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!
Arizona 59 - #18 Oklahoma State 38
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
Coaching matters. UofA, ASU, UCLA all soar. Arkansas crashes and burns.
And CU? Our wreckage is still rolling down the mountainside.
And 2 of them are replacing early draft picks at QB.
Most knew UCLA had talent, they just played with no heart under neweasel. That certainly wasn't the case last night. Most of the experts had UofA and ASU as being low on returning talent.
Embo isn't losing to established programs in year two. He isn't even losing to D1 teams. Csu, for all intents and purposes, is a D1aa team. They got beat by 2 TD's, at home by a D1aa team. Don't forget, McElwain had a spring and fall camp with his kids, whereas Embo has had twice as much time. McElwain's kids are not as taleneted, and they came out and whipped CU. The next week, a D1aa team comes to Folsom, with a former walk on QB, a new OC and on the heels of losing to one of the worst D1 teams in the land by 30, and look like world beaters. It's coaching. I have seen all I need to see.
Arizona's turnaround just shows what coaching can do.
SJBuff
Club Member
Agreed. And talent wise we are not as far behind those teams as our onfield performance indicates. We have slightly below average talent but really ****** coaches that produce uninspired play so we look beyond terrible. With good coaching our team could have (should have) gone bowling this year.
The more success ASU,UCLA,and Zona have this year the hotter embree's seat will get. Zona was with us at the bottom last year. If they go bowling this year, then there shouldn't even be a discussion about our HC. I like most love Embo, love that he has brought the traditions back, he has brought back the pride in the university, but he and his staff are not getting it done on the field.
That went out the window yesterday.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Uhh, there is no pride when you start a season with losses to CSU and Sac State
UA looked good, but Okie State took the pedal off, too. By the time they realized they weren't playing Savannah State anymore and they weren't going to coast to a win, they couldn't catch up.
Not really trying to downplay their win, but I don't know if that game goes down that way if it was later in the season.
Not really trying to downplay their win, but I don't know if that game goes down that way if it was later in the season.
Coaching matters on many levels, no disagreement here.
But in another thread I suggested that on-field leadership matters too.
UCLA returned a bunch of seniors. It's tough to adjust to a first-year coach, but it's easier when you have more seniors than any other class on both sides of the ball.
Arizona is a little trickier. They have some several returning senior starters on offence, but not so much on defense (based on almost 6 minutes of internet research). But they are certainly more seasoned than our CU team. But I wonder why Rich Rod couldn't get it done at Michigan, and is enjoying success at Arizona. Doesn't that fly a little in the face of the "coaching matters" argument? Maybe it's a little more circumstantial?
Look, our entire problem could be coaching, I'm not sure. I'm saying there may be other factors that are more relevant.
But in another thread I suggested that on-field leadership matters too.
UCLA returned a bunch of seniors. It's tough to adjust to a first-year coach, but it's easier when you have more seniors than any other class on both sides of the ball.
Arizona is a little trickier. They have some several returning senior starters on offence, but not so much on defense (based on almost 6 minutes of internet research). But they are certainly more seasoned than our CU team. But I wonder why Rich Rod couldn't get it done at Michigan, and is enjoying success at Arizona. Doesn't that fly a little in the face of the "coaching matters" argument? Maybe it's a little more circumstantial?
Look, our entire problem could be coaching, I'm not sure. I'm saying there may be other factors that are more relevant.
L Buff
Commissar of the Albuffs Collective Left
Rich Rod was never a "good fit" at UM. His version of the spread, besides not having the kind of talent he needed to properly run it, was never going to enamor itself to Michigan fans, who like a more midwestern "strong running game, with some out pattern passing mixed in with occassional downfield passing" kind of offense. And DEFENSE ... lots and lots of defense (what I'd alike to see at CU BTW ... that combination of O and D led to our success in 2001-2002). I've never seen a worse Michigan defense as I saw in RR's last year. Then Hoke comes in and suddenly the defense is the most improved in the nation.
But even though RR's first two seasons were an utter failure (3-9 and 5-7) with UM missing bowl games for the first time since 1974, even Michigan with its tradition of winning still gave him a third year, in which he finished 7-6. He was fired after that, because that wasn't good enough ... and UM went out and got the man who fits much better into their philosophy. It doesn't mean that RR is a bad coach .. he obviously is a good one ... but there has to be a fit.
So we agree?