Given the results yesterday, should CU try to build an Oregon type team built around speed or an OSU type team built around power. Of course, OSU seems to have a bit of both.
But you get my drift.
unless someone starts playing football with rifles, I don't think you need to worry about the last part.Finding a niche in the Pac12 that gets us the best athletes might put us in the "power" category, along with the trees.
Buffaloes are both, though - they are obviously powerful, can run as fast as a horse, and have great endurance. Of course, they nearly became extinct, so, there's that.
Both, like OSU.
Ohio State is a decent model for CU. The thing that we can consistently get in-state is OLs. So we need CU to start the blueprint there. When CU has won, it's been because it was a physical running team. Whether it's the Anderson days or the Hagan days or the Salaam days or the Brown/Purify days. Whenever CU has shifted focus to being a passing team it has failed. McCartney failed that way. Neuheisel failed here that way. Barnett had his struggles when he focused on QB. Hawkins put the focus there and it was a disaster.
On this note, I actually believe that Embree had the right idea of creating an identity as a physical running team.
I've made no secret of the fact that I like Lindgren a lot as our OC, but I worry that the comment he made about his ideal offense being 60% runs is not something we'll ever see in practice.
Ohio is a state that produces a ton of good football players - Ohio ranks 5th in producing college football players. OSU over the past 4 years had classes ranked 11, 4, 2, 3 on rivals. I do not think you can compare OSU with Colorado on any level.
McCartney did not focus on the passing game but knew the triple option was going away for many reasons and needed to evolve so he converted to the pro set - McCartney always believed in a strong running game and the team was successful after we went to the pro set.
No matter what you chose to run as a formation you better recruit the talent to do it.
It's always been that way for the most part. Blowhio St. looked just as fast, if not faster. The physicality was no question. I'd prefer the Blowhio St. model but ur right, not a ton of those big, fast guys.Seems to me that the best way to beat the finesse teams is to punch 'em in the mouf. We need big, physical lineman and linebackers. Of course, the reason programs go with the lighter, quicker athletes is because the big, strong, fast guys are a rare bunch.
It's always been that way for the most part. Blowhio St. looked just as fast, if not faster. The physicality was no question. I'd prefer the Blowhio St. model but ur right, not a ton of those big, fast guys.
Overall, I'd probably go with that. Blowhio St. Has several guys that can run with them. I get what you are saying tho. Elliot gets downhill, not much doubt about that.Oregon was faster than Ohio State. It didn't look that way because people are faster when running forwards instead of backwards.
I used to have this impression, and I've backed away from it the last several years. I think Colorado produces more *highly rated* offensive lineman than any other position, but alot of these OLs fail to live up to expectations wherever they go. I just think it has to do with the quality of HS line play/competition in Colorado, that the premium OLs never face the type of DLs and DTs in CO HS that they face day one at a P5 school, and must develop a "mean streak" in college. That being said, this year's class was IMO the best in a while, and Lynott may be the best in-state OL prospect since Ryan Miller.1) CU is based in a state that consistently produces excellent offensive linemen, so that should be the foundation of the CU football formula.
Oregon was faster than Ohio State. It didn't look that way because people are faster when running forwards instead of backwards.