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!

2013/2014 Bowls: Takeaways

Orr said:
I think Frost is at Oregon.
Click to expand...

Another "D'Oh!" moment for BE. Irrespective of that, the Trees were rather dull when they had the ball; they way they looked offensively, I thought maybe Johnny Dawkins came over to help coach the "O"!

Their "D" was way too confident that their pass rush would disrupt the Cook kid, when he'd shown well against OSU. He was no stiff, but Stanford's "D" played him like one. and they got burned. If a decent B1G team has anything, its usually massive O linemen wjho can negate a rush by their size if nothing else.
 
Duff Man said:
Sacky, Hogan was effective running the ball (picked up two first downs) and they really didn't use him much there either. One team trusted their QB yesterday and the other one didn't, striking difference really.
Click to expand...

Why would Shaw not have confidence in Hogan, though? I guess that's the part that I can't wrap my head around. The guy has been effective. It's clear they took the ball out of his hands. On that I have no disagreement. Stevie Wonder could see that. The question is "why"? My sense of it is that they had been pounding it all year long, and that's what they figure got them to the Rose Bowl, so that's what they're going to do. At some point, though, I think you (or Shaw, in is case) has to recognize that what you're doing isn't working. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Did Shaw think that at some point running off tackle into the teeth of the MSU defense was going to produce better results? Even if you don't have confidence in your QB, you have to try, don't you?
 
Stanford scores a TD on their first possession and one more offensive TD the rest of the game. It isn't as if they were just coming up short. On a lot of drives they weren't moving the ball at all. As Sacky states it wasn't working and wasn't giving any signs that it was close to working.

It was up to Shaw to try something different and he didn't. I put the loss squarely on his shoulders.
 
i thought the Buffs looked pretty good, considering all the underclassmen who played. they were a little unpolished, but i guess that's to be expected. the big thing isn't the win or loss, it is the extra practice and experience that the team got. it will be great to see these guys develop. and, with some of the guys coming in looking like they can contribute right away, maybe we can bump the win total up next year.

just pre-writing the thread for whenever it is that the Buffs finally win 6 games and get into a bowl.
 
MtnBuff said:
Stanford scores a TD on their first possession and one more offensive TD the rest of the game. It isn't as if they were just coming up short. On a lot of drives they weren't moving the ball at all. As Sacky states it wasn't working and wasn't giving any signs that it was close to working.

It was up to Shaw to try something different and he didn't. I put the loss squarely on his shoulders.
Click to expand...

Only one offensive touchdown, and that was the very first drive. Their second TD came off of a pick-six.
 
Liver said:
i thought the Buffs looked pretty good, considering all the underclassmen who played. they were a little unpolished, but i guess that's to be expected. the big thing isn't the win or loss, it is the extra practice and experience that the team got. it will be great to see these guys develop. and, with some of the guys coming in looking like they can contribute right away, maybe we can bump the win total up next year.

just pre-writing the thread for whenever it is that the Buffs finally win 6 games and get into a bowl.
Click to expand...

Oh, I already wrote that one:

I was a little embarrassed that our 87 fans in attendance rushed the field following a loss to a MAC team in Akron/Tulsa/Other ****ty destination at a bowl game whose name was inspired by a weedeater.
 
MtnBuff said:
As I mentioned before it looked to me to be one of those cases where a coach sets out to prove that he is going to win it "his way." As it turned out he was neither able to do it his way or to win.

Dantonio is also a coach who cleary believes in a tough running game, controlling the ball, minimizing risk, and imposing your will on the defense. The difference was that he recongnized early on that this wasn't going to work and adjusted. They still ran the ball enough to force Stanford to stay in the defense they had prepared for to stop the run. He didn't go full out and throw the ball 60 times but he did have his QB throw more often than they normally would and took some shots further downfield than they normally would. The result was the highest passing yardage total they had in a game for the entire season and a convincing win.

MSU didn't abandon who they were but they adjusted within who they are take advantage of what Stanford was giving them. Stanford didn't make those same adjustments. That goes back on the coach.
Click to expand...

