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

[ladyblaise]

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.

liver, clearly junk, boulder buff, and you got upset when i was grandly entertained by the fact that i saw another thread headed down the "its ALL the coaches fault! rawr!" avenue. while no one called for coaches heads in THIS thread, they HAVE done so in the forum (***not ALL of you, either). i think it a point worth discussing when i read something that seems to be saying injuries are a nonfactor. to me, the components are related in a vicious circle right now - and that is something i see abating with health. bottom line, we have a solid line, and i think most of our woes go away. without a line, even the best skill positions look ineffective-stupid.

can the coaches have called a better game given our injuries? maybe. what plays do you think specifically needed to be run to make a difference? will they work with an ever changing o-line and skill players who played hurt? what would have worked in your opinion?

 

[ladyblaise]

Hawk is getting plenty of slack around here and the criticism has been very mild compared to the Barnett years.

from you, yes he is, jim. yes he is. :lol:

 

[Liver]

can the coaches have called a better game given our injuries? maybe. what plays do you think specifically needed to be run to make a difference? will they work with an ever changing o-line and skill players who played hurt? what would have worked in your opinion?

i think that the staff, especially helfrich (whom i would not fire right now), were completely overwhelmed by the injuries this year. i think that their reaction to losing so many key guys illustrated, again, their lack of meaningful experience in big boy football. but, i admit, i am just a fan, not pros like they are.

they seemed to be totally at a loss as to how to proceed. they pulled the shirt off of hansen and then wouldn't let him pass and then they benched him. one week, they came out with no-huddle, and the next, they are back to huddling up. etc. etc.

even before this year, i have been uneasy with what i perceive to be a lack of offensive identity. everything that went wrong this year exacerbated the problem in a big way. helfrich's inexperience at playcalling and scheming is showing and it was highlighted by the challenges of the injury catastrophe.

what would have worked better? well, i guess i'd refer you back to b30's original post and my original response. i speculate that a commitment to running the ball would have helped this young team a lot. but, i guess i could be wrong. a commitment to running the ball means scheming an offensive plan that is conducive to success. running a back like scott sideways from a standing start out of the shotgun is not a recipe for repeated success. lining him up behind a fullback in the i-formation and getting more hats on bodies at the point of attack on defense IS a PROVEN method. and it may have even given the team some confidence. running teams have a swagger about them.

the staff says they want to run the ball and i think they mean it. i just am not sure, given their backgrounds, whether they actually know how to scheme to do this well.

when Mac decided to switch to the 'bone, he gathered his assistants and told them. NONE of them had every coached wishbone offense. but, he told them to go learn and they did and that got us turned around as a program. these guys now are young, talented, and ambitious, but they need a PLAN. they can learn too.

what do they want the offense to be? start with that and then execute against the plan. they are getting too cute and we don't have the bodies for cute. we need good fundamental football.

all this is just my fan opinion, of course...

 

[Junction]

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.

I definitely intend it as a step forward, not the planned destination. Start out with, as Liver said above, "good fundamental football". Let's get these guys executing some good, solid running plays and a basic passing package. Hell, with a little luck on the injury front and keeping guys on the field, the players should be able to master those things in fairly short order. Then start working in some variations, and keep adding as the team masters the material. Right now we seem to have skipped those first steps and tossed an inexperienced group dealing with some cohesiveness issues caused by injuries right into the deep end of multiple offensive variety. That hasn't allowed them to truly master anything, or have a set of "go to" plays to rely on when things get tough...

 

[ladyblaise]

i think that the staff, especially helfrich (whom i would not fire right now), were completely overwhelmed by the injuries this year. i think that their reaction to losing so many key guys illustrated, again, their lack of meaningful experience in big boy football. but, i admit, i am just a fan, not pros like they are.

they seemed to be totally at a loss as to how to proceed. they pulled the shirt off of hansen and then wouldn't let him pass and then they benched him. one week, they came out with no-huddle, and the next, they are back to huddling up. etc. etc.

even before this year, i have been uneasy with what i perceive to be a lack of offensive identity. everything that went wrong this year exacerbated the problem in a big way. helfrich's inexperience at playcalling and scheming is showing and it was highlighted by the challenges of the injury catastrophe.

