Here you go boys and girls... Paul Johnson's System.

[Junction]

what exactly do you suppose their point is? that they want another umbrella drink?

Gee, I think maybe the mystery of our point can be unlocked by reading what we said. That there are some things about the playcalling and the way this offense has been introduced that appear to us to be less than optimal, and that the existing coaches should be encouraged to correct.

But maybe we're all really just encouraging mass firings, program-wide anarchy, blood in the streets and flaming heads of doom instead. I mean, clearly nobody could ever question a coach without having a secret agenda like that, could they??

 

[buffwings]

You don't recall very well at all. I think Hawk deserves to be here through the 2010 season. I think we will have a good idea of whether he will ultimately be a success next year though.

It is a message board. People share their thoughts. I know it is shocking that people wouldn't be happy after a 5-7 season, but it happens. People like to talk football on this board. Talking about the team lacking an offensive identity seems like something worthwhile discussing, but apparently you disagree. Instead of adding anything meaningful to the thread (besides a one or two sentence post mentioning injuries), however, you choose to rip on other posters. Good work!

:yeahthat:

Keep it coming Jimmy and Buff30, apparently we arent allowed to think the program is NOT heading the right direction with the current staff. Only pumpers are allowed to voice their opinion, and all NegaBuffs must leave.:thumbsup:

opcorn: I'm enjoying this.

 

[Duff Man]

clearly i did not recall very well. that was why i asked the question. i found myself in the predicament where i realized i did not hang on your every word. so, you feel that hawk is here for two years, and others should get the axe - one in particular right away. is that right?

sounds like my conclusion was not far off. "here y'all go on about the coaching again" as if it is a unidimensional issue.

knock yourselves out. you are free to discuss whatever you want. others are free to disagree. that is how a message board works.

so glad we could figure out the format of how it works. :thumbsup:

I think Riddle should be fired. I have said Helfrich deserves at least one more year. So your conclusion is flawed. It is okay, you can admit when you are wrong every once in a while. I know it is tough, but it might do you some good.

You don't seem intent on having in-depth football discussions, so maybe you should pick and choose your moments.

 

[Duff Man]

Gee, I think maybe the mystery of our point can be unlocked by reading what we said. That there are some things about the playcalling and the way this offense has been introduced that appear to us to be less than optimal, and that the existing coaches should be encouraged to correct.

But maybe we're all really just encouraging mass firings, program-wide anarchy, blood in the streets and flaming heads of doom instead. I mean, clearly nobody could ever question a coach without having a secret agenda like that, could they??

If I recall, that is exactly what many have proposed in this thread.

 

[ladyblaise]

Gee, I think maybe the mystery of our point can be unlocked by reading what we said. That there are some things about the playcalling and the way this offense has been introduced that appear to us to be less than optimal, and that the existing coaches should be encouraged to correct.

But maybe we're all really just encouraging mass firings, program-wide anarchy, blood in the streets and flaming heads of doom instead. I mean, clearly nobody could ever question a coach without having a secret agenda like that, could they??

gee. i thought it was pointed out succinctly in this thread that perhaps the coaching staff might look a little more optimal when their kids are healthy. it looks at times as if the offense is picking up on some stuff that we have not seen before. i believe you referenced that?

as for the other, are you denying that there have been calls for coaching changes here? do i need to spend some time quoting for you? i like to be a super helper.

 

[ladyblaise]

I think Riddle should be fired. I have said Helfrich deserves at least one more year. So your conclusion is flawed. It is okay, you can admit when you are wrong every once in a while. I know it is tough, but it might do you some good.

You don't seem intent on having in-depth football discussions, so maybe you should pick and choose your moments.

what conclusion do you think i came to exactly? if you are talking about the coaches again as if it a one-dimensional issue (check) i have come to the right conclusion. simple as that.

of course, your response would seem to indicate you have another idea of what i am saying. that's cool. that is what discussion is about (the very discussion you are saying you want to have. so discuss it).

it would seem, that you are more intent on a dramatic response yourself. maybe you should restrict yourself? or join in the discussion. bunching up panties because i do not see eye to eye with you does not make sense.

 

[Junction]

I have never called for Dan to be relieved of the head coach position. I believe he can be a very successful coach at Colorado. When you look at the success Georgia Tech had with a completely new system with players that probably didn't even know what the option was, then someone was doing something right. Particularly when their starting offensive line included 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 2 freshmen for the last 3 games of the season. The excuse that the Colorado offensive line was the problem does not hold water.

