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!

2018 offensive rank?

2018 offensive rank?

  • Holy Ralphie balls! We’re elite! (Top 25)

  • About the same & pretty damn good (26-50)

  • Wow! I actually miss Lindgren. (51-75)

  • Lindgren was a frikin genius! (76-100)

  • I think I need a liver transplant (101+)

Results are only viewable after voting.
I think the only stat that matters on either side is points scored & allowed per game. Offensively last year, we were 80th in the country with 26.4 pts scored/game. We have a great deal of improvement to make in this category.
 
It’s an eye doctor test. “One, two or about the same?”

About the same but a much better red zone O makes a world of difference.

I’m assuming that CU was not very good in the RZ last year based on memory. I could be totally off base on that.
 
I'm bullish on the OL, all hail the era of Moretti and Polley. Lindsay can't be replaced, but a healthy McMillan will be a godsend, that was a huge get as a grad transfer.

I think Montez will be good but not great.
 
I do not see much regression if any. Phil’s fire and leadership will be missed hit I think we see an improved O line. Passing game will be better with this group of receivers
 
Montez should improve .
I expect we will be similar at RB and WR, making up for grad losses there .
OL will tell the story. We are going to need a healthy Lynott, minimize injuries and a few young guys to step up..
 
CU's WR core is absolutely legit. Past that, this team has a lot of holes on offense, but still good enough. Gonna be a 65-45 pass/run offense, if not more. Going with just inside top 50
 
This offensive line can't be worse. WR and QB will be better. RB transfer is legit. Should be a good to very good unit.
 
Probably worth noting that we were a mediocre 79th in yards per play (5.51) and 81st in ppg (26.4). I don't expect the yards per game to change much, but I do expect these two stats to improve.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
Probably worth noting that we were a mediocre 79th in yards per play (5.51) and 81st in ppg (26.4). I don't expect the yards per game to change much, but I do expect these two stats to improve.
Click to expand...
Yep. Here are the offensive other offensive ranks that really matter:

Scoring offense: #64
3rd down conversion %: #67
Red zone offense: #24-tie
Turnovers Lost: #53-tie

When your RZ was Top 25 and your yardage was #37, the scoring being down all the way to #64 points to a serious lack of explosive plays. The 2018 offense needs to find a way to hit more home runs.
 
Buffnik said:
Yep. Here are the offensive other offensive ranks that really matter:

Scoring offense: #64
3rd down conversion %: #67
Red zone offense: #24-tie
Turnovers Lost: #53-tie

When your RZ was Top 25 and your yardage was #37, the scoring being down all the way to #64 points to a serious lack of explosive plays. The 2018 offense needs to find a way to hit more home runs.
Click to expand...

Also it means your defense was constantly giving you crap starting field position.
 
We have the talent and potential to be in the top 3/4 in the Pac. Since we are the Colorado Buffaloes, it is hard to say. I will guess about 6/7 in the Pac.
 
For me it's all about scoring offense. I'd like to see the Buffs improve to averaging at least 30 points/game for the year. I honestly think the talent is there if they can gel. I see improvement.
 
buffedup said:
For me it's all about scoring offense. I'd like to see the Buffs improve to averaging at least 30 points/game for the year. I honestly think the talent is there if they can gel. I see improvement.
Click to expand...
Scoring offense can have a lot to do with the defense creating turnovers or at least setting up field position.

The stat I would care most about - someone please let me know if anyone compiles this stat for college football - is for a tempo-adjusted scoring number. Both for offense and defense, "points per possession" is the most important stat and I can't find it anywhere. Efficiency is what matters. For instance, a team that plays offense fast like the Buffs want to do (like we've seen from programs like Oregon, Baylor and Texas Tech) can score 30 points in a game and not be playing great offense. Likewise, it can give up 30 points and actually have played pretty good defense.
 
Buffnik said:
Scoring offense can have a lot to do with the defense creating turnovers or at least setting up field position.

The stat I would care most about - someone please let me know if anyone compiles this stat for college football - is for a tempo-adjusted scoring number. Both for offense and defense, "points per possession" is the most important stat and I can't find it anywhere. Efficiency is what matters. For instance, a team that plays offense fast like the Buffs want to do (like we've seen from programs like Oregon, Baylor and Texas Tech) can score 30 points in a game and not be playing great offense. Likewise, it can give up 30 points and actually have played pretty good defense.
Click to expand...
No argument here. I'd love to see the Buffs play situational football where they can turn up the tempo when needed and then adjust accordingly for defensive synergy.
 
I think Chiv will turn out to be a much better play caller than BL and his recruits at WR play lights out for him. If we had great WR play last year we could’ve won 1-3 more games. Missing Taz is the big unknown...how deeply will his absence affect the team.

I say we have roughly the same yds per game but score a lot more
 
I foresee growing pains of a new OC and a void in leadership (Taz, Irwin gone). Add to that the requisite indecisiveness I expect from the coaching staff as to who should be on the field, we will be in the 50s or 60s IMO.
 
Answer B.

Sounds like a broken record, but best group of WRs we've had at CU in recent memory and two athletic RBs, with one of them having plenty of P5 experience. Solid interior OL, with question marks at the Tackle position. Has Montez matured and will Roper be a good influence on him to get his game to the next level and more consistent? A few early growing pains for Chev and playcalling, but he's been successful in short order at just about everything he's done in his coaching career, so I'm confident in his ability to adapt quickly to this as well.

Offensive ranking in the top 30, but scoring offense makes a massive jump into the top 30 as well.

Btw, @Buffnik , are you sure your link and your stats are correct? I think your link is to 2015... ESPN's 2017 team stats show CU's total offense ranked 47th from last year and pts/game at 80th.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPointsPerGame
 
I do love how everyone just assumes Chev is already twice the play caller and game planner that Lindgren was. This is going to be a rough and swift fall from grace for Chev.
 
Darth Snow said:
I do love how everyone just assumes Chev is already twice the play caller and game planner that Lindgren was. This is going to be a rough and swift fall from grace for Chev.
Click to expand...
Why are you so sure he won't be a better play caller/game planner than Lindgren? Is it really that big of a stretch to think that Lindgren just isn't as good of a coach as Chev and even a first time play caller could be better than he is/was?
 
Darth Snow said:
I do love how everyone just assumes Chev is already twice the play caller and game planner that Lindgren was. This is going to be a rough and swift fall from grace for Chev.
Click to expand...
Wet-Blanket.gif
 
TSchekler said:
Why are you so sure he won't be a better play caller/game planner than Lindgren? Is it really that big of a stretch to think that Lindgren just isn't as good of a coach as Chev and even a first time play caller could be better than he is/was?
Click to expand...

I think it is a stretch to expect a massive upgrade.
 
Duff Man said:
I think it is a stretch to expect a massive upgrade.
Click to expand...
Sure, but then again, it doesn't take much to make a massive jump in the scoring offense category. Going from 80th to 50th in 2017 is less than 4 pts/game. That'd be a pretty "massive" jump in the rankings and wouldn't take a world beater of an OC/play caller to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top