what would have worked better? well, i guess i'd refer you back to b30's original post and my original response. i speculate that a commitment to running the ball would have helped this young team a lot. but, i guess i could be wrong. a commitment to running the ball means scheming an offensive plan that is conducive to success. running a back like scott sideways from a standing start out of the shotgun is not a recipe for repeated success. lining him up behind a fullback in the i-formation and getting more hats on bodies at the point of attack on defense IS a PROVEN method. and it may have even given the team some confidence. running teams have a swagger about them.

the staff says they want to run the ball and i think they mean it. i just am not sure, given their backgrounds, whether they actually know how to scheme to do this well.

when Mac decided to switch to the 'bone, he gathered his assistants and told them. NONE of them had every coached wishbone offense. but, he told them to go learn and they did and that got us turned around as a program. these guys now are young, talented, and ambitious, but they need a PLAN. they can learn too.

what do they want the offense to be? start with that and then execute against the plan. they are getting too cute and we don't have the bodies for cute. we need good fundamental football.

all this is just my fan opinion, of course...

i can agree with you that good fundamental football is something many want to get back to. while you have a point about about formation, two issues jumped out at me. one: an offensive line must create some holes as lanes for a back to run through. i saw some of those vs csu. after that, what i saw was more representive of a deflating baloon, sticky and collapsing. two: scott lost weight so fast, he got hurt almost from word go. he was nursing injuries all year. i do not think hurt is a recipe for powerhorse.

would formation solve some of the woes? maybe. i dont think all of them. maybe would have been good to see.

 

[ladyblaise]

I definitely intend it as a step forward, not the planned destination. Start out with, as Liver said above, "good fundamental football". Let's get these guys executing some good, solid running plays and a basic passing package. Hell, with a little luck on the injury front and keeping guys on the field, the players should be able to master those things in fairly short order. Then start working in some variations, and keep adding as the team masters the material. Right now we seem to have skipped those first steps and tossed an inexperienced group dealing with some cohesiveness issues caused by injuries right into the deep end of multiple offensive variety. That hasn't allowed them to truly master anything, or have a set of "go to" plays to rely on when things get tough...

SOME cohesiveness issues? :wow:

i think the lack of steady personnel exacerbates the fact that there is no "go to" play. so we should have cut the playbook?

i think NOW is a good time for the coaches to establish what they want offensively. i am going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they intended to build on last year, and it got shot to hell. after a murphy's law of injury bit our team, they decided to trudge. which brings me back to a question i asked earlier: is there benefit to having your team struggle with something just beyond their grasp? while it sucked to watch as fans, can it net a response that is pleasing? i ask that after reflecting on a few quotes from hawk, such as "this team is so close to being (something something) good..."

i think it is clear he is a good coach. i think it clear that he was in this for the long haul. i think he knows for damn sure what will net results, and hell who knows? maybe they ARE that close? we were a field goal away from bowl eligibility. who among allbuffs thought that the buffs would play okie state that close? how many discussing the lack of identity thought the skers would really woodshed us or embarrass us?

this is food for thought: maybe we ARE establishing an identity, and there is a plan. and maybe we are moving towards it. maybe it is difficult for fans to see?

is that a possibility at all? or have people written that off?

 

[buffsyko]

WTF? Lady blaise,you always seem to get the board riled up,I hope these guys like boulder buff,junction,liver and 30 don't turn away from the cyber board and stop posting:smile2:

Now, back to the discussion. Helfrich and riddle performed badly as coaches this season,yes injuries and what not had much to do with this but we all saw how horrible special teams were and the bizarre and ineffective playcalling was.

Other than riddle, they all get another year.

There will be NO excuses left for 2009,they either have a winning season or this ship has sailed. Nobody will be able to make excuses for hawk and staff if they don't get it done next year. By done I mean a winning season and marked improvement.

Now, as Lady blaise asked," what if they do get it done?"

Then I will be the FIRST to give them congrats and praise them.

I think it's amazing what johnson has done at tech considering his system,it's easy to say he got it done and hawk didn't but hawk was left with worse as we all know.

Just win at least 7 games next year and the bitching should cease,or at least tone down.

