A flaw in strategy

[Duff Man]

In the all buffs echo chamber our guys don't need to work harder. Nope, can't build a football team out of tough guys like Lindsay. Besides, can't get tougher than an MM coached team already is.

What CU needs to do is find some great recruiters. Then our record over the past decade won't matter to hapless recruits when we get into their living rooms. We will virtually hypnotize all the talented kids into coming here instead of UCLA and USC. That is the only way!

Of course we need toughness. Of course we need need to work hard.

But your insistence on ignoring a massive talent problem in the front seven because you are too stubborn to admit you might be wrong on Jeffcoat is ridiculous. You have now managed to excuse his role in on-field play, recruiting, AND toughness. It is truly incredible to watch.

The tired, lame line about everyone wanting to consistently out-recruit UCLA and USC is completely false, but yet it is continuously brought up in every argument. No one expects Top 10 classes every year. Most people realize there are plenty of good players to be had in that 25-35 range (enter the 2017 class) who can help CU win many games. Most people realize three So Cal commits in a class (with only one being rated above average) is not good enough in the Pac-12. Hard work and toughness only gets you so far.

The only "echo chamber" is the one you currently reside in where Jim Jeffcoat is a good coach and there being no difference between a 30th ranked class and a 60th ranked class.

(I already know you will not address anything in this post substantively)

 

[Bison]

Yes, but he only had 22 months to implement this plan, playing many freshman, sophomores and walkons.

Rich Rod had a lot of new players and is going to a bowl game. Embers didn’t get it done. Move on.

 

[WarBuff]

OK, if the Stanford analogy doesn't work for some, how about Wisconsin? They seem to recruit about the same level of player CU does but somehow they make it work.

 

[8Jah]

Of course we need toughness. Of course we need need to work hard.

But your insistence on ignoring a massive talent problem in the front seven because you are too stubborn to admit you might be wrong on Jeffcoat is ridiculous. You have now managed to excuse his role in on-field play, recruiting, AND toughness. It is truly incredible to watch.

The tired, lame line about everyone wanting to consistently out-recruit UCLA and USC is completely false, but yet it is continuously brought up in every argument. No one expects Top 10 classes every year. Most people realize there are plenty of good players to be had in that 25-35 range (enter the 2017 class) who can help CU win many games. Most people realize three So Cal commits in a class (with only one being rated above average) is not good enough in the Pac-12. Hard work and toughness only gets you so far.

The only "echo chamber" is the one you currently reside in where Jim Jeffcoat is a good coach and there being no difference between a 30th ranked class and a 60th ranked class.

(I already know you will not address anything in this post substantively)

Man you are red hot with hate for ole JJ. I am not him, but since I've expressed some respect I guess I am your fill-in. The Dline was bad this year....I've said it several times. We had all new guys and the coaching wasn't great. But no one on that whole D could tackle, or be in position. We can have a good DL with whom you hate. We had a great one last year made of kids that were originally 2-star and low 3-star recruits. I'm not excusing anything. JJ deserves some heat. Very few who don't.

Recruiting is super important, but you got to build your brand. There aren't many 330lb 17 year olds out there that look like slam dunks at NT. So we compete for the few and lose kids like Rogers to UCLA because...its LA. Not clear that any recruiter could have turned Pili for us last year. That's why we hit the JCs.

I think a lot of you wanted faces to blame for our problems and found two low-level position coaches. Maybe we could do better than those two...but my overall point has been that those guys aren't the root of the problem. MM teams don't work. They aren't mentally tough. The problem is the HC.

 

[Duff Man]

Man you are red hot with hate for ole JJ. I am not him, but since I've expressed some respect I guess I am your fill-in. The Dline was bad this year....I've said it several times. We had all new guys and the coaching wasn't great. But no one on that whole D could tackle, or be in position. We can have a good DL with whom you hate. We had a great one last year made of kids that were originally 2-star and low 3-star recruits. I'm not excusing anything. JJ deserves some heat. Very few who don't.

Recruiting is super important, but you got to build your brand. There aren't many 330lb 17 year olds out there that look like slam dunks at NT. So we compete for the few and lose kids like Rogers to UCLA because...its LA. Not clear that any recruiter could have turned Pili for us last year. That's why we hit the JCs.

I think a lot of you wanted faces to blame for our problems and found two low-level position coaches. Maybe we could do better than those two...but my overall point has been that those guys aren't the root of the problem. MM teams don't work. They aren't mentally tough. The problem is the HC.