What Dan needs to do is open his eyes to what the offense has done the past 3 years and INSIST on an offense that runs the ball with authority, passes the ball all over the field, scores points and holds onto the ball with a lead and the clock running down to win games. The offense has been a complete shambles regardless of the offensive line situation. It isn't a shambles because of the offensive line situation. Look at Georgia Tech with 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and 2 freshmen linemen starting in their last 3 games, 2of which they run for more than 400 yards. That's not pure luck.

The Colorado offense really does look like a random assortment of plays drawn up in the dirt. The overall scheme, play design, game plan, in game adjustments, and play calling sequence has been poor with the exception of a small handful of games over 37 games and 3 seasons. This season has been particularly bad and it is not entirely the fault of offensive line problems.

If Dan won't make any changes in the coaching staff he had better insist that the offensive coaches come up with something that works.

Keep bringing it buffalo30.. Other than Miller, most of the OL that were hurt didn't have any playing experience to begin with and you, me or the apologists can't be 100% sure they would have been so much better than the ones that played.

I'm not completely against running the spread scheme, but its painfully obvious to me the playcalling is crap.. Just for an example, the two QB draws run by Little Hawk in the 4th quarter back to back with the lead in the 4th.

Mark Hellaf$#k should be going.. Its not at the Okruch level, but its getting awfully close to it..

:yeahthat:

Keep it coming Jimmy and Buff30, apparently we arent allowed to think the program is NOT heading the right direction with the current staff. Only pumpers are allowed to voice their opinion, and all NegaBuffs must leave.:thumbsup:

opcorn: I'm enjoying this.

Funny, I don't see where 30 and Jimmy are saying that. 30 seems to be saying quite the opposite, in fact. Just because some people are questioning some things, don't think they've enlisted on your crusade against anything involved with the program as is....

Go ahead and neg rep me and tell me to shut up again now. Thanks to Matt, I'll know it was you even if you don't sign it again... :lol:

 

[Duff Man]

what conclusion do you think i came to exactly? if you are talking about the coaches again as if it a one-dimensional issue (check) i have come to the right conclusion. simple as that.

of course, your response would seem to indicate you have another idea of what i am saying. that's cool. that is what discussion is about (the very discussion you are saying you want to have. so discuss it).

it would seem, that you are more intent on a dramatic response yourself. maybe you should restrict yourself? or join in the discussion. bunching up panties because i do not see eye to eye with you does not make sense.

Do you ever contemplate typing a succinct response or do you intentionally just type a bunch of words in hopes that no one will call you out?

I am not being dramatic. Just would be nice for you to stop misrepresenting my views and the views of others in this thread. A "they were injured" response to 30's original post is frankly pretty lacking.

 

[Junction]

gee. i thought it was pointed out succinctly in this thread that perhaps the coaching staff might look a little more optimal when their kids are healthy. it looks at times as if the offense is picking up on some stuff that we have not seen before. i believe you referenced that?

as for the other, are you denying that there have been calls for coaching changes here? do i need to spend some time quoting for you? i like to be a super helper.

If you want to quote, why don't you start with MY posts saying exactly the same thing you seem to want a gold star for saying - that things would look different without injuries? There's a million of them out there. Feel free to look. However, it is possible to call plays inappropriately, even with injured players. I know, hard to believe, but it really is possible...

I don't deny there have been calls for coaching changes here. I believe I admitted as much previously. I also pointed out that those calls were not coming in this thread or from the people involved in this discussion, which did not prevent you from proclaiming that the intent of the posts contained therein.

Flat out, as Liver, BB and I have now ALL told you - you were (GASP!!!) incorrect in that statement. If you want to continue to argue that point, it is only because you would prefer to brand us all liars than admit you (GASP!!!!) ****ed up. I would deem that response quite unacceptable, as you clearly would if the tables were turned...

Now, if we could proceed with the discussion of football, that might be quite nice... :huh:

 

[ladyblaise]

Funny, I don't see where 30 and Jimmy are saying that. 30 seems to be saying quite the opposite, in fact. Just because some people are questioning some things, don't think they've enlisted on your crusade against anything involved with the program as is....

Go ahead and neg rep me and tell me to shut up again now. Thanks to Matt, I'll know it was you even if you don't sign it again... :lol:

Gee, I think maybe the mystery of our point can be unlocked by reading what we said. That there are some things about the playcalling and the way this offense has been introduced that appear to us to be less than optimal, and that the existing coaches should be encouraged to correct.

