WyoNation.com

BeaverPoke wrote:
Or lead the team on 98 yard TD drives capped with an amazing throw to your Biletnikoff watch list WR against the #2 team in the country in their house.

It was Tanner Gentry but I agree with your point and you're on a roll.

I think Kirk isn't awful now. And hopefully he won't regress.

BackHarlowRoad wrote:

Wyo2dal wrote:He always needs to realize we don't need him to make impossible plays we just need him to manage the clock and the ball.

Yup, and take us down the length of the field with 2 minutes left down by 3 and win the game for us. He needs to do that too.

BeaverPoke wrote:Or lead the team on 98 yard TD drives capped with an amazing throw to your Biletnikoff watch list WR against the #2 team in the country in their house.

So what you guys are saying is 2 drives is worth 3 TO's? Great logic. He has given away more points than he has created just think about that for a second or two.

Wyo2dal wrote:

BackHarlowRoad wrote:

Wyo2dal wrote:He always needs to realize we don't need him to make impossible plays we just need him to manage the clock and the ball.

Yup, and take us down the length of the field with 2 minutes left down by 3 and win the game for us. He needs to do that too.

BeaverPoke wrote:Or lead the team on 98 yard TD drives capped with an amazing throw to your Biletnikoff watch list WR against the #2 team in the country in their house.

So what you guys are saying is 2 drives is worth 3 TO's? Great logic. He has given away more points than he has created just think about that for a second or two.

Ouch. I certainly hadn't thought about it in that light. I agree he has been great at times but when he's bad, HES REALLY BAD! Cant give away points like he has.

Man I think if we had Brett we could have won that game.
Kirk had two turnovers that led to Oregon TDs.
Take 14 off of Oregons scored and put it on ours and we are sitting at Oregon winning 34-28. Such a different game. Brett would have been fired up, would have been able to shred that defense WAY more than Colby did. It just would have been a totally different game.

Oh well.

Kirk really needs to limit turnovers in games that are the "winnable" games.

He can't be turning the ball over like that in these toss up games like FAU, SJSU, NM, Fresno, Hawaii and CSU.
We could win all 6 of those games if he limits mistakes and makes a handful of nice plays.

BeaverPoke wrote:Man I think if we had Brett we could have won that game.
Kirk had two turnovers that led to Oregon TDs.
Take 14 off of Oregons scored and put it on ours and we are sitting at Oregon winning 34-28. Such a different game. Brett would have been fired up, would have been able to shred that defense WAY more than Colby did. It just would have been a totally different game.

Oh well.

Kirk really needs to limit turnovers in games that are the "winnable" games.

He can't be turning the ball over like that in these toss up games like FAU, SJSU, NM, Fresno, Hawaii and CSU.
We could win all 6 of those games if he limits mistakes and makes a handful of nice plays.

As much As I'd like to agree with you, there was no way with or without Brett Smith that we win this game. If we had kept it close Oregon would have started airing it out more and they would have exposed our DBs. I think it could have been a closer game, but even with Brett, Oregon wins that game 100 times out of 100 IMO.

Here are my thoughts on the Oregon turnovers changing the game:

Colby had 3 turnovers (one fumble) that led to TD's for Oregon. They're all big, but the biggest is the 2nd interception late in the 2nd quarter, DEEP in Oregon territory. If he hits the under guy on that pass, we continue to run clock and we get either 3 or 7 points on the board shortly before halftime. We could have run enough clock that Oregon doesn't get a chance to score another TD before halftime, we're down somewhere between 6 and 10 points going into the locker room instead of 20.

The first interception was on a 3rd down that it didn't look like we were going to convert. Oregon was going to get the ball back anyway, but not likely with the field position they got. The fumble would have been bigger if the game was closer because it was on 1st or 2nd down. Our biggest strength was going to be the ability to keep the ball out of Oregon's hands. It honestly was working if it weren't for the 3 turnovers.

Another thing to consider is the fact that Marriota would have stayed in the game if we weren't turning the ball over. His only possession that didn't end in a TD got to the 2 yard line before we stuffed them. Not to say that we couldn't have "figured out" Oregon's starting offense, but it wasn't looking likely.

The turnovers on early downs hurt us more than the first interception, which was on 3rd down. Our best defense really was keeping Oregon off the field. That interception really was a 14 point swing right before halftime. If he doesn't throw that pick, it's looking very likely that we are down 20-14 at halftime. THAT would have been impressive.

