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 re-watching the game

JesusGordo

Active Member
The schemes had the players in position to make the tackles. However the linebackers were consistantly slow to fill the hole, made a bad read or missed the tackle...especially Olugbode and Creer but Gillam as well. If the defense is designed for the D-line to free up the linebackers to make a lot of tackles as the coaches have said, then I think the D-line did a decent job. The linebackers just did not make the tackles. The defensive backfield was fairly sound for a first game against a good quarterback, the problem in my opinion is linebacker.

I understand our linebackers are young and modern football requires quicker linebackers to deal with the spread offenses, but in this game would have been nice to have an old school (Beikert, Johnson, Russell) run stopping linebacker unit in there.

The coaching is fine, the schemes are fine, we are just young and inexperienced. I think this team will improve a lot as the season goes on.
 
BarackObama said:
The schemes had the players in position to make the tackles. However the linebackers were consistantly slow to fill the hole, made a bad read or missed the tackle...especially Olugbode and Creer but Gillam as well. If the defense is designed for the D-line to free up the linebackers to make a lot of tackles as the coaches have said, then I think the D-line did a decent job. The linebackers just did not make the tackles. The defensive backfield was fairly sound for a first game against a good quarterback, the problem in my opinion is linebacker.

I understand our linebackers are young and modern football requires quicker linebackers to deal with the htspread offenses, but in this game would have been nice to have an old school (Beikert, Johnson, Russell) run stopping linebacker unit in there.

The coaching is fine, the schemes are fine, we are just young and inexperienced. I think this team will improve a lot as the season goes on.
Click to expand...
Good points, and rep for watching that **** show again. I deleted it when I got home. Mac made the same observation that you did. In the right place, lots of missed tackles. Hopefully they can fix some of that.
 
BarackObama said:
The schemes had the players in position to make the tackles. However the linebackers were consistantly slow to fill the hole, made a bad read or missed the tackle...especially Olugbode and Creer but Gillam as well. If the defense is designed for the D-line to free up the linebackers to make a lot of tackles as the coaches have said, then I think the D-line did a decent job. The linebackers just did not make the tackles. The defensive backfield was fairly sound for a first game against a good quarterback, the problem in my opinion is linebacker.

I understand our linebackers are young and modern football requires quicker linebackers to deal with the spread offenses, but in this game would have been nice to have an old school (Beikert, Johnson, Russell) run stopping linebacker unit in there.

The coaching is fine, the schemes are fine, we are just young and inexperienced. I think this team will improve a lot as the season goes on.
Click to expand...

But do you have a strategy to fix it? Oh, never mind.
 
BarackObama said:
The coaching is fine, the schemes are fine
Click to expand...

I think this is putting a little too much sugar on it. We have issues there, particularly adjusting in the second half when our momentum is stalled and we need to protect a lead. I've had nothing against Woodson Greer in his time here. I admire him for stepping in as a freshman and playing heavily out of necessity but that he is still starting in his fourth year is on the coaches for being unable to recruit or develop an upgrade at the position. He got juked out of his shoes or just failed to make a tackle. I was not concerned about our line's lack of a pass rush in this game because it was Garrett Grayson throwing but when we play passing teams it will kill us. The run defense is on the 'backers though and Gillam at less than 100% is going to exhaust himself trying to make all the plays.
 
100% agreed. Football takes every player executing their role each play to be successful. We had missed opportunities. Juda Parker said they practiced against exactly what CSU did, just that they didn't play up to expectation. Things will get better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks, BO.

It's like the fall scrimmage we watched. Our LBs were an issue in that. Looked awful in that with no Gillam.

Greer and KO have to turn it around in a hurry. They're both athletic enough to be playmakers. If we don't see it, this defense will struggle all year.
 
So why didn't we load the box/run blitz and dare them to throw instead before we fell too far behind? A lot of folks were worried about our undersized LBs and green DEs and it already showed in game #1.
We weren't getting any pressure on Grayson in the 1st half when they were passing a lot. Was that really the game plan? No pash rush and see if our DBs could cover their WRs forever? I should have known about underestimating CSUs o-line. I think the last time they had to replace a bunch of guys we lost the game too. Sucks that this game has become a coin flip. Would rather play it later in the season, like next year.
 
