Electric chair, firing squad, lethal injection, hanging? Which is your preference?
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!
Embree on the QB situation, position changes etc.
- Thread starter Jens1893
- Start date
No matter what you might think, there is no version of the Spread offense that allows you to "pound" the ball. There are teams that run the ball out of the spread very effectively, but they do so with misdirection, alignment and *gasp* player groupings.
It takes very good athletes to be exceptional in a pro style offense, that I will grant you. But you can be very effective with a pro style offense just by being tougher than the other team. This, I guarantee, is the 1st goal of Embree, be tougher than the other guy.
You cannot do that running the spread.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
UrbanaBuff
Member
That's a bit extreme. Look at all the 1st round picks that come from spread programs. You think those guys aren't tough?
Illinois runs the read-option. They've led the Big Ten in rushing since '05, more than even the vaunted *gasp* Wisconsin stampede. This offense has also produced NFL backs Mendenhall and Pierre Thomas, and soon-to-be 1st or 2nd round pick Mikel Leshoure (1,500+ this season). Sure, that team is not great, but they run very well. And they most certainly pound, all of those backs are 220 lbs or more. They piled up 500+ yards rushing in the Wrigley Field game. When the QB is also a running threat, the D can't hone in on a tailback.
Illinois runs the read-option. They've led the Big Ten in rushing since '05, more than even the vaunted *gasp* Wisconsin stampede. This offense has also produced NFL backs Mendenhall and Pierre Thomas, and soon-to-be 1st or 2nd round pick Mikel Leshoure (1,500+ this season). Sure, that team is not great, but they run very well. And they most certainly pound, all of those backs are 220 lbs or more. They piled up 500+ yards rushing in the Wrigley Field game. When the QB is also a running threat, the D can't hone in on a tailback.
Deleted member 807
Guest
First off, good thread. The football geeks came out of the woodwork.
The thing about pro-style offenses is that they are built around franchise players who are getting payed millions and millions of dollars. As a result, there is a premium on keeping those franchise players playing for an extended period of time.
This is not the case in NCAAFB. In order for a dood to get his shot at the big time, he needs to go balls out. The college game is all about big risk, big reward. The playmakers will do ANYTHING for their shot at NFL glory. As a result, the college game doesn't have a bunch of agents telling teams about the need for blind side guards and tackels. QB's aren't skilled in the fine art of sliding to avoid the hit.
I like the college game better than the pro game because of the reckless abandon demonstrated by the players who are desperate to be one of the lucky 2 percent to play on Sunday.
If the college game were to translate in the NFL, then Radio VY, Graham Harrell, Taylor Potts, and Kliff Kingsbury would be wearing superbowl rings.
I'm hoping John Embree gets us back to the option that starts with some sick talent on the o-line, good downfield blocking, and some sick RB's who make defenders miss.
When I think Pro-Style, I think YAWN!
The thing about pro-style offenses is that they are built around franchise players who are getting payed millions and millions of dollars. As a result, there is a premium on keeping those franchise players playing for an extended period of time.
This is not the case in NCAAFB. In order for a dood to get his shot at the big time, he needs to go balls out. The college game is all about big risk, big reward. The playmakers will do ANYTHING for their shot at NFL glory. As a result, the college game doesn't have a bunch of agents telling teams about the need for blind side guards and tackels. QB's aren't skilled in the fine art of sliding to avoid the hit.
I like the college game better than the pro game because of the reckless abandon demonstrated by the players who are desperate to be one of the lucky 2 percent to play on Sunday.
If the college game were to translate in the NFL, then Radio VY, Graham Harrell, Taylor Potts, and Kliff Kingsbury would be wearing superbowl rings.
I'm hoping John Embree gets us back to the option that starts with some sick talent on the o-line, good downfield blocking, and some sick RB's who make defenders miss.
When I think Pro-Style, I think YAWN!
I was wondering if you were ****ing with us. Calling abs stubborn when it was you that would not budge from a position refuted by every other poster in this thread gave me an inkling that you just might be screwing with us to get a reaction. But this gem about aspiring to be Mizzou? Well played, sir. You had me going.
UrbanaBuff
Member
So since I'm standing alone, I should just lay down and participate in the group-think? That would be far worse, my friend.
About Mizzou, rattling off 9-10 wins seasons would be a step in the right direction for us, would it not?
About Mizzou, rattling off 9-10 wins seasons would be a step in the right direction for us, would it not?
Last edited:
I never stated that individuals on that team were not tough....I am talking about an overall mentality of a team. Being very productive running the ball does not mean that you are pounding the ball. Spread offenses are productive by creating advantages via angles and mismatches....it IS very effective at producing yards if you have coaches that know what they're doing.
If you are productive running the ball every year out a two back, pro style offense, it is typically because you line guys up week in and week out, and knock the other teams dick in the dirt. Teams will legitimately NOT want to play you because they will know what they are in for. This is what Colorado Football has done when we were good.
Two very different team mentalities between the two offenses. If you don't understand what I am talking about, I cannot help you any further.
Last edited:
Oregon beat Stanford. End of discussion. :lol:
Look - I'm not anti-spread (even though, contrary to what you say, it is foreign to CU's tradition). He'll, I wanted to give holgorsen a look. At the same time, I am not going to criticize je for not bringing the spread.
Look - I'm not anti-spread (even though, contrary to what you say, it is foreign to CU's tradition). He'll, I wanted to give holgorsen a look. At the same time, I am not going to criticize je for not bringing the spread.
lots of football stupidity in this thread.
Nor am I advocating one over the other....they both have their advantages. No one can legitimately make a claim that one is better than the other. That said, there are distinct differences between the two, and it is important to choose an offense that reflects the personality that you want your team to embody.
damb strate
****ing football snob.
Darian3Hagan
'89 Player of the Year
They could run the run n shoot or the robust I don't care I just want to win.
UrbanaBuff
Member
well, maybe you should know more about wtf you are talking about.
UrbanaBuff
Member
Last edited:
UrbanaBuff
Member
Guess this is the problem with a board that only has 15-20 regular posters and participates in group tailgates before games. Cronyism reigns supreme. God-forbid you stray from the company line or challenge "made men" with high post counts. You will be drawn and quartered. And anyone who MAY agree with you keeps quiet, at the risk of being associated with the vilified. There has to be other CU boards with more/better activity than this, right? Right??
**** you, **** you, **** you, you're cool, **** you, I'm out...
**** you, **** you, **** you, you're cool, **** you, I'm out...
Dude... you literally didn't know the difference between boise's offense and the wishbone. And you were discussing football with football geeks. You might as well put a sign on your back saying "kick me" and walk around your junior high.
And if you know anything about this board, it is that most of the people with high post counts spend most of their time disagreeing with one another and giving each other ****. Sure, sacky makes a great jambalaya, but he knows **** all about what makes a woman attractive. He's a ****ing moron about it in fact.
Here is some advice for you. Step 1: Learn some basic facts about football. Step 2: Stop being such a pussy. You are not the first one to argue with half the board. Step 3: Tell Sacky that Lucy Pinder is not that hot.
Last edited:
I'm new to the board as well. You took a beat down on this particular topic, so now you're going to take your ball and go home? Suck it up.
To all you "made men" posters, I intend to be wrong a lot, early, and often!
Wrong on so many levels.
Step 4: Tell Sacky you meant LUCY Pinder...you know, the fat one.
rodrigo
Well-Known Member
There is a junta involved...
Seriously, though, there are a few sycophants. But that still doesn't make you right. Better to brush it off, admit you f'd up and move on.
:smile2:
ahhh right. Sorry, I can't remember the names of all the overweight women I see.