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!

After Edwards who is left in recruiting?

Why is no one saying Bolden? Is his heart somewhere else? If not, he is a must get to me.
 
For Christmas I only want.....trying to be realistic here:

To hold onto all of our current recruits
Falo & Cotton (package deal please)
Daniels & Calloway (package deal please)
Elliss (or steer him to a JUCO if he can't get in)
Chaisson, Harris, Lang or Lynch (any one of the these)
Edwards (this would be huge)

As far as maybe some current Buffs that could either leave or call it quits early or transfer out, I could see maybe Michael Adkins, Lee Walker, Colin Sutton, possibly Coleman (think he's going to get buried on the depth chart next year, maybe even Justin Jan (he may never see the field with the receivers coming in)... Then, try to squeeze them all in!
 
I think we're out on all the other TE's. It's Falo or nobody, unless there is a surprise in store. It's not that Falo would be a huge loss because we have a ton of receivers to throw to. It's that he would likely open up the passing game even more and give CU a real threat at TE that they haven't had in some time... That would make this offense even more scary.
 
OkieBuffster said:
I think we're out on all the other TE's. It's Falo or nobody, unless there is a surprise in store. It's not that Falo would be a huge loss because we have a ton of receivers to throw to. It's that he would likely open up the passing game even more and give CU a real threat at TE that they haven't had in some time... That would make this offense even more scary.
Click to expand...

If Falo is as good as we hope he is then he would change how teams have to defend us. Teams would have to dedicate a safety, maybe even under over with a LB and a safety. Result would mean that we almost always have at least on WR in single coverage,
 
MtnBuff said:
If Falo is as good as we hope he is then he would change how teams have to defend us. Teams would have to dedicate a safety, maybe even under over with a LB and a safety. Result would mean that we almost always have at least on WR in single coverage,
Click to expand...

We always have multiple WR's in single coverage without that. I'm guessing I'm not following your math. I don't think it's possible to double cover more than one.
 
D would have to choose on covering him with a LB or a S...either way, the TE would have the advantage

See US (CU) vs um
 
buffaholic said:
We always have multiple WR's in single coverage without that. I'm guessing I'm not following your math. I don't think it's possible to double cover more than one.
Click to expand...

Currently teams are usually covering our TEs with a LB, if they bother to cover at all. A guy like Falo would force the safeties to play the center of the field instead of going straight deep coverage on the WRs.
 
MtnBuff said:
Currently teams are usually covering our TEs with a LB, if they bother to cover at all. A guy like Falo would force the safeties to play the center of the field instead of going straight deep coverage on the WRs.
Click to expand...
Right. So instead of them being able to double cover 1 WR, they'd be able to double cover 0 WRs.
Your point in the previous post was that with Falo:

MtnBuff said:
Result would mean that we almost always have at least on WR in single coverage,
Click to expand...

Perhaps you meant to say "Result would mean that we almost always would have all of our WR in single coverage"? Or are we playing man-down?
 
buffaholic said:
Right. So instead of them being able to double cover 1 WR, they'd be able to double cover 0 WRs.
Your point in the previous post was that with Falo:



Perhaps you meant to say "Result would mean that we almost always would have all of our WR in single coverage"? Or are we playing man-down?
Click to expand...

That, but also go back and look at the games. We had such a lack of respect for the pass to the TE that a lot of times on passing downs the safeties would split deep creating a double on both sides leaving the TE to a LB and we still didn't or couldn't take advantage. Other times the safety would provide over coverage with the nickel on the slot, again leaving the TE coverage to the LB.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top