89BUFF89 said:
So why didn't we load the box/run blitz and dare them to throw instead before we fell too far behind? A lot of folks were worried about our undersized LBs and green DEs and it already showed in game #1.
We weren't getting any pressure on Grayson in the 1st half when they were passing a lot. Was that really the game plan? No pash rush and see if our DBs could cover their WRs forever? I should have known about underestimating CSUs o-line. I think the last time they had to replace a bunch of guys we lost the game too. Sucks that this game has become a coin flip. Would rather play it later in the season, like next year.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that with the adjustment of run blitzing. But the sad truth is that it shouldn't have gotten to that point. I believe that on all of the CSU scoring drives the Buffs had them in a 3rd and long but couldn't get off the field. Eventually they wore down within these drives, but it was as much about not executing in the "big down" moments as it was struggling with basic run defense. Maybe more so, because we have a depth issue in the front 7 and their inability to get off the field forced them to play way too many snaps.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
Did you really say that with a straight face? :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah. I appreciate that he took the time to re-watch that thing and give some analysis. I sure as hell can't find it within myself to want to do that.
 
Buffnik said:
Yeah. I appreciate that he took the time to re-watch that thing and give some analysis. I sure as hell can't find it within myself to want to do that.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear; I was referring to his screen name.

I didn't record it but I actually would like to re-watch it. I was with numerous drunks in the corner of the lower bowl and could not see everything that was happening as well as I could on tv.
 
You give way too much credit to the DEs. Awful performance. They are young, so the hope is they will get better going forward, but they did not do their job on Friday night.

And the scheme sucks if they continue to recruit the same type of personnel.
 
I re-watched as well. Pretty much what has been said. We absolutely have to figure something out with our front 7 on defense. I would move Parker back to DE and take Gilbert out. Gilbert is just too slight right now. He was consistently being blown up. Blown up. He is an ok player as a rush specialist, but can not be an every down DE. McCartney did ok. Not sure what to think of our DT's.

This game was all about momentum. This team is so young I had a feeling that any type of adversity they would fold up. They did. We've got to figure those two things out very quick.

I feel we need to figure out what we want to be on offense. I feel they want to be a power run team at times, a spread offense, then a run-n-shoot offense. Our passing tree was horrendous in this game. Barely anything to get our WR's run after catch. The curl routes are very predictable. Shay Fields is going to be a stud and we have to find different ways of getting him the ball. We have some playmakers on offense, but gotta find a way to get them in space. If we do that, we may see some spark in this offense. Also, I thought Sefo played a really good game. He was very accurate and took a beating. I'm done with the Nembot experiment. I'm guessing he will be on a short leash.

Ultimately, we have to find out what works and stick with it. Still a lot of football left. We will see what this staff can do from here on out. I see some potential on offense, but we absolutely have to find some physicality on defense.
 
I don't want to re-watch the game but seemed like Nembot did OK until we were forced to throw late? I think Sefo was only hit once in the first half?
 
BarackObama said:
The schemes had the players in position to make the tackles. However the linebackers were consistantly slow to fill the hole, made a bad read or missed the tackle...especially Olugbode and Creer but Gillam as well. If the defense is designed for the D-line to free up the linebackers to make a lot of tackles as the coaches have said, then I think the D-line did a decent job. The linebackers just did not make the tackles. The defensive backfield was fairly sound for a first game against a good quarterback, the problem in my opinion is linebacker.

I understand our linebackers are young and modern football requires quicker linebackers to deal with the spread offenses, but in this game would have been nice to have an old school (Beikert, Johnson, Russell) run stopping linebacker unit in there.

The coaching is fine, the schemes are fine, we are just young and inexperienced. I think this team will improve a lot as the season goes on.
Click to expand...

Please little baby Jesus in the stable let it be so.
 
Last edited:
patebuff said:
I re-watched as well. ... Also, I thought Sefo played a really good game. He was very accurate and took a beating. I'm done with the Nembot experiment. I'm guessing he will be on a short leash.
Click to expand...

