This outlook on recruiting is why CU has had one winning season this decade.
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!
A few thoughts from Oregon
- Thread starter Unleash Hell
- Start date
This outlook on recruiting is why CU has had one winning season this decade.
I disagree with this.
We do have some quality players, we also have a lot of guys who are not at that level. I look at our depth chart and yes this is subjective but I see a very small number of guys who would start for at least four other teams (a pretty low bar) in the PAC12.
I see maybe 3-4 on offense and 5 on defense. A better question is other than Viska and Mustafa how many of our guys would even be on the two deep for Oregon?
If everything went right for us, if the right guys stayed healthy and we got some bounces then yes this team should have been able to work itself into a bowl game but those things aren't happening.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Even with our issues-we've got a stretch with 3 winnable games and one game we should win in UCLA. Wazzu's as big a mess as we are. Stanford's beatable. Who knows what USC team will show up here?
You have more on defense than offense? Oh boy.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I was being generous and noting that a number of our conference mates are a little light on talent at some positions. As I said it is subjective but just quickly I put Mustafa, Landman, and Ono as guys who would likely start for at least four other teams. Less certain but still possible would be Lang and Sami. This doesn't say they are outstanding in any way just recognizes that the conference has some other weak teams besides us. Again a generous assessment.
Offense I of course have Viska who would start for everyone if healthy.
Beyond that it is hard. I don't think KD starts for many, Tony Brown may actually start for more. Hambright probably, Sherman maybe but if so at guard. I know we love Lynott but I don't see him starting for many teams. Maybe Montez, don't see anyone else on offense.
Again completely subjective but it is hard to find much starting quality P5 talent on this team right now.
Last edited:
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I can give you more than that on offense-Montez, Fontenot, Viska, Brown, Nixon, Stanley, and IIRC Harris and Hambright started games at Auburn and Oklahoma State respectively......so I suppose we could throw them in.
Fontenot and Stanley may be in the future, not now. Harris can't even become the primary TE in front of Russell. KD is fun but is he a P5 starter? Not very many places.
We don’t have enough depth. We’re playing a lot guys that shouldn’t be on the field at this point. That was a no chance game and still had we caught a a couple breaks in the first half we could have made it interesting.
Count me as a tucker believer but we need more athletes. We needed to beat Air Force and Arizona. We didn’t. It isn’t getting easier from here.
Count me as a tucker believer but we need more athletes. We needed to beat Air Force and Arizona. We didn’t. It isn’t getting easier from here.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Not sure I would call the offense regressing. Oregon has a championship caliber defense. We moved the ball and should have had 17-21 more points on the board
With spread offenses, the skill positions get subbed enough that I am quite confident in saying Viska, Nixon, and Brown would be playing a lot for pretty much anyone in the conference. Hambright, Sherman, and Lynott would all start for at least half the teams in the conference. Montez would start for at least four other teams. Offensive talent is not the glaring issue that you have manufactured here.
The o line has over performed. The running backs have overperformed. The wideouts are good. The tight ends are being used for the first time in years. Montez is no more or less than we could have expected.
We are young and thin on defense. We needed to catch a few breaks on health. We did not. Next guy up is a philosophy but we don’t have that luxury.
Recruit better and win more. This isn’t rocket science.
We are young and thin on defense. We needed to catch a few breaks on health. We did not. Next guy up is a philosophy but we don’t have that luxury.
Recruit better and win more. This isn’t rocket science.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I believe in coaches until they give me a reason not to, but it actually does IMO-Oregon's the best team we're going to play, and its not that close. Washington State's as big a mess as we are (they're the only team in the North without a win in conference play RN). USC's bipolar. UCLA sucks. Stanford's a winnable game.
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
USC is going to kick our ass. We have no answer for their WRs. Or their RBs for that matter.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
I thought they'd kick BYU's ass (Didn't they start a black QB for the first time ever today or something ridiculous?) too. Saw how that one went.
You can split hairs. I think we overrated Lynott. Brown and Nixon may play but I don't think they would start for many.
Montez who knows.
Point is we are playing a lot of guys who wouldn't be starting or in some cases even playing for our opponents.
It is not splitting hairs. There are a lot of guys on offense who are good enough to play at a lot of schools. Offensive talent is not a major issue. If you think it is, then this team has been extremely lucky to win three games (hint: not the case).