Not entirely buying your take, MSU showed against the Buckeyes they could pass the ball---Cook had 300 yds. in that game. So they didn't really need to adjust much at all; just had to recognize what Shaw was going to do on defense and play accordingly. Shaw was trying to bull-rush and zone the QB and MSU's OL is big and talented enough to handle that, while the WRs easily found open seams in that Stanford zone. It was pretty much pitch and catch all afternoon. Skov was also a non-factor for the Trees, did he blitz at all?. MSU 's offense wasn't any different from the way they beat OSU. Shaw had 3 weeks to prepare for that and he didn't do a very good job.

On offense, Shaw turned Hogan from play-maker into game manager and it back-fired badly. Why does he hate Hogan? Because he's not Luck?
 
sackman said:
Only one offensive touchdown, and that was the very first drive. Their second TD came off of a pick-six.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the other points came off 34 and 40 yard FGs. One of which was also early in the game. Stanford didn't do much with the ball most of the game.
 
WizzersGhost said:
Not entirely buying your take, MSU showed against the Buckeyes they could pass the ball---Cook had 300 yds. in that game. So they didn't really need to adjust much at all; just had to recognize what Shaw was going to do on defense and play accordingly. Shaw was trying to bull-rush and zone the QB and MSU's OL is big and talented enough to handle that, while the WRs easily found open seams in that Stanford zone. It was pretty much pitch and catch all afternoon. Skov was also a non-factor for the Trees, did he blitz at all?. MSU 's offense wasn't any different from the way they beat OSU. Shaw had 3 weeks to prepare for that and he didn't do a very good job.

On offense, Shaw turned Hogan from play-maker into game manager and it back-fired badly. Why does he hate Hogan? Because he's not Luck?
Click to expand...

I don't think we are far off on agreeing. My point is that for most of the season MSU was primarily a conservative, ground oriented offense. They kept the ball on the ground because the could win keeping the ball on the ground.

Dantonio continued to run the ball in this game, but primarily to keep Stanford in the defense that they started out in which as you stated they didn't deviate from much. Dantonio by nature probably would have preferred to win this one the same way that he won most of the games all year but was smart enough to recogize, just as he did against tOSU that he had to open it up some to take advantage of what the D was giving him.

As you stated Shaw turned Hogan into a game manager, at the same time Dantonio took his very effective game manager QB and allowed him to make some plays.

No matter how you slice it this game was a win for Dantonio and a loss for Shaw. I thought the players for both side played hard and the game didn't turn on lucky breaks or on player mistakes like turnovers. In fact MSU is the team that overcame the big mistake and still won.
 
Some of you make it sound like Stanford got blown out. They lost by 4 points to a very good MSU team.
 
DrunkRalphie said:
If the NFL thinks they can make a killing they'll do it. "Monetize" is Roger Goodell's favorite word after all.
Click to expand...
They don't have SBs where they don't have teams. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that it doesn't exist right now. And I think the reason it won't happen at the Rose Bowl is the lack of luxury seating and don't they still have benches?
 
cubuffs85 said:
They don't have SBs where they don't have teams. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, just that it doesn't exist right now. And I think the reason it won't happen at the Rose Bowl is the lack of luxury seating and don't they still have benches?
Click to expand...

The luxury boxes are an issue because the NFL likes to use the SB as a reward for it's big money sponsors. Those people are expecting a luxury box for the millions they put into the league. The networks do the same thing. the bench seating isn't an issue for the relative peons outside the preferred seating.

There is no rule that the NFL has saying they can't go someplace that doesn't have a team. Given a choice they would prefer to have a team in LA but haven't been able to make it work for a variety of reasons.

A bigger issue for them is that they have been using SBs to promote and reward cities for subsidizing new stadiums for their owners. A large number of recent and already announced future sites are new stadiums built to increase profitability.
 
Last edited:
MtnBuff said:
The luxury boxes are an issue because the NFL likes to use the SB as a reward for it's big money sponsors. Those people are expecting a luxury box for the millions they put into the league. The networks do the same thing. the bench seating isn't an issue for the relative peons outside the preferred seating.

There is no rule that the NFL has saying they can't go someplace that doesn't have a team. Given a choice they would prefer to have a team in LA but haven't been able to make it work for a variety of reasons.

