd be nice to see CU on the right side of one of these for a change.
 
Duff Man said:
Again, the problem is MM refuses to do either. If you are going to play backups, run the offense. There is no effort to develop backups at any position and then it is a scramble when injuries pop up followed by the inevitable excuse-making for guys being inexperienced. In year six, a head coach should understand the ramifications instead of brushing it off with a lame "I don't want to run up the score" mindset.
Click to expand...

Can we jump on these guys so this conversation becomes relevant? Let's all keep in mind those extra reps that we'll get if we get to bowl eligibility. Bowl practices are just as valuable as any reps Noyer and Lytle got against CSU and New Hampshire/could get Saturday.
 
Not Sure said:
You’re probably right, but with the new resshirt rules, I could see the possibility in the right circumstances. Those circumstances would be when Stenstrom has played particularly well in practice and both Noyer and Lytle have had a drive or two in a game.

I guess I take a different approach than a lot of you. In an ideal world, you get your backups time. Football is rarely representative of the ideal world. MM wants to win games. Plain and simple. It’s not like every other team in a similar stage of program development plays a bunch of backups.
Click to expand...

I would not say a program starting two QBs for 3.5 seasons each back to back (assuming Montez comes back in 2019) is representative of college football either. I hope the luck with insistence on playing the starter a LOT continues to hold up.
 
Duff Man said:
Again, the problem is MM refuses to do either. If you are going to play backups, run the offense. There is no effort to develop backups at any position and then it is a scramble when injuries pop up followed by the inevitable excuse-making for guys being inexperienced. In year six, a head coach should understand the ramifications instead of brushing it off with a lame "I don't want to run up the score" mindset.
Click to expand...
I almost wonder if it is a side effect of MM knowing how to build a program from the ground up, but not yet how to really develop an established program.
 
Wasn't it Evans or the Kansas transfer a few years back that would ball out in practice but was absolute crap in the game? Game reps for a backup qb are absolutely crucial.
 
cufan141 said:
Wasn't it Evans or the Kansas transfer a few years back that would ball out in practice but was absolute crap in the game? Game reps for a backup qb are absolutely crucial.
Click to expand...
Webb probably balled out in practice because he was practicing against the backups of one of the worst defenses in P5 history. So actually pretty similar competition to Oregon State this weekend.
 
TSchekler said:
Boise beat CSU 56-28
Bama beat Tenn 58-21
OU beat TCU 52-27
Cal beat OSU 49-7
Mizzou beat Memphis 65-33

All the above except Mizzou/Memphis were examples of last week's conference matchups where one team beat the other by 4+ scores. It'd be nice to see CU on the right side of one of these for a change.
Click to expand...
ForFsure. Some marginal development of backup QBs would be nice, but let's be honest. What we really want after the last decade+ is to have some big numbers to smile about.
 
So Winfree is 100% healthy now, according to Howell, and just didn't get much playing time and only 1 target last week. I thought he got injured again during UW, but glad to hear that wasn't the case. Keep Viska and Jay Mac out again (may not have a choice with Viska) and get Winfree back involved with the offense and the stretch run could set up nicely from a health standpoint.
 
That Winfree was not 100% last week, was never thought to be a full go.

Made sense, why else trot out Arias and Stanley, and use the TE's so much?
 
I can’t believe I just read through a couple pages of a thread on a football fan forum where most of the users are pretty knowledgeable about football, and someone thinks having a backup with say 20 total live game reps but “getting in a ton of work in practice” is going to be as prepared as a backup that got 75+ live game reps throughout his years as a backup. Just wow lol
 
GoBuffs7 said:


I'm no doctor but, that tape job from last week doesn't scream 100% to me.
Click to expand...

I sat ten feet behind where the receivers hung out (two heaters by the bench) during the game Saturday, and it seemed obvious that Winfree wasn't nearly 100%. Between his very heavily taped ankles and a limp, he looked physically limited. The fact that he seemed resigned to partial duty while enthusiastically encouraging his teammates made me think he knew it before the game started. Hopefully he feels better this weekend, I think he's the guy when Viska is out.
 
IF Viska is ready to go, I dress him, however he stays on the bench until we need him. From everything I hear however, he is out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top