What's new
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

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.
 
So next year, when the squad wets the bed, will Polk's graduation be an excuse for a loss in another gimme game? Bush league, borders on a HaLkism to me.
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
I get what you are both saying, and there really isn't an excuse to lose to a bad CSU team or Sac State. I just think dissecting every comment as some perceived slight is the wrong way to go.
 
Sounds to me like he's saying we are a couple plays away from being 4-1.
 
I get what you are both saying, and there really isn't an excuse to lose to a bad CSU team or Sac State. I just think dissecting every comment as some perceived slight is the wrong way to go.

It's why a coach should not even be bringing up losses from a month ago.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?

The depth at safety is pretty bad. Polk is by far the best option back there.
 
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?

Have you watched Terrel Smith?
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
agreed with montana here. Comment is innocuous in context, bad in isolation.

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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top