But maybe we're all really just encouraging mass firings, program-wide anarchy, blood in the streets and flaming heads of doom instead. I mean, clearly nobody could ever question a coach without having a secret agenda like that, could they??

dude, i have read what people said. i think the secret to unlocking some of this mess is a flowchart for enemy lines that have been drawn while i was away from allbuffs.

i think it fair to say that there HAVE been the pitchfork crew running wild on allbuffs.

i DISAGREE that our problem is ONLY coaching. maybe it is, but i do not have the benefit of a clear opinion without the muddle of inexperience and injury. some calls did not make sense. did they not make sense because our coaches suck? or is it bc we are trying to establish an offense without the personnel to make it happen? i think we should know next year.

i advise caution against rash decisions. i do mock the pitchfork group, and i am interested in hearing out anyone who thinks our coaches are teh suxors (except special teams - that is obvious) why they think they can assess that given what we have to judge by.

 

[ladyblaise]

Do you ever contemplate typing a succinct response or do you intentionally just type a bunch of words in hopes that no one will call you out?

I am not being dramatic. Just would be nice for you to stop misrepresenting my views and the views of others in this thread. A "they were injured" response to 30's original post is frankly pretty lacking.

that is rather dramatic in itself.

still, why do you find it to be lacking? i find it to be a component that cannot be written off.

 

[Junction]

dude, i have read what people said. i think the secret to unlocking some of this mess is a flowchart for enemy lines that have been drawn while i was away from allbuffs.

i think it fair to say that there HAVE been the pitchfork crew running wild on allbuffs.

i DISAGREE that our problem is ONLY coaching. maybe it is, but i do not have the benefit of a clear opinion without the muddle of inexperience and injury. some calls did not make sense. did they not make sense because our coaches suck? or is it bc we are trying to establish an offense without the personnel to make it happen? i think we should know next year.

i advise caution against rash decisions. i do mock the pitchfork group, and i am interested in hearing out anyone who thinks our coaches are teh suxors (except special teams - that is obvious) why they think they can assess that given what we have to judge by.

I disagree that the problem is ONLY coaching too. So do all but a fringe minority around here. Nothing in this thread said the problem was ONLY coaching. But you had to start an argument by assuming that's what everybody meant. You were wrong. That's what the last two pages have been trying to explain to you.

If you want to mock the pitchforkers, learn who they are before you start...

 

[ladyblaise]

If you want to quote, why don't you start with MY posts saying exactly the same thing you seem to want a gold star for saying - that things would look different without injuries? There's a million of them out there. Feel free to look. However, it is possible to call plays inappropriately, even with injured players. I know, hard to believe, but it really is possible...

I don't deny there have been calls for coaching changes here. I believe I admitted as much previously. I also pointed out that those calls were not coming in this thread or from the people involved in this discussion, which did not prevent you from proclaiming that the intent of the posts contained therein.

Flat out, as Liver, BB and I have now ALL told you - you were (GASP!!!) incorrect in that statement. If you want to continue to argue that point, it is only because you would prefer to brand us all liars than admit you (GASP!!!!) ****ed up. I would deem that response quite unacceptable, as you clearly would if the tables were turned...

Now, if we could proceed with the discussion of football, that might be quite nice... :huh:

sorry then, junk. i did not understand exacly what you were saying. i am not asking for gold stars, and believe what i DID say did not convey that.

 

[Duff Man]

that is rather dramatic in itself.

still, why do you find it to be lacking? i find it to be a component that cannot be written off.

He raised valid points in a pretty long post and your response was that it could be "extreme luck." Then you mentioned injuries. That is it? Maybe you're not meaning to mock people, but it sure comes off that way.

 

[Duff Man]

I disagree that the problem is ONLY coaching too. So do all but a fringe minority around here. Nothing in this thread said the problem was ONLY coaching. But you had to start an argument by assuming that's what everybody meant. You were wrong. That's what the last two pages have been trying to explain to you.

If you want to mock the pitchforkers, learn who they are before you start...

Precisely.

 

[Junction]

sorry then, junk. i did not understand exacly what you were saying. i am not asking for gold stars, and believe what i DID say did not convey that.

That is the funny part here. I truly don't think most of us disagree all that much. There is a clear line between the people who want the current staff to change a few things and the ones who want to collect scalps. I think all that is required is to determine what position people are taking prior to classifying them. Something for all of us to remember through an extra-long offseason...

 

[ladyblaise]

I disagree that the problem is ONLY coaching too. So do all but a fringe minority around here. Nothing in this thread said the problem was ONLY coaching. But you had to start an argument by assuming that's what everybody meant. You were wrong. That's what the last two pages have been trying to explain to you.