Is it possible both talent and toughness are needed? JJ deserves some "heat" in what form?

You keep avoiding the issue by bringing up UCLA and USC over and over again. Part of it, of course, is you believe there is no real difference between non-blue chip players, which is absurd. The other part is you willfully ignore losing out on guys like Damion Daniels or Israel Antwine. You keep acting like we are losing out on NTs... have you looked at the DL depth chart? Do you really think NT is the only issue? You have allowed yourself to be sucked into the narrative that we HAVE to go JUCO-heavy because you have no real recruiting expectations from Jeffcoat.

You are absolutely correct we have to be tougher and tackle better, but do you think that alone explains away a 108th ranked rushing defense?

 

[Agent Dave Kujan]

I think that the point is well said.......I really couldn't say what our offensive identity is and until you start to define what you are it is awfully tough to recruit the right kind of kid.

 

[GoBuffs08]

Man you are red hot with hate for ole JJ. I am not him, but since I've expressed some respect I guess I am your fill-in. The Dline was bad this year....I've said it several times. We had all new guys and the coaching wasn't great. But no one on that whole D could tackle, or be in position. We can have a good DL with whom you hate. We had a great one last year made of kids that were originally 2-star and low 3-star recruits. I'm not excusing anything. JJ deserves some heat. Very few who don't.

Recruiting is super important, but you got to build your brand. There aren't many 330lb 17 year olds out there that look like slam dunks at NT. So we compete for the few and lose kids like Rogers to UCLA because...its LA. Not clear that any recruiter could have turned Pili for us last year. That's why we hit the JCs.

I think a lot of you wanted faces to blame for our problems and found two low-level position coaches. Maybe we could do better than those two...but my overall point has been that those guys aren't the root of the problem. MM teams don't work. They aren't mentally tough. The problem is the HC.[/QUOTE

There was nothing great about last years D line. We had a great secondary that made everyone else look much better than they were.

 

[4BienemyTDs]

Anyone that is anti-option has not watched UCF play. Scott Frost has taken Chip Kelly's offense, added in power and option plays into it, and disguises everything inside of standard packages that the defense cannot read because it is counter intuitive. Nobody should run just option, that is only for service academies because they have new players every year with service and other reasons. Or Georgia Tech, which I think is getting pretty bored with it.

The basics of the initial strategy listed in this string are very solid in premise. Power Running, Dual Threat QB's, and creative Spread-Option concepts would be very beneficial and has a proven track record with the best teams in the country right now. I think we could quickly tweak ourselves into this style with a change in Offensive Coordinators. It will be very interesting to see how Chip Kelly morphs UCLA's offense with the style he wants and the personnel they have?

Alabama has a RB playing QB and runs over people (Recruiting advantage is so massive though it does not really matter)
Clemson has been using Dual Threat QB's for the past 5 years and is Top 5
Wisconsin is undefeated and has changed coaches 3 times, but never lost its power, and has one of the worst starting QB's in the top 20
Ohio State wants to use Dual Threat QB's and the next guy after Barrett looks freaking awesome
Stanford runs it down your throat and has not had a good QB since Luck and it has not mattered
Oklahoma essentially has a Dual Threat QB that is crazy competitive, and they have taken great pride in their running game

I think the summary of this strategy is that we are acting like a PAC 12 team in every way except recruiting and success, while the top teams in the rest of the country are doing what we are discussing???

 

[8Jah]

Is it possible both talent and toughness are needed? JJ deserves some "heat" in what form?

You keep avoiding the issue by bringing up UCLA and USC over and over again. Part of it, of course, is you believe there is no real difference between non-blue chip players, which is absurd. The other part is you willfully ignore losing out on guys like Damion Daniels or Israel Antwine. You keep acting like we are losing out on NTs... have you looked at the DL depth chart? Do you really think NT is the only issue? You have allowed yourself to be sucked into the narrative that we HAVE to go JUCO-heavy because you have no real recruiting expectations from Jeffcoat.

You are absolutely correct we have to be tougher and tackle better, but do you think that alone explains away a 108th ranked rushing defense?

I bring up USC and UCLA because that's where these kids in LA grow up dreaming about going to. This crop grew up thinking about good Oregon and Stanford teams. A CU offer hits them as something they never considered before. Got to build the brand.

