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!

Which non-Seniors are we losing?

PAHIBuff said:
I like your take on CU's volume problem with 4 star RBs, but disagree a bit on Mangham. His final numbers on a crappy South Florida team were 160 carries for 671 yards (a 4.2 average) and 15 TDs. A little more substantive than "punching runs in for TDs". If I'm Ashaad Clayton, my only regret is not transferring after 2020 and waiting an extra year. I'm not saying he's going to be a great RB necessarily, I just have limited trust in the ability of CU coaches to evaluate players.
Click to expand...
I’m not bashing Mangham. He had his flashes at CU. You can say this about any running back, but against good competition, his stats at USF were closer to 3 ypc.
 
Creebuzz said:
The problem with CU fans is they get all jacked up for the four star running back recruit the team signs every four years or so. A team like, say, Florida signs a four star running back or two every single year. Most wash out, but no one cares because there is another four star in the wings. At CU, there is not. So, the lone four star RB gets all the hype and he must be great. The only explanation is some grand problem by Hagan.

CU isn’t snakebit on four stars. The problem is that CU doesn’t sign enough high three star and four star players. It’s a volume issue. You know some will be over hyped, some won’t put in the work, some will be head cases, but if you recruit in enough volume, you’ll have real depth among the ones that are good gets.
Click to expand...
☝️The truth! Praise Jesus!
 
So far:

Blayne Toll TE/DE
Lloyd Murray DL
Ashaad Clayton RB
LaVontae Shenault WR
Zephaniah Maea ILB
Keith Miller WR
Chris Carpenter WR
Jayden Simon DL
Trustin Oliver S
 
Last edited:
85 scholarship limit is the only limit on how many transfers CU takes this cycle. (Special allowance by NCAA that transfers won't count against the 25 max initial scholarship athletes in this cycle due to the Covid weirdness). This is a huge opportunity for CU.

As long as we're not talking about losing guys to the portal who were 2021 starters or penciled in as likely starters in 2022, this can be a net positive even if we lose guys who had potential and we'd have rather kept.

It's up to the coaches and a vital part of the accountability on their job performance that CU "wins" the transfer portal. We must upgrade talent & immediate contribution with what comes in versus what goes out. It's as important as recruiting now.
 
Buffnik said:
85 scholarship limit is the only limit on how many transfers CU takes this cycle. (Special allowance by NCAA that transfers won't count against the 25 max initial scholarship athletes in this cycle due to the Covid weirdness). This is a huge opportunity for CU.

As long as we're not talking about losing guys to the portal who were 2021 starters or penciled in as likely starters in 2022, this can be a net positive even if we lose guys who had potential and we'd have rather kept.

It's up to the coaches and a vital part of the accountability on their job performance that CU "wins" the transfer portal. We must upgrade talent & immediate contribution with what comes in versus what goes out. It's as important as recruiting now.
Click to expand...
It's not just the 85 limit. There is still a scholly counter, but the limit has been upped to 32 for this year's cycle. And the extra 7 are only if you lose 7 players to the portal. So CU has already hit the cap on extra "initial counters" for this cycle meaning we can take up to 32 total. We cannot take 7 additional high school players though, they have to be transfers. Reminder that grad transfers do not take up an initial counter. Here's the link (free) going over this. But unfortunately, the 85 limit is not the only limitation.
 
Buffnik said:
Only on the OL. There we just need 5 freshmen, 2 JUCOs and 3 transfers to shore things up a tidbit.
Click to expand...
tad bit... or tidbit?

Tad bit vs tidbit​

Tad bit means a little amount of something and is synonymous with tidbit and titbit. Though it is always spelled as two words. Tad and bit can both be used on their own for a similar meaning. The use of both may seem redundant, however, it is an accepted phrase. It should not be used with another size adjective (e.g., a little tad bit or tad bit little).

I am voting for TITBIT
 
Just spitballing here. Let’s say CU does bring in 25 ish JUCOs and transfers. Forgetting about their ability to contribute at all, which is a huge thing to set aside, anyone here think this coaching staff has the ability to develop an esprit de corp and get them on the same page with what will be a rag-tag, mercenary group of players?

I’ll wait.
 
Bliff Cranch said:
Just spitballing here. Let’s say CU does bring in 25 ish JUCOs and transfers. Forgetting about their ability to contribute at all, which is a huge thing to set aside, anyone here think this coaching staff has the ability to develop an esprit de corp and get them on the same page with what will be a rag-tag, mercenary group of players?

I’ll wait.
Click to expand...
Anyone? Anyone?
 
4BienemyTDs said:
tad bit... or tidbit?

Tad bit vs tidbit​

Tad bit means a little amount of something and is synonymous with tidbit and titbit. Though it is always spelled as two words. Tad and bit can both be used on their own for a similar meaning. The use of both may seem redundant, however, it is an accepted phrase. It should not be used with another size adjective (e.g., a little tad bit or tad bit little).

I am voting for TITBIT
Click to expand...
It could measure motorboating
 
Most of the starters or expected starters are coming back. Got to be picky and recruit guys that dont need too much development and fit the system CU wants to run.
 
bigbang2 said:
Most of the starters or expected starters are coming back. Got to be picky and recruit guys that dont need too much development and fit the system CU wants to run.
Click to expand...

There must be a lot of offense transfers players lining up to be recruited for a Karl Dorrell offense that was arguably the worst P5 offense this year plus a HC who might not be around in 2023.
 
lvbuff said:
It could measure motorboating
Click to expand...
I have not been getting any of that good action lately, wife is apparently really pissed at me for something

motorboating (urban dictionary)
It means the activity of putting one's face between a woman's breasts, and rocking turning one's head rapidly from side to side while making a noise like a motorboat.
"Put your head between her tits and go bbl bbl bbl bbl bbl..."
 
So far:

Blayne Toll TE/DE
Lloyd Murray DL
Ashaad Clayton RB
LaVontae Shenault WR
Zephaniah Maea ILB
Keith Miller WR
Chris Carpenter WR
Jayden Simon DL
Trustin Oliver S
Alec Pell TE/LB
Max Wray OT
Colby Purcell C
Ray Robinson S
Jon Van Diest LB
Curtis Appleton S

15 by my count.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top