WestWYOPoke wrote:
As much As I'd like to agree with you, there was no way with or without Brett Smith that we win this game. If we had kept it close Oregon would have started airing it out more and they would have exposed our DBs. I think it could have been a closer game, but even with Brett, Oregon wins that game 100 times out of 100 IMO.

I don't agree with that necessarily. Colby moved the ball well, and Brett was far from flawless when it came to ball protection against big-time teams. He threw 1/3 of his season interceptions against Texas in 2012, and the greedy pick he threw against Nebraska when Rufran was wide open underneath was a killer.

Having said that, I'd take Brett's game experience over Colby's. Again, if we don't turn over the ball and control the clock, you never know how teams would react. Oregon may score quick, but if we keep answering, the ball might bounce our way at one point or another.

Wyo2dal wrote:

BackHarlowRoad wrote:

Wyo2dal wrote:He always needs to realize we don't need him to make impossible plays we just need him to manage the clock and the ball.

Yup, and take us down the length of the field with 2 minutes left down by 3 and win the game for us. He needs to do that too.

BeaverPoke wrote:Or lead the team on 98 yard TD drives capped with an amazing throw to your Biletnikoff watch list WR against the #2 team in the country in their house.

So what you guys are saying is 2 drives is worth 3 TO's? Great logic. He has given away more points than he has created just think about that for a second or two.

My point was only that we are asking way more of him than to not make impossible plays and manage the clock, not that 2 drives makes up for 3 turnovers. Coming to that conclusion was bad logic on your part.

I'll choose not to even mention the FAU game since my point was prior to it.

BackHarlowRoad wrote:

Wyo2dal wrote:

BackHarlowRoad wrote:

Wyo2dal wrote:He always needs to realize we don't need him to make impossible plays we just need him to manage the clock and the ball.

Yup, and take us down the length of the field with 2 minutes left down by 3 and win the game for us. He needs to do that too.

BeaverPoke wrote:Or lead the team on 98 yard TD drives capped with an amazing throw to your Biletnikoff watch list WR against the #2 team in the country in their house.

So what you guys are saying is 2 drives is worth 3 TO's? Great logic. He has given away more points than he has created just think about that for a second or two.

My point was only that we are asking way more of him than to not make impossible plays and manage the clock, not that 2 drives makes up for 3 turnovers. Coming to that conclusion was bad logic on your part.

I'll choose not to even mention the FAU game since my point was prior to it.

I'm not going to argue with you over what I feel like is completely pointless. There is no way the coach is asking him to do more than manage the game. He isn't asking for a dominate performance, 98 Yard drives are part of managing the game not being something special. Did he do one amazing thing during that drive? No he just played a solid game and paid attention.

He is being asked to manage the game but his mistakes make that harder to do than it should be. This all comes back to his pocket presence which is extremely lacking and it's my only real complaint with him. I could careless if he ran a 4.2 or could throw 80 yards. The fact he doesn't know when to get rid of the ball and he takes sacks and fumbles because he isn't aware they are coming is my issue and it is the only thing that will keep us from reaching a Bowl game.

Back on topic - We have been upgraded or side-graded, I'm not sure where Poinsettia Bowl lies in people want to attend but the same value as Carriers in New Orleans.

So week 6 we lose to a top ten team and we get knocked out of a potential bowl, Seems odd but w/e.

"If we had Brett! If we had Brett! If we had Brett!"

The dude is gone, people! Stop comparing. Every week it's, "If we had Brett."
He left. Stop living in the past and get on with what you've got right in front of you.
I did not expect Kirk to produce like he has. He's over 1,000 passing. I really thought he'd be be at about 5-600 now. He's got 6 Tds! I was thinking about 1-3 by now. And he "has" been minimal on INTs, 4. I was guessing 6-9 by now and trying to go with a freshman or Thorton by now. Overall I'm impressed.
He has a hard time with pocket presence, but two top ten teams and an AFA and Mont team that decide to rush every play will do that. Get used to it. He's a pocket passer, not a scrambler like we're used too.
He shows poise. He doesn't get rattled. In fact some of his best numbers passing has bee against top ten teams, and he has two come from behind last minute drives under his belt.
No, he is not Brett. We will probably never have another "Brett" again for a while. But he is a good QB.

kansasCowboy wrote:No, he is not Brett. We will probably never have another "Brett" again for a while.