If you want to mock the pitchforkers, learn who they are before you start...

i did not say EVERYBODY said that, did I? as for the bolded statement, does this not say that?

A "they were injured" response to 30's original post is frankly pretty lacking.

to me, this response indicates that injuries are not a factor. that is why i am askin him to splain himself. i am game - tell me why they are a nonfactor.

not looking for a fight. looking for an explanation to what seems a bizarre thing to say.

 

[Junction]

to me, this response indicates that injuries are not a factor. that is why i am askin him to splain himself. i am game - tell me why they are a nonfactor.

not looking for a fight. looking for an explanation to what seems a bizarre thing to say.

I don't take that to say that injuries are a nonfactor. Simply that they are not a full explanation to the playcalling issue. As I said before, it is possible to make inappropriate play calls for injured players... That is what I feel I saw too much of this season...

 

[ladyblaise]

He raised valid points in a pretty long post and your response was that it could be "extreme luck." Then you mentioned injuries. That is it? Maybe you're not meaning to mock people, but it sure comes off that way.

i think it short sighted to write off the possibility that the kids he had in place were exactly something he could use well. that is an impossibility?

separately, injuries are NOT a possibility for what happened to us this season. is that what you are saying?

 

[Duff Man]

to me, this response indicates that injuries are not a factor. that is why i am askin him to splain himself. i am game - tell me why they are a nonfactor.

not looking for a fight. looking for an explanation to what seems a bizarre thing to say.

Injuries contributed to our struggles this year. No doubt about it. But I think it rather dismissive to say they were the only major reason.

You have yet to address the main point of the thread. Our offense has no identity whatsoever. You think that might contribute to struggles substantially as well?

 

[ladyblaise]

I don't take that to say that injuries are a nonfactor. Simply that they are not a full explanation to the playcalling issue. As I said before, it is possible to make inappropriate play calls for injured players... That is what I feel I saw too much of this season...

i find that a strong possibility that calls could be made given that we had kids expected to do something that they may have been physically limited in.

however, while that is a possibility, i am pointing out that it may not be a certainity. could we be seeing mistakes due to youth? probably. injury? assuredly. coaching? quite possibly. what is the percentage?

and what is the rationale for running plays that seemed to go bust? is it necessarily a damning thing?

 

[Junction]

i find that a strong possibility that calls could be made given that we had kids expected to do something that they may have been physically limited in.

however, while that is a possibility, i am pointing out that it may not be a certainity. could we be seeing mistakes due to youth? probably. injury? assuredly. coaching? quite possibly. what is the percentage?

and what is the rationale for running plays that seemed to go bust? is it necessarily a damning thing?

See, I think we saw mistakes due to youth, we saw a record number of injuries AND we saw an offense trying to do a million things before it had learned how to do a dozen well. And we were still one FG that will be long remembered in fusker nation away from making a bowl game. Which is why on the whole I am optimistic. I will just be more so if this offensive staff settles down, chooses an identity for this offense and focuses like a laser beam on being the best damn offense of that type possible. :gobuffs:

 

[ladyblaise]

Injuries contributed to our struggles this year. No doubt about it. But I think it rather dismissive to say they were the only major reason.

You have yet to address the main point of the thread. Our offense has no identity whatsoever. You think that might contribute to struggles substantially as well?

i think that other factors played in as well. youth, and possibly coaching. i do not know the rationale for calling plays that may or may not work. there is an educational rationale to allow students to struggle with material just above their capability. i have absolutely no frikking idea if the concept translates into coaching. your thoughts?

i believe i said :yeahthat: to the sentiment that our offense is likely to lack an identity when its components change week to week. it prevents a line from "gelling". they can establish no rhythm of their own. they cannot play off of each other as well as someone they have begun to anticipate as well as if they were an extension of themself. (in fact i am damn sure i just aluded to it in the past hour).

don't you think that contributes to our identity crisis?

 

[ladyblaise]

See, I think we saw mistakes due to youth, we saw a record number of injuries AND we saw an offense trying to do a million things before it had learned how to do a dozen well. And we were still one FG that will be long remembered in fusker nation away from making a bowl game. Which is why on the whole I am optimistic. I will just be more so if this offensive staff settles down, chooses an identity for this offense and focuses like a laser beam on being the best damn offense of that type possible. :gobuffs:

i can see the benefit of that in the short term. but i also fear an exclusive focus on it. is that not the defenition of a "one trick pony?"

tech did that. all it takes is ONE team with a more rounded game to clown you and make you ridiculous.

but, if that is what it takes to baby step forward, i could be on board with that.

