First you cite improved health then you say this is the same team? Not only were we decimated health wise, but we were also really, really young. This won't be even close to the "same team."
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!
Hawk Not Backing Off His 10 Win Goal
- Thread starter Daaah
- Start date
You won't get much of an argument from me. You are factually correct. What you're leaving out is that CU came within a missed 57 yard miracle field goal of a bowl bid, and played 2/3 of the season with what amounted to 2nd and 3rd string players.
The Missouri loss still pisses me off. That game was lost in the gameplan, not the execution thereof. Those players never had a chance. Not that CU would have won the game had they approached it differently, but it could have been much closer. The way other teams exposed Missouri over the rest of the season illustrated that.
issed3:CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
You won't get much of an argument from me. You are factually correct. What you're leaving out is that CU came within a missed 57 yard miracle field goal of a bowl bid, and played 2/3 of the season with what amounted to 2nd and 3rd string players.
The Missouri loss still pisses me off. That game was lost in the gameplan, not the execution thereof. Those players never had a chance. Not that CU would have won the game had they approached it differently, but it could have been much closer. The way other teams exposed Missouri over the rest of the season illustrated that.
Injuries definitely played a role, but they are a part of life for every program in college football. It showed this team needs to get deeper if it wants to survive and be consistent in Big 12 play. Another round of bad luck on the injury front and I am not sure where this years team ends up. I need to see kids stay on the field and be improved.
Injuries are part of the game, for sure. But even Hawk said that in all of his years in football he'd never seen anything close to what we had last year. Yeah, you want to have depth. But when you are as young as we were, you don't have experienced depth. But our depth and help are going to improve dramatically this year.
Actually last year was statistically the worst year in the entire history of over 100 years of Colorado football with respect to starts and 2-deep players lost to injury. Check with David Plati if you don't believe me. This wasn't the normal injury issues that all programs deal with. Colorado was literally decimated by injuries last year.
77buff
Well-Known Member
This all goes back to recruiting, and when you have mediocre recruiting classes - this is the result. Except for the 2008 class, Hawkins isn't competing with the big dogs. Everybody seems to forget that in Mac's gravy years, his recruiting classes were very highly ranked. The same people that year after year say oh recruiting rankings don't mean anything, don't know what in the hell they are talking about. One thing you can give alot of credit to Hawkins is that he is keeping the best instate prospects in his program. He's got to start winning some freakin games before blue chip out of staters listen to him. This is his year to prove himself, I wish him all the luck in the world.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Umm, would you like a list of CU's recruits the last 3 years and who they picked CU over? I think you are sadly mistaken that CU is not recruting well. Hawk is doing an outstanding job at recruiting the last 3 years.
He's getting a few very good players. He's not pulling in the kinds of classes that lead to long term success - yet. We're getting Nick Kasa and Ed Nuckols, meanwhile other schools are getting 5 or 6 guys just like them. We're recruiting talent, but we're a long way from recruiting depth.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
I still think we're getting solid players, a far cry from what 77 is making them out to be. And I disagree about the long term success, I think we are doing a good job of recruiting.
Last edited:
77buff
Well-Known Member
I said he was keeping the best instate players in his program, and also said he had a very good class in 2008. The fact that he recruits a few blue chips players, doesn't put you on the same field with a program that has a stockpile of them - like a Texas, OU. Why in the hell does OU win so many Big 12 Championships - they got better recruits. I didn't say we didn't have any good players - we just don't have enough of them.
Well said.
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
I agree with 77. CU's 2009 class was ranked behind the recruiting classes of Utah, TCU, and BYU in the Mountain West and that was with Kasa's last second change of heart to stay closer to home. That is not depth that will consistently compete with the elites of the Big 12 on an annual basis.
Last edited:
Although the 2009 class wasn't ranked very high, it is mainly because we took so few players. I like each player a lot, yes we could have done better, but it's not like we had a horrible class. Utah took six more players then we did, and were only ranked 4 spots higher. Hawk did well with what he had to work with IMO (small amount of scholarships).
BYU was ranked 2 spots below us CC.
Anyone who is talking negatively about Hawk's recruiting isn't paying attention. Remember Barney, the guy who said he wouldn't recruit blue-chippers because we wouldn't get them anyway We were not even in contention for any 4*'s or 5*'s at all. Hawk has vastly improved our recruiting, regardless of what these rankings say
BYU was ranked 2 spots below us CC.
Anyone who is talking negatively about Hawk's recruiting isn't paying attention. Remember Barney, the guy who said he wouldn't recruit blue-chippers because we wouldn't get them anyway
We were not even in contention for any 4*'s or 5*'s at all. Hawk has vastly improved our recruiting, regardless of what these rankings say
Last edited:
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
What was the average star rating compared to those schools? And how did we fare on average star ratings with the Big 12? I know we had to come in mid pack, but the total rankings had to due to total star numbers, which is boosted when schools take 25-30 kids (or 39 like Bama did-- or was it MSU?) and was not based on average star rating.
I'll let the recruiting gurus figure that one out as they know where to go to get the info.:thumbsup:
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
BYU recruited 22 Kids - Star Rating of 2.77
TCU recrutied 20 Kids - Star Rating of 2.65
Utah recruited 23 Kids - Star Rating of 2.56 (1 *****)
CU recruited 19 Kids - Star Rating of 2.63 (1 *****)
They are essentially the same classes if you buy into the recruiting gurus.
In the Big 12 the top class went to Texas
Texas recruited 20 kids - Star Rating of 3.75 (4 *****; 6 Top 100)
Last edited:
THey had a similar average ranking...but after taking a quick look at Utah's commit list, I found something interesting. Not one of their 8 2*'s had a BCS offer unless you count Duke. A lot of their 3*'s had no BCS offers. Compared to ours... all of our 2*'s had multiple BCS offers except for Olatoye, Thornton, and West (who had unconfirmed high BCS offers). All of the rest of our commits had multiple BCS offers except for Orms and Nobriga. Look at the offers. According to the offer lists, our ranking should be superior to Utah (the only school I compared us to).
CC- use rivals, it's much more reliable IMO. Utah and BYU's star rankings are inflated because they took multiple JUCO's and they get 3*'s automatically. Utah took 7 JUCO's, CU took 1.
Last edited:
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
I would agree - looking at the numbers and the offers - you would have to rank Utah's class behind CU. Those numbers are inflated. Even so, I still think BYU's and TCU's classes look better. Can someone explain to me how TCU got QB Casey Pachall to commit over Nebraska, Florida, Michigan, and ND? That conference is going to have an automatic bid in the BCS soon.
I am also going to say this now....watch Mike Locksley at New Mexico in the coming years. That guy could flat recruit when he was an offensive coordinator and recruiting coordinator with Zook at Illinois. 2009 was the first season under Zook and Co. that Illinois had a recruiting class outside of the Top 25, and it is no suprise that it happened the year Locksley left the Illini program.
Last edited:
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Our recruiting has been pitiful actually, we will be lucky to beat the lambs in 2 years.
buffsyko
Club Member
Damn, would you quit being so negative....
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
doooooooooooooooooooooom!!~
77buff
Well-Known Member
Jesus, lighten up - nobody said it was pitiful. Except for 2008 there is much to be desired. but you can't attract really good players on a consistent basis with a losing record. Hopefully, this will all change this year - it better for Hawkins sake. He's keeping the top in state players that's a big improvement from GB.
Last edited:
CsquaredCC
Well-Known Member
Fairchild has the CSU program showing actual signs of life again, but he is a long ways off from replenishing the talent to the levels of the late 90's and early 2000's.