I think this is the single-most thing that roughly 80% of the posters here haven't realized

I got over Brett. I'm still struggling with losing Jason though. That hurt the most.

mwc fan wrote:I got over Brett. I'm still struggling with losing Jason though. That hurt the most.

He played less than Colby ever did. 1 game against Air Force and lost and before he transferred, he still had not learned how to control his throws. So, we lost a QB that also went 0-1 in his only start and bailed right after the season ended to join DC at Utah. That shouldn't even come CLOSE to hurting like with Smith leaving.

fromolwyoming wrote:

mwc fan wrote:I got over Brett. I'm still struggling with losing Jason though. That hurt the most.

He played less than Colby ever did. 1 game against Air Force and lost and before he transferred, he still had not learned how to control his throws. So, we lost a QB that also went 0-1 in his only start and bailed right after the season ended to join DC at Utah. That shouldn't even come CLOSE to hurting like with Smith leaving.

I say that because if Brett stayed, it would only be one year. Jason had 3 years of eligibility and was an incredible athlete, faster and had a stronger arm then Brett. He had a lot of potential and DC knew it.

mwc fan wrote:

fromolwyoming wrote:

mwc fan wrote:I got over Brett. I'm still struggling with losing Jason though. That hurt the most.

He played less than Colby ever did. 1 game against Air Force and lost and before he transferred, he still had not learned how to control his throws. So, we lost a QB that also went 0-1 in his only start and bailed right after the season ended to join DC at Utah. That shouldn't even come CLOSE to hurting like with Smith leaving.

I say that because if Brett stayed, it would only be one year. Jason had 3 years of eligibility and was an incredible athlete, faster and had a stronger arm then Brett. He had a lot of potential and DC knew it.

Well he gone. No use worrying over him either. Colby is here for this season.

Also, having a strong arm is not the end all be all. I would rather have an average arm that is accurate than a cannon arm that over throws, which is what he did quite a bit, on short passing routes.

Get out of my Bowl Projection threads with your QB hate there are like 10 threads for that already

I think it is incredibly funny when people try to downplay the loss of Thompson.
"He was 0-1"
"He barely played".

You Anti-Thompson people realize that DC knows QBs and there is a reason DC took him to a PAC12 school right?

And yeah he did care more about his hair than he did being Cowboy Tough but man I would rather win with someone who is skilled and flashy than lose in a Cowboy Tough way.

Winning with flash and swag > Losing the "right" way.

But yes we don't have Thompson who could have been a 3 year starter, and we would likely still be 3-2, but at the same time we would have beaten Montana, FAU, and AFA by more than 1 score, and there will be a game or two that we lose because Colby's play that Thompson would have won us.

But, coulda woulda shoulda.
That's part of sports.
We have Colby for now. And he is doing his job. Maybe he feels a bit more relieved now that the Oregon and Michigan State games are done. Maybe he feels like this is his team, and he can lead the Pokes into Hawaii and get a win.

No point in dwelling in what could have been.

BeaverPoke wrote:I think it is incredibly funny when people try to downplay the loss of Thompson.
"He was 0-1"
"He barely played".

You Anti-Thompson people realize that DC knows QBs and there is a reason DC took him to a PAC12 school right?

And yeah he did care more about his hair than he did being Cowboy Tough but man I would rather win with someone who is skilled and flashy than lose in a Cowboy Tough way.

Winning with flash and swag > Losing the "right" way.

But yes we don't have Thompson who could have been a 3 year starter, and we would likely still be 3-2, but at the same time we would have beaten Montana, FAU, and AFA by more than 1 score, and there will be a game or two that we lose because Colby's play that Thompson would have won us.

But, coulda woulda shoulda.
That's part of sports.
We have Colby for now. And he is doing his job. Maybe he feels a bit more relieved now that the Oregon and Michigan State games are done. Maybe he feels like this is his team, and he can lead the Pokes into Hawaii and get a win.

No point in dwelling in what could have been.

I somehow doubt the score would have been much different. Thompson had no touch on his throws at all. That remained an issue up until he transferred. Meaning, we would most likely be looking at more INTs and overthrown passes than anything. Colby may not have a cannon arm, but at least he has accuracy.

Wyo2dal wrote:Get out of my Bowl Projection threads with your QB hate there are like 10 threads for that already

^^