SerenityBuff
Well-Known Member
Have you watched our defense at all this year? We’ve made mediocre players look like all-Americans. USC has the best WRs in the conference. It’s not gonna be pretty. I applaud your optimism but there is no concrete reason you can point to that says we will win, other than sometimes USC plays crappy.
montez starts at most p5 schools. to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. tony brown shows he's a legit starter. kd too.
we've started a bajillion freshmen or other guys who have little experience on defense. our best defensive player has been out for 2+weeks. this **** ain't rocket science.
if you want to lay blame, then blame the so-called db guru, mm, for not bringing in anywhere near enough dbs.
as i said before, the ol and rbs have over-indexed. had we stayed healthy on defense, we could have been competitive. we didn't/ we aren't.
recruit.recruit.recruit.
positives: the team is tough and plays hard and doesn't quit. they aren't rolling over. i believe we have the right head coach, but we need to get better athletes. it.ain't.rocket.science.
we've started a bajillion freshmen or other guys who have little experience on defense. our best defensive player has been out for 2+weeks. this **** ain't rocket science.
if you want to lay blame, then blame the so-called db guru, mm, for not bringing in anywhere near enough dbs.
as i said before, the ol and rbs have over-indexed. had we stayed healthy on defense, we could have been competitive. we didn't/ we aren't.
recruit.recruit.recruit.
positives: the team is tough and plays hard and doesn't quit. they aren't rolling over. i believe we have the right head coach, but we need to get better athletes. it.ain't.rocket.science.
Sykobuff
Well-Known Member
Not on defense they don't, the offense should score enough to win but the inconsistency of montez makes that a stretch.
Sykobuff
Well-Known Member
Cu has never beaten usc, your confidence is puzzling considering how bad this defense is .
Watching the game again, the Offense today was super stale!!! No creativity, too much on Montez, especially when he was off. We have some really good skill players in the slots and do not use creative plays to get them the ball more in easy plays like the KC Chiefs do. Stanley, Jackson, Bell, etc. each need easy touches in the open field. Johnson had me against CSU and even NE, but lately the offensive play calling is predictable and teams are racking up film on us and Steven becomes easy to trick.
I thought about that game a lot today. I started to compare what happened to the slide that happened after OSU last year and frankly it feels and looks a lot that right now. We have a lot of guys playing hard, but I really don’t think Montez is one of them. I have the feeling that he checking out just like he did last year. I hope I’m wrong but his body language and demeanor is not the same as it was against Nebraska for example.
The Offensive Line is playing just fine, EXCEPT false starts!!! You knew Oregon was going to do that lame Wash State shifting crap. Be ready, hold your water
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Past vs USC is completely irrelevant. That game depends on what SC team and what CU team shows up. CU team that played ASU vs USC vs BYU is a good shot for CU to win.
Sykobuff
Well-Known Member
The defense is going to give up 30+, better hope the offense shows up. comparing games vs other teams is irrelevant also. I'd love to give buffs benefit of doubt but they haven't earned it.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Yep, but USC doesn’t have the defense Oregon does. USC is capable of clobbering us, but they are also capable of pulling a USC against us.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
I'd like to give Fontenot some credit here as a guy who would see PT for other schools. Kid is pacing for nearly 1000 yards. Makes someting out of nothing consistently, is a good receiver out of the backfield, and is stupid slippery. Good player.
NY Buff
Active Member
There is an obvious talent gap between the Buffs and Oregon. Even if we started closing that gap, by the time we get close, Phil Knight is going to be able to give endorsement money to the best 200 players in the country. The 85 scholarship limit will be a non issue. They may all be walk-ons making 200k a year in endorsement money.
The real question I have is how has Utah been able to compete so well while we have floundered? Many here keep saying "recruit, recurit, recurit", which is true. But that is what was said about Hawkins, Embree, Mac 2, and now MT. How is it that Utah is able to get talent and we can't?
The real question I have is how has Utah been able to compete so well while we have floundered? Many here keep saying "recruit, recurit, recurit", which is true. But that is what was said about Hawkins, Embree, Mac 2, and now MT. How is it that Utah is able to get talent and we can't?