 

[Duff Man]

i think that other factors played in as well. youth, and possibly coaching. i do not know the rationale for calling plays that may or may not work. there is an educational rationale to allow students to struggle with material just above their capability. i have absolutely no frikking idea if the concept translates into coaching. your thoughts?

i believe i said :yeahthat: to the sentiment that our offense is likely to lack an identity when its components change week to week. it prevents a line from "gelling". they can establish no rhythm of their own. they cannot play off of each other as well as someone they have begun to anticipate as well as if they were an extension of themself. (in fact i am damn sure i just aluded to it in the past hour).

don't you think that contributes to our identity crisis?

Most definitely. I think the injuries contributed to the identity crisis. There are many factors. And I'm not totally in favor of running a very simplified offense, but we have to figure out what works well and what does not.

How many times do you need to see Cody run a QB sneak out of the shotgun in the NU game before you realize it is not working? Is an end-around appropriate on the two-yard line in the A&M game when we had been running on them pretty good?

I think we all mostly agree that many things contributed to our poor offense this year, but it is hard to give percentages of each.

 

[87toInfinity]

 

[Liver]

this isn't just an injury/inexperience issue. it is a coaching issue too.

i am quoting myself from earlier in the thread. i went back to see if i said something that could be reasonably construed to mean that i believed the problem is ALL coaching and not injuries/inexperience.

i just don't think the staff should get an entirely free pass just because of the horrific year in terms of the available players. hawk, based upon his last presser, disagrees with me in a big way. i think a lot of the local press disagrees with me as well. that's cool. opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.

the biggest coaching issues that i would identify as areas of concern are as follows:

1. the special teams have been horrible, all 3 years. something has to be done about this. seriously. it is costing us games.

2. the offensive philosophy, as has been discussed in detail in this thread.

i don't recall anyone really screaming for hawk's head in this thread. i do think that if hawk doesn't make a few staff changes this off-season and if the team has another bad year next year, the entire staff, including hawk, will be let go. how i "feel" about that is another topic. that is my analysis from far away. i could, of course, be wrong.

i can say that i would be way, way more pissed than i am about the results this year if it were not for all the injuries and such. but, this is a results oriented business and the results these past 3 years have not met the minimum standard, imho. the team has caught a lot of really bad breaks and the staff has not been lucky at all in this regard. but, that's just how it goes sometimes, unfortunately.

the key question, i think, is whether CU is trending up or down. this year was a setback, but the team really does seem to have a lot of good young talent and a lot of potential. if hawkins pulls in another good class and then if CU outperforms expectations next year on the field, i am hopeful that we will have finally turned the corner. we will see. it is going to be a long off-season.

 

[ladyblaise]

Most definitely. I think the injuries contributed to the identity crisis. There are many factors. And I'm not totally in favor of running a very simplified offense, but we have to figure out what works well and what does not.

that is all i am saying. ergo, in reference to the original post, the situation was considerably different at colorado when hawk took the reins. a LOT has contributed to that.

not every time is colorado going to get a lucky bounce. i think that while i can applaud a new coach that goes out and kicks ass, i sensed a tone in the post that asked, "why not colorado?" i think it was deserving of a challenge - it is not as simple as the OP would prefer.

as we all would prefer, for that matter.

 

[JimmyBuff]

:yeahthat:

Keep it coming Jimmy and Buff30, apparently we arent allowed to think the program is NOT heading the right direction with the current staff. Only pumpers are allowed to voice their opinion, and all NegaBuffs must leave.:thumbsup:

opcorn: I'm enjoying this.

I'm not completely against everything Hawk is like you might be, but its painfully obvious this season was a huge step back and I don't believe it necessarily was due all to injuries so the staff deserves a pass.

The criticism that the staff and Hawk are getting here (or heck throughout the season when we were winning) isn't even close to the level of what was going on in the Barnett/Okruch years.. And I don't think any of us had any outrageous expectations for this season other than 7-5, 8-4 tops going into the season.. Bottom line we ended up 5-7 and we aren't going bowling and we lost the top recruit in the state We have two wasted scholarships on kickers who can't kick. We have more questions going into next year and right now we have 8 or 9 commits and its December 3. Hawk is getting plenty of slack around here and the criticism has been very mild compared to the Barnett years.

Hawk and his staff need to get better in all areas (recruiting, coaching)if we are ever going to be somewhat decent in the near future.

 

[Hugegroove]

I would have to say this is the exception, and not the rule. If this works for another 2-3 years then it bears a much closer look. Good article and good points made. The only question I have is how many times has this method been used at other schools and what was the rate of success?