If there is anything I give MM and his staff credit for (and actually there are more than a few things) it is recruiting in the environment CU found itself in 2013. We were a laughing stock that no kid wanted to be a part of. MM found good athletes that he could coach; guys like Awuzie, Gillam, Olgubode and Thompson. Who could have pulled off a class like that after the dumpster fire that was 2012?

I think there is a HUGE difference between non-blue-chip players. I NEVER EVER said otherwise. What I said is that the class recruiting rankings (the ones put out by the recruiting sites) are nearly meaningless after a class rank of about 30. This is simply the data man. Clearly our 2013 recruiting class was a good bit higher than Scout or ESPN had us. The reasons should be crystal. While there is a small number of these obvious, full-grown blue chip players each year, there are way way too many 2-star and low 3-star players to evaluate (many thousands); and these kids are still growing. At no position is this more true than at NT. Most 17 year old kids that are going to be an athletic 350 got a lot of growing to do. If you can't compete for classes full of the blue chippers then you have to separate the diamonds from the ****. Its a little hit or miss, but CU has done that by and far. I see worse athletes on the D at Arizona, Cal and UCLA (whose recruited lights out).

Moving forward I get that we don't have to recruit like USC to be better, but we are starting to recruit roughly on par with other schools in the conference, like Cal, WSU, Arizona and Utah. About where you would expect our brand to be. So I don't think that is where the big problem is.

Last year Daniels was a big guy for a kid. Hope for his sake he turns out...but I don't know. A lot of teams were after him and we lost to Nebraska - who is just a bigger brand. Same thoughts about Antwine and OkSU this year. A school like us keeps trying and eventually we get one. We won Edwards over two SEC offers last year...hope that works out for us. Its a lot easier if we build the brand.

With MM I see coaching, family and caring. Recruiting is about what I'd expect it to be given that we went to one bowl game in about a decade. What I don't see at CU, outside of 2016, is toughness. The easiest way to go from top 20 to 108 in less than one year is to just stop caring, or think that you have arrived and don't have to work.

 

[Duff Man]

So there is a huge difference amongst non-blue chip players but the rankings of those players as a whole are meaningless.

Thanks for adopting a "Little Engine That Could" attitude for CU. Truly exhilarating. We wasted money on facilities and staff this whole time.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I bring up USC and UCLA because that's where these kids in LA grow up dreaming about going to. This crop grew up thinking about good Oregon and Stanford teams. A CU offer hits them as something they never considered before. Got to build the brand.

If there is anything I give MM and his staff credit for (and actually there are more than a few things) it is recruiting in the environment CU found itself in 2013. We were a laughing stock that no kid wanted to be a part of. MM found good athletes that he could coach; guys like Awuzie, Gillam, Olgubode and Thompson. Who could have pulled off a class like that after the dumpster fire that was 2012?

I think there is a HUGE difference between non-blue-chip players. I NEVER EVER said otherwise. What I said is that the recruiting rankings (the ones put out by the recruiting sites) are nearly meaningless after a rank of about 30. This is simply the data man. Clearly our 2013 recruiting class was a good bit higher than Scout or ESPN had us. The reasons should be crystal. While there is a small class of these obvious, full-grown blue chip players each year, there are way way too many 2-star and low 3-star players to evaluate (many thousands); and these kids are still growing. At no position is this more true than at NT. Most 17 year old kids that are going to be an athletic 350 got a lot of growing to do. If you can't compete for classes full of the blue chippers then you have to separate the diamonds from the ****. Its a little hit or miss, but CU has done that by and far. I see worse athletes on the D at Arizona, Cal and UCLA (whose recruited lights out).

Moving forward I get that we don't have to recruit like USC to be better, but we are starting to recruit roughly on par with other schools in the conference, like Cal, WSU, Arizona and Utah. About where you would expect our brand to be. So I don't think that is where the big problem is.

Last year Daniels was a big guy for a kid. Hope for his sake he turns out...but I don't know. A lot of teams were after him and we lost to Nebraska - who is just a bigger brand. Same thoughts about Antwine and OkSU this year. A school like us keeps trying and eventually we get one. We won Edwards over two SEC offers last year...hope that works out for us. Its a lot easier if we build the brand.

With MM I see coaching, family and caring. Recruiting is about what I'd expect it to be given that we went to one bowl game in about a decade. What I don't see at CU, outside of 2016, is toughness. The easiest way to go from top 20 to 108 in less than one year is to just stop caring, or think that you have arrived and don't have to work.

