I agree somewhat, but the offensive production as far as points still has a ways to go:
A&M-35
ISU-10
Okie Lite-21
NU-20 (with 6 coming on the last play of the game)
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!
Get ready for Pass Happy buffs next year
- Thread starter Darth Snow
- Start date
I agree somewhat, but the offensive production as far as points still has a ways to go:
A&M-35
ISU-10
Okie Lite-21
NU-20 (with 6 coming on the last play of the game)
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
ya points, you are right, but offense did get better. I am still ****ting bricks at the thought of Riddle back, scarry!!!:sad2:
ya points, you are right, but offense did get better. I am still ****ting bricks at the thought of Riddle back, scarry!!!:sad2:
No doubt.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Don't get me wrong, I'm not minimizing the TE's - I just didn't feel like they were utilized like they could have been.
And since every tight end but Deehan won't be on the team next year, I certainly wouldn't expect them to be used next year.
White_Rabbit
Well-Known Member
agreed. I'd like to see some Oregon offense sprinkled in too. Just less designed runs by Hansen because he isn't built like Masoli.
I didn't mean this to be puffery. I guess anything positive these days comes off as puffery. Given teh Production of our passing game the last 3d of the season, there is some cause for optimism. The problems, as Keisau pointed out in that article, were mistakes in the red zone/penalties/stupid turnovers We had 400 yards of offense against NU yet only had 14 points until the time ran out.
I am just saying that the foundation is THERE for this offense, and it is pass happy, ala McCoy Texas.
Now, will the coaches exploit that returning talent and use the foundation/. History says no... But I can at least hope we will be more competent then we have been.
I am just saying that the foundation is THERE for this offense, and it is pass happy, ala McCoy Texas.
Now, will the coaches exploit that returning talent and use the foundation/. History says no... But I can at least hope we will be more competent then we have been.
Puffer.:smile2:
Highflyer
Club Member
I agree with this. :lol:
BlackNGold
Club Member
I can see them passing more with the talent at WR and I think that is okay. Tyler has to improve a lot as a QB. You still won't be a successful offense until you can effectively run the ball. Look at TT, they throw the ball all day and win some games but when you hit the big time it does not always work.
Razorbuff
Member
That offense works for UT because of one reason...speed. I don't see that speed in anybody in the WR group from this past season except Simmons. The transfer from Michigan, Clemons, might be a burner as well. Simas is a good player but he is more of a possession guy, same with McKnight. That offense takes alot of time and precision and depends on receivers to make the catch, break a tackle or juke a guy, and then gut downfield in a hurry. I just don't think CU has the type of athletes right now at receiver.
Deleted member 807
Guest
:smokin:
Given that this staff has shown a strong inclination to want to air things out, run out of spread formations, scrap the fullback position, and use the TE more of a roving H-back type that can split out wide...
- My belief is stronger that they'll follow through with it
- We actually have enough WRs to make it work (7-9 [depending on Celestine and Babb] with D1 receptions going into 2010 versus 1 guy going into 2009)
- This offense gives Hansen, Speedy and B-Lock room to move around and make plays
- The offense also plays into the athleticism of Deehan and Thornton, which is an upgrade over the senior TEs we had in 2009 that should counter the loss in experience (although it could be argued that Deehan will be as experienced as a junior as any of our guys were as seniors this season)
- My belief is stronger that they'll follow through with it
- We actually have enough WRs to make it work (7-9 [depending on Celestine and Babb] with D1 receptions going into 2010 versus 1 guy going into 2009)
- This offense gives Hansen, Speedy and B-Lock room to move around and make plays
- The offense also plays into the athleticism of Deehan and Thornton, which is an upgrade over the senior TEs we had in 2009 that should counter the loss in experience (although it could be argued that Deehan will be as experienced as a junior as any of our guys were as seniors this season)
i can agree with most of this.
ThndringHerd
Well-Known Member
That will never work unless we throw in enough 5-yd curl routes.
I agree with this.
However, there's still a part of me that thinks they're saying this because they're tired of having to answer why they went away from the run when the get down early in the game. Now they can just say "we told ya we were going to be pass wacky"
To start with absolutely no offense works if the O-line is not functioning. I have no doubt that we have the talent to have a quality O-line, I do question the coaching. That said if you look at schools that have highly effective offenses they normally don't play O-linemen until they are at least juniors. Simply off experience and maturity our O-line should improve next year, I am hoping for major gains.
I do also hold out huge hopes for the development of our WR corps next year. We know what we have in Scotty and that is a good start, Simas showed in the second half of the season that he could consistently get open and catch the ball. Will Jeff played well for a true Frosh. The redshirts are by all reports highly talented as well and with the experienced guys on the field they will have the ability to develop without as much pressure as they might have had they played this year.
Big differences could be Simmons who is a very gifted athlete but for some reason didn't fit in last year. If he makes a step up he could be a difference maker. Reportedly Tony Clemons is the most gifted reciever we have and is ready to be the playmaker we have lacked.
Last years biggest problem at reciever wasn't at reciever but at QB. Hawk's insistence on playing half the season with Cody meant that the field was compressed. Cody does not have the arm to throw even a lot of medium routes much less deep routes without having clear lanes to throw in and room to step into his throws. Defenses last season knew this and jumped up on the short routes not fearing anything deep. The absence of Simmons and Clemmons not being eligible also meant that the recievers we were playing did not pose much of a threat of breaking big plays further bringing up the defenses. This also made it much harder to run the ball.
I am a fan and in fans hope springs eternal (even if Hawk is still the coach in charge) but I do honestly see the O-line improving, a major step up in at least the abilities of our WRs, and with Cody as a back-up, Hansens better arm and mobility extending plays allowing us to run more deep plays.
I do also hold out huge hopes for the development of our WR corps next year. We know what we have in Scotty and that is a good start, Simas showed in the second half of the season that he could consistently get open and catch the ball. Will Jeff played well for a true Frosh. The redshirts are by all reports highly talented as well and with the experienced guys on the field they will have the ability to develop without as much pressure as they might have had they played this year.
Big differences could be Simmons who is a very gifted athlete but for some reason didn't fit in last year. If he makes a step up he could be a difference maker. Reportedly Tony Clemons is the most gifted reciever we have and is ready to be the playmaker we have lacked.
Last years biggest problem at reciever wasn't at reciever but at QB. Hawk's insistence on playing half the season with Cody meant that the field was compressed. Cody does not have the arm to throw even a lot of medium routes much less deep routes without having clear lanes to throw in and room to step into his throws. Defenses last season knew this and jumped up on the short routes not fearing anything deep. The absence of Simmons and Clemmons not being eligible also meant that the recievers we were playing did not pose much of a threat of breaking big plays further bringing up the defenses. This also made it much harder to run the ball.
I am a fan and in fans hope springs eternal (even if Hawk is still the coach in charge) but I do honestly see the O-line improving, a major step up in at least the abilities of our WRs, and with Cody as a back-up, Hansens better arm and mobility extending plays allowing us to run more deep plays.
So, why do you think that was? I believe there is a good reason.
I hear Thornton is a beast. We shall see.