Joe Critchlow getting the start tonight

Hoge was not cleared to play so Critchlow is the starter. Too bad, Hoge would have given us an opportunity to win. Nothing against Critchlow but he just will not be able to know the offense well enough to make play calling viable against a D1 defense.

I wonder if Wilstead will end up playing some time tonight.

At least Joe should get enough playing time tonight to better justify pulling his red shirt. I'm sure he and his family are excited / nervous.

Mars wrote:

I wonder if Wilstead will end up playing some time tonight.

We better hope he doesn't, he's the backup so if he plays it will be because Critchlow got hurt.

So I'm impressed with what I see from Critchlow so far. He looks poised and is spreading the ball around. The throw to simon was pretty big time. On another note, where the hell is Canada? He picked up good yards on the only carry that he has gotten and I haven't even seen him in the game since.

Canada possibly hurt, per Twitter.

Nope, just ran the ball. Huh.

#DetmerThings

Mars wrote:

Canada possibly hurt, per Twitter.

Nope, just ran the ball. Huh.

#DetmerThings

Since not seeing the field for 2 drives, he has picked up about 20 yards on 2 carry's on this one.

Canada fumble.





...caused by the ground. And Detmer forgit to call a olay during the ground so they burn an important timeout. #moredetmerthings

I'm interested in Critchlow's 1st half stats. They will probably be surprisingly good!

Mars wrote:

I'm interested in Critchlow's 1st half stats. They will probably be surprisingly good!

166 PER

Critchlow is NOT playing like a first time freshman starter. Passes are crisp, decisions are sound, and he seems comfortable in the pocket. A good first half for the young man.

frdbtr wrote:

I'm interested in Critchlow's 1st half stats. They will probably be surprisingly good!

166 PER

"Lit", as the kids would say.



Que the "why didn't he start earlier?" questioning.

Mars wrote:

Mars wrote:

I'm interested in Critchlow's 1st half stats. They will probably be surprisingly good!

166 PER

"Lit", as the kids would say.



Que the "why didn't he start earlier?" questioning.

time to start the what if scenarios....

whole team looked better this game.

BroncoBot wrote:

frdbtr wrote:

I'm interested in Critchlow's 1st half stats. They will probably be surprisingly good!

166 PER

"Lit", as the kids would say.



Que the "why didn't he start earlier?" questioning.

time to start the what if scenarios....

whole team looked better this game.

Not a healthy thing to do. No one in their right mind would have benched Tanner for a freshman right off a mission. He looked good. Looked comfortable in the offense. If he keeps playing this well, he will be really hard to beat out from the starting QB from now on.

frdbtr wrote:

Hoge was not cleared to play so Critchlow is the starter. Too bad, Hoge would have given us an opportunity to win. Nothing against Critchlow but he just will not be able to know the offense well enough to make play calling viable against a D1 defense.

How's that crow taste? I think Critchlow shocked us all!

UCChris wrote:

Hoge was not cleared to play so Critchlow is the starter. Too bad, Hoge would have given us an opportunity to win. Nothing against Critchlow but he just will not be able to know the offense well enough to make play calling viable against a D1 defense.

How's that crow taste? I think Critchlow shocked us all!

There's no crow to eat. Did anyone think they would see him look so comfortable, getting the ball out quick and to the open guy all night. I only saw 1 bad pass all night from him. That is astounding considering the time he has had in this offense. It was a shocker to me, but a pleasant one.

frdbtr wrote:

Mars wrote:

Mars wrote:

I'm interested in Critchlow's 1st half stats. They will probably be surprisingly good!

166 PER

"Lit", as the kids would say.



Que the "why didn't he start earlier?" questioning.

time to start the what if scenarios....

whole team looked better this game.

Not a healthy thing to do. No one in their right mind would have benched Tanner for a freshman right off a mission. He looked good. Looked comfortable in the offense. If he keeps playing this well, he will be really hard to beat out from the starting QB from now on.

Once they pulled Critchlow's redshirt there were at least two games that I had no clue why Mangum was in there, especially after half time. Mangum was playing terrible and he could barely move out there anyway. Mangum did almost nothing on the field until very late in his season to justify the coaches continuing to play him.

It is amazing what happens when you have a pro style QB in a pro style offense. All of a sudden the O line and receivers look much better. The running game looks better. The OC looks like he knows how to call plays. Conversions from spread to pro are always a gamble, but I have been waiting to see what this kid would do. Ran pro style in high school? Check. Throws on time and in rhythym? Check. And now this game we got to see that he also goes through progressions, doesn’t stare down receivers, sees the open man, has great touch on the ball, and is very accurate. Check, check, check, check, check. Checks all the boxes. We have a new starting QB. Assuming Critchlow continues this way, I think it is check mate for Mangum’s career. But it’s only been one game, so who knows? I think Critchlow is something special though.

was critchlow really running the same offense as Tanner? Or was it modified? It definitely was a huge improvement but I don't know if we are comparing apples and oranges or bananas here. If the offense DID change or was simplified, the obvious question is... Why didn't the coaches modify the offense more for Tanner?

It looked like the same offense to me, but instead of forcing the ball to primary reads, Critchlow was making progressions and not staring down receivers. As Bear Bryant used to say, its not the Xs and Os, but the Jimmys and Joes that make the difference...in this case one Joe Critchlow.