You see worse athletes on the DL at UCLA?? What team are you watching?

It's odd that you can acknowledge a good recruiting effort in 2013 when CU had no business attracting any player with options, or for landing someone like Edwards over SEC offers but suggest that trying to recruit better is pointless until we "toughen up" or "build the brand". Also news flash, it's not solely on the HC to get a team playing tough.

 

[8Jah]

You see worse athletes on the DL at UCLA?? What team are you watching?

It's odd that you can acknowledge a good recruiting effort in 2013 when CU had no business attracting any player with options, or for landing someone like Edwards over SEC offers but suggest that trying to recruit better is pointless until we "toughen up" or "build the brand". Also news flash, it's not solely on the HC to get a team playing tough.

Whaaat? I never said that recruiting better is pointless. I said that I don't think recruiting is the main problem.

Sure all coaches are responsible for setting the work ethic...but it starts from the top. If you don't have it in an HC then any tough nosed assistant is just going to be pushing the rope.

Different issue, but UCLA had a terrible DL, with the worst run D in the country. You think Edwards got pushed around. Some of those great big recruits on DL didn't look so big anymore when those other boys grew up. Mora is now gone.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Whaaat? I never said that recruiting better is pointless. I said that I don't think recruiting is the main problem.

Sure all coaches are responsible for setting the work ethic...but it starts from the top. If you don't have it in an HC then any tough nosed assistant is just going to be pushing the rope.

Different issue, but UCLA had a terrible DL, with the worst run D in the country. You think Edwards got pushed around. Some of those great big recruits on DL didn't look so big anymore when those other boys grew up. Mora is now gone.

So how can you tell the team's lack of toughness comes from the HC and not their position coach? Truth is, you can't.

And I think you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone that recruiting isn't the main problem.

 

[skibum]

I believe that I get what Jaximus is trying to say here...we did zig while the rest of the Big 12 zagged.

We did?

Granted, I'm going back to the Big 8 with this, but when we were at our peak, we ran the same offense as the second and third best teams in the conference (OU and NU).

We didn't zig when they zagged; we just zagged better than they did - primarily because we out-recruited them.

 

[8Jah]

"So there is a huge difference amongst non-blue chip players but the rankings of those players as a whole are almost meaningless. You can't say that ESPN's 63rd ranked class (made of mostly non-blue chippers) is better than the 81st (made of lower ranked non-blue chippers) with any seriousness.

Thanks for adopting a "Little Engine That Could" attitude for CU. Truly exhilarating. We wasted money on facilities and staff this whole time." Good facilities are great. Good staff is great. Main problem is neither.

 

[8Jah]

And I think you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone that recruiting isn't the main problem.

That is becoming very clear.

 

[skibum]

If there is anything I give MM and his staff credit for (and actually there are more than a few things) it is recruiting

I just quit reading after this....

 

[Duff Man]

"So there is a huge difference amongst non-blue chip players but the rankings of those players as a whole are almost meaningless. You can't say that ESPN's 63rd ranked class (made of mostly non-blue chippers) is better than the 81st (made of lower ranked non-blue chippers) with any seriousness.

Thanks for adopting a "Little Engine That Could" attitude for CU. Truly exhilarating. We wasted money on facilities and staff this whole time." Good facilities are great. Good staff is great. Main problem is neither.

Comparing 63 and 81 is not the same as saying anything after 30 is basically the same. The fact you praise recruiting and then excuse DL performance because of a "bare cupboard" is really strange. You just seem all over the map here.

 

[Jaximus]

OK, if the Stanford analogy doesn't work for some, how about Wisconsin? They seem to recruit about the same level of player CU does but somehow they make it work.

You're not going to do well here with your logical statements.

 

[Jaximus]

Anyone that is anti-option has not watched UCF play. Scott Frost has taken Chip Kelly's offense, added in power and option plays into it, and disguises everything inside of standard packages that the defense cannot read because it is counter intuitive. Nobody should run just option, that is only for service academies because they have new players every year with service and other reasons. Or Georgia Tech, which I think is getting pretty bored with it.

