Spring Game - April 16, 2016 @ 1:00 PM

[ColoradoHusk]

Question about the depth chart for the Spring game.

I know, that at this point, the depth chart doesn't mean much.

However, would it be safe to assume that if a player is on the field (especially at the beginning of the game) with Fyfe that they would be the second string?

The offense running with Fyfe is pretty much the 2nd string, and they were usually going up against the #1 defense.

The offense running with Armstrong is pretty much the 1st string, and they were usually going up against the #2 defense.

I wish they would have done a few series of #1 offense vs. #1 defense, but I didn't see that happen.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Question about the depth chart for the Spring game.

I know, that at this point, the depth chart doesn't mean much.

However, would it be safe to assume that if a player is on the field (especially at the beginning of the game) with Fyfe that they would be the second string?

The offense running with Fyfe is pretty much the 2nd string, and they were usually going up against the #1 defense.

The offense running with Armstrong is pretty much the 1st string, and they were usually going up against the #2 defense.

I wish they would have done a few series of #1 offense vs. #1 defense, but I didn't see that happen.

That's the way I thought it was. The reason why I ask is that Conner Young was then running with the #2s as a redshirt freshman. Looking good for him.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Question about the depth chart for the Spring game.

I know, that at this point, the depth chart doesn't mean much.

However, would it be safe to assume that if a player is on the field (especially at the beginning of the game) with Fyfe that they would be the second string?

The offense running with Fyfe is pretty much the 2nd string, and they were usually going up against the #1 defense.

The offense running with Armstrong is pretty much the 1st string, and they were usually going up against the #2 defense.

I wish they would have done a few series of #1 offense vs. #1 defense, but I didn't see that happen.

That's the way I thought it was. The reason why I ask is that Conner Young was then running with the #2s as a redshirt freshman. Looking good for him.

Nothing against Conor Young, but the WR's were without Westerkamp, DPE, and Darlington. If they put the top 3 WR's with TA, then they would be down to the 8th or 9th string WR going with Fyfe. Again, not trying to knock Young, but there were a lot of guys out on the WR group.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Question about the depth chart for the Spring game.

I know, that at this point, the depth chart doesn't mean much.

However, would it be safe to assume that if a player is on the field (especially at the beginning of the game) with Fyfe that they would be the second string?

The offense running with Fyfe is pretty much the 2nd string, and they were usually going up against the #1 defense.

The offense running with Armstrong is pretty much the 1st string, and they were usually going up against the #2 defense.

I wish they would have done a few series of #1 offense vs. #1 defense, but I didn't see that happen.

That's the way I thought it was. The reason why I ask is that Conner Young was then running with the #2s as a redshirt freshman. Looking good for him.

Nothing against Conor Young, but the WR's were without Westerkamp, DPE, and Darlington. If they put the top 3 WR's with TA, then they would be down to the 8th or 9th string WR going with Fyfe. Again, not trying to knock Young, but there were a lot of guys out on the WR group.

Oh...I fully understand that. Put those three in and he becomes third string.

Still.....not bad for a redshirt freshman walk-on.

 

[BRV920]

From what I've heard. Conor Young will be on scholarship sooner rather than later and could push for starting time.

 

[Swiv3D]

From what I've heard. Conor Young will be on scholarship sooner rather than later and could push for starting time.

If that's true, that'd be awesome! He lives on my dorm floor and is a pretty nice guy.

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[Mavric]

[No message]