A bigger issue for them is that they have been using SBs to promote and reward cities for subsidizing new stadiums for their owners. A large number of recent and already announced future sites are new stadiums built to increase profitability.
Click to expand...
We're arguing semantics, the NFL said it wouldn't play in LA for the 50th game because of that. It's never happened before, so I think you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

The bench seating is an issue since they haven't played in a stadium with bench seating since Sun Devil. People want to sit in real seats when they are paying good money to go to these games.
 
MtnBuff said:
The luxury boxes are an issue because the NFL likes to use the SB as a reward for it's big money sponsors. Those people are expecting a luxury box for the millions they put into the league. The networks do the same thing. the bench seating isn't an issue for the relative peons outside the preferred seating.

There is no rule that the NFL has saying they can't go someplace that doesn't have a team. Given a choice they would prefer to have a team in LA but haven't been able to make it work for a variety of reasons.

A bigger issue for them is that they have been using SBs to promote and reward cities for subsidizing new stadiums for their owners. A large number of recent and already announced future sites are new stadiums built to increase profitability.
Click to expand...

That's probably a big reason why once-traditional SB cities like Miami and San Diego haven't had a Super Bowl since 2010 and aren't hosting any of the next 4. You could probably throw Tampa in there too. The Super Bowl used to be about the location and warm weather and not the venue but that has completely turned around in today's corporate-like NFL. :huh:
 
SuperiorBuff said:
Stanford got dominated, due to coaching. That game was nowhere near as close as the 4 points indicate.
Click to expand...
So MSU was extremely unlucky? Otherwise, how do you dominate a team and only win by 4 points? Not only that, but Stanford had a chance to win it on the final drive. I agree that some plays could have been called differently, but I don't think it's accurate to say Stanford got dominated.
 
SuperiorBuff said:
Stanford got dominated, due to coaching. That game was nowhere near as close as the 4 points indicate.
Click to expand...

I think we have different definitions of dominated....I thought Stanford was unwilling to adjust in the game and that is why their offense struggled....but it was a defensive battle that saw Michigan State make more plays offensively to win the game
 
I don't think Stanford was dominated (they did drop two INTs), but didn't really get the feeling they were going to win once Michigan State held them to that FG late.
 
MSU was also lucky. Stanford dropped a pick six and another pick. Both bounced off the defenders chest. MSU was the better team, but lets not pretend they were perfect and didn't get lucky at points.
 
Stanford was a more talented team that should have won the game. The didn't because they got dominated on the coaching front.

Shaw failed to adjust sticking with what MSU was prepared to beat, and did beat.

When you are favored by 7-10 points and lose a game in which your players were making the effort then an issue clearly exist.
 
MtnBuff said:
Stanford was a more talented team that should have won the game. The didn't because they got dominated on the coaching front.

Shaw failed to adjust sticking with what MSU was prepared to beat, and did beat.

When you are favored by 7-10 points and lose a game in which your players were making the effort then an issue clearly exist.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the bolded formula.

Willner warned us about this one, by the way. Look, I want to live in a world where the Pac champion is a far more talented team then the B1G champion. But at the end of the day, I didn't see that talent disaprity you keep referring to.
 
SECOBuffsFan said:
I think we have different definitions of dominated....I thought Stanford was unwilling to adjust in the game and that is why their offense struggled....but it was a defensive battle that saw Michigan State make more plays offensively to win the game
Click to expand...

I never felt that Stanford had a chance to win after the 1st quarter. It was a field position battle and MSU took that battle easily. Yes, their coach is the reason they were outclassed. MSU was consistently better prepared on both sides of the ball.
 
MtnBuff said:
Stanford was a more talented team that should have won the game. The didn't because they got dominated on the coaching front.

Shaw failed to adjust sticking with what MSU was prepared to beat, and did beat.

When you are favored by 7-10 points and lose a game in which your players were making the effort then an issue clearly exist.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
I'm not sure Stanford is really more talented than MSU. Slightly maybe, but not significantly. I think MSU was one of the most underrated teams this year. I agree that Stanford was too conservative on offense, but you could say that about a lot of their games and their record under Shaw speaks for itself. I hope they air it out more next year. If Ty Montgomery comes back he'll be one of the best WRs in the country. Should be fun to see Barry Sanders Jr. get more playing time as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top