89BUFF89 said:
...I think Sefo was only hit once in the first half?
Click to expand...

And in that hit it looked like Sefo took a helmet to helmet shot. He didn't jump right back up either. Go back and rewatch him before and after that event. He didn't seem to be the same QB to me from that point on. I wondered to myself if he had a mild concussion.

The other two glaring issues;
1. We had a three and out on the goal line if I am not mistaken with all three being attempts to run it in failing. That can cast a big shadow of doubt in a young teams mind.

2. The CSU offense opened holes big enough for a bus to be driven thru in the 2nd half. Suggesting we were tired and or outmanned.
 
BarackObama said:
The schemes had the players in position to make the tackles. However the linebackers were consistantly slow to fill the hole, made a bad read or missed the tackle...especially Olugbode and Creer but Gillam as well. If the defense is designed for the D-line to free up the linebackers to make a lot of tackles as the coaches have said, then I think the D-line did a decent job. The linebackers just did not make the tackles. The defensive backfield was fairly sound for a first game against a good quarterback, the problem in my opinion is linebacker.

I understand our linebackers are young and modern football requires quicker linebackers to deal with the spread offenses, but in this game would have been nice to have an old school (Beikert, Johnson, Russell) run stopping linebacker unit in there.

The coaching is fine, the schemes are fine, we are just young and inexperienced. I think this team will improve a lot as the season goes on.
Click to expand...

I just do not agree. I watched and the CSU RBs were 5 yards downfield before a defender was there. If that is the scheme then they need a new one. You failed to mention that CSU was just plain tougher then us - that is a big part of coaching - they took our best shot and did not flinch.
 
BlackNGold said:
I just do not agree. I watched and the CSU RBs were 5 yards downfield before a defender was there. If that is the scheme then they need a new one. You failed to mention that CSU was just plain tougher then us - that is a big part of coaching - they took our best shot and did not flinch.
Click to expand...

You watched or you watched it again? LBs just did not fill when the DTs stuffed the gap and the ends had no contain so the bounce back run was there all night


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Buffnik said:
Yeah. I appreciate that he took the time to re-watch that thing and give some analysis. I sure as hell can't find it within myself to want to do that.
Click to expand...

I replayed the first quarter last night. Then when the Buffs couldn't convert 1st and goal from inside the 5, I was like, oh hell no, I'm not putting self through this **** again.
 
The coaches are not fine and the scheme is not fine with the players do not have the knowledge or skill to execute the scheme. And guess what? That is on the coaches.

Water bottle & company tried to employ a power running attack when we couldn't command the LOS. We ran him out of town for it (that and the defense might have been even worse than the offense).

Again, not saying the coaches should be on the proverbial hot seat right now, but know your personnel well enough to know what scheme to run for maximum success.
 
'Tini said:
You watched or you watched it again? LBs just did not fill when the DTs stuffed the gap and the ends had no contain so the bounce back run was there all night


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I re-watched enough of it. Go back and look at last year...same thing - last year even Gilliam did not fill the gap and attack. Ask yourself why they don't fill the gap. They always wait for the play to come to them. When it happens over and over I don't think it is just a mental mistake. This is Kent Baer trademark.
 
Deleted it immediately after the game. Also deleted the planned recording of the condensed 60 minute replay on P12N tomorrow.

Focusing on Beating UMASS. Or getting wicked pissed!
 
[video]http://sports.yahoo.com/loop/ncaaf-201408290018-1052650011[/video]
 
Once was enough for me, the problems were pretty obvious. As it is, best thing for the team to do is learn from it and put it behind them. Easier said than done sometimes but very necessary.
 
The linebacking was bad. I noticed it during the game, as well as when I re-watched it. The OP got a lot of it right. Missed gaps, lack of gap integrity, too slow/hesitant, etc. This included Gillam. I mentioned front 7 as the problem from the get-go, as it's hard to know responsibilities, etc. without going over tape with a fine-toothed comb.
 
I tried to give it another watch, made it to the Spruce td and not much further. That was a nice throw and catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top