The basics of the initial strategy listed in this string are very solid in premise. Power Running, Dual Threat QB's, and creative Spread-Option concepts would be very beneficial and has a proven track record with the best teams in the country right now. I think we could quickly tweak ourselves into this style with a change in Offensive Coordinators. It will be very interesting to see how Chip Kelly morphs UCLA's offense with the style he wants and the personnel they have?

Alabama has a RB playing QB and runs over people (Recruiting advantage is so massive though it does not really matter)
Clemson has been using Dual Threat QB's for the past 5 years and is Top 5
Wisconsin is undefeated and has changed coaches 3 times, but never lost its power, and has one of the worst starting QB's in the top 20
Ohio State wants to use Dual Threat QB's and the next guy after Barrett looks freaking awesome
Stanford runs it down your throat and has not had a good QB since Luck and it has not mattered
Oklahoma essentially has a Dual Threat QB that is crazy competitive, and they have taken great pride in their running game

I think the summary of this strategy is that we are acting like a PAC 12 team in every way except recruiting and success, while the top teams in the rest of the country are doing what we are discussing???

Exactly! Well put. I'm sure many will find ways to crush what seems painfully obvious to both of us.

 

[8Jah]

Comparing 63 and 81 is not the same as saying anything after 30 is basically the same. The fact you praise recruiting and then excuse DL performance because of a "bare cupboard" is really strange. You just seem all over the map here.

I use "bare cupboard" as a figure of speech meaning we had lost all of our starters.

I think that you guys are so ditto-headed in your thinking that any 'new' take or nuance just doesn't compute.

 

[Duff Man]

I use "bare cupboard" as a figure of speech meaning we had lost all of our starters.

I think that you guys are so ditto-headed in your thinking that any 'new' take or nuance just doesn't compute.

Your "nuanced" take amounts to recruiting is going pretty well, coaching is not very good, and the team does not work hard. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

[8Jah]

Comparing 63 and 81 is not the same as saying anything after 30 is basically the same.

I said any class ranking past 30 is almost meaningless. My holy mother of Jesus! This doesn't mean that all recruiting classes after a recruiting class rank of 30 will be shown to be identical in four years. This means that the people who rank these classes don't know enough to get class rankings above 30 even close to right. Its that there are so many wild cards in recruits after about that point. Folks are told by 'the smart people' not to show rankings beyond 30 and many don't. But you 'suckas' like to pay for this **** so that you can compare yourselves to all the others who aren't blue-bloods.

 

[Duff Man]

I said any class ranking past 30 is almost meaningless. My holy mother of Jesus! This doesn't mean that all recruiting classes after a recruiting class rank of 30 will be shown to be identical in four years. This means that the people who rank these classes don't know enough to get class rankings above 30 even close to right. Its that there are so many wild cards in recruits after about that point. Folks are told by 'the smart people' not to show rankings beyond 30 and many don't. But you 'suckas' like to pay for this **** so that you can compare yourselves to all the others who aren't blue-bloods.

Thanks for the NUANCED take of differentiating between meaningless and almost meaningless.

 

[8Jah]

Your "nuanced" take amounts to recruiting is not going badly given the ****hole we came out of, the coach creates a warm environment of family and loyalty above all, but fails to instill toughness and a hard nosed work ethic across the whole team. Thanks for the enlightenment.

FIFY

 

[Duff Man]

FIFY

Thanks for the nuance there.

When in doubt, go all-in on qualitative observations and avoid quantitative observations.

 

[skibum]

Thanks for the nuance there.

When in doubt, go all-in on qualitative observations and avoid quantitative observations.

If there are no objective measurements, you can never be wrong!

 

[8Jah]

Boy Auwuzie looked fast and seemed like he could ball out. But wait he was a 2 star recruit. Guess we go with the objective measure...dude sucked.

 

[White_Rabbit]

Boy Auwuzie looked fast and seemed like he could ball out. But wait he was a 2 star recruit. Guess we go with the objective measure...dude sucked.

was he tho

 

[BlackNGold]

I know we are in trouble when we believe that a scheme is going to fix us. Regardless of scheme you have to execute, you have to coach the talent you have into great football players, and you have to recruit. Recruiting alone does not guarantee success. UCLA and Tennessee are 2 examples of teams who have had good recruiting year in and year out ---neither has been a good football team. Clemson, Alabama, OSU, etc. all have good recruiting but layer with good coaching. Their teams go out and execute. A different offensive scheme is not going to fix the defense which if you look at the last 10 years CU's football fortunes have mirrored defensive performance.