 

[buffsyko]

SOME cohesiveness issues? :wow:

i think the lack of steady personnel exacerbates the fact that there is no "go to" play. so we should have cut the playbook?

i think NOW is a good time for the coaches to establish what they want offensively. i am going to give them the benefit of the doubt that they intended to build on last year, and it got shot to hell. after a murphy's law of injury bit our team, they decided to trudge. which brings me back to a question i asked earlier: is there benefit to having your team struggle with something just beyond their grasp? while it sucked to watch as fans, can it net a response that is pleasing? i ask that after reflecting on a few quotes from hawk, such as "this team is so close to being (something something) good..."

i think it is clear he is a good coach. i think it clear that he was in this for the long haul. i think he knows for damn sure what will net results, and hell who knows? maybe they ARE that close? we were a field goal away from bowl eligibility. who among allbuffs thought that the buffs would play okie state that close? how many discussing the lack of identity thought the skers would really woodshed us or embarrass us?

this is food for thought: maybe we ARE establishing an identity, and there is a plan. and maybe we are moving towards it. maybe it is difficult for fans to see?

is that a possibility at all? or have people written that off?

Well, you could see the TE's in the offense again and they were able to do this because our OL was getting better. A solid starting 5 next year and a healthy starting 5 on OL will give this offense an opportunity to get it's identity imho.

 

[Liver]

i ask that after reflecting on a few quotes from hawk, such as "this team is so close to being (something something) good..."

i think it is clear he is a good coach. i think it clear that he was in this for the long haul. i think he knows for damn sure what will net results, and hell who knows? maybe they ARE that close? we were a field goal away from bowl eligibility. who among allbuffs thought that the buffs would play okie state that close? how many discussing the lack of identity thought the skers would really woodshed us or embarrass us?

this is food for thought: maybe we ARE establishing an identity, and there is a plan. and maybe we are moving towards it. maybe it is difficult for fans to see?

is that a possibility at all? or have people written that off?

well, i hope you are right. and, sure, it is possible. i didn't think the fuskers or okie state would crush us. both were significantly over-rated at the time we played them. texas and mizzery i thought would crush us and did.

if they have "a plan" it sure isn't readily apparent to some of us old school types who grew up playing and watching this game. but, i hope they do.

i watch a lot of boise state and i look at that scheme and i say to myself "that could work at CU" but i look at what WE do and i come right back to earth.

honestly, stylistically, i won't bitch too much if they go with a full spread or whatever, just so they commit to it and have guys to execute it. i prefer the i-formation and a run game because i know it works. and, as i have said before, historically, every great CU team has been a nasty running team. so, i believe that it works for CU now. tech is proof, imho, that gimmicks only take you so far. usually, a good run game, special teams, and defense will carry the day.

right now, with the talent on this team, i think we'd have way more success with a more run-oriented scheme and a philosophy of smash mouth football. we don't have either the qb or enought wideouts to scare anyone in a modified spread. we do, however, have a stable of rbs coming back next year who look the part and about 3 depth charts of o-linemen returning who have upside.

one of the things i admire most about stoops' coaching ability is that he has adapted his scheme to his talent when he needed to and then stuck to his guns on the core of what he thought they needed to do. hell, they've run a spread when they didn't have enough rbs. they've ridden apeterson when they had him. now, they've got a very effective multiple set. hell, he won with a converted wideout at qb. the consistent thing has been a PLAN. he looked at the talent, laid out a plan for the season, and then stuck to it. and it has worked.

 

[Junction]

if they have "a plan" it sure isn't readily apparent to some of us old school types who grew up playing and watching this game. but, i hope they do.

i watch a lot of boise state and i look at that scheme and i say to myself "that could work at CU" but i look at what WE do and i come right back to earth.

honestly, stylistically, i won't bitch too much if they go with a full spread or whatever, just so they commit to it and have guys to execute it. i prefer the i-formation and a run game because i know it works. and, as i have said before, historically, every great CU team has been a nasty running team. so, i believe that it works for CU now. tech is proof, imho, that gimmicks only take you so far. usually, a good run game, special teams, and defense will carry the day.

right now, with the talent on this team, i think we'd have way more success with a more run-oriented scheme and a philosophy of smash mouth football. we don't have either the qb or enought wideouts to scare anyone in a modified spread. we do, however, have a stable of rbs coming back next year who look the part and about 3 depth charts of o-linemen returning who have upside.

:yeahthat:

 

[ladyblaise]

WTF? Lady blaise,you always seem to get the board riled up,I hope these guys like boulder buff,junction,liver and 30 don't turn away from the cyber board and stop posting:smile2:

their most petulant day at posting far pales in comparison to yours. cheerio.

 

[buffsyko]

their most petulant day at posting far pales in comparison to yours. cheerio.

:lol: Glad you saw the humor in my post.

 

[Djugashvili]

i like liver's mention of the CU running game, and interesting allusion to leach and that oklahoma game. i actually wonder if anyone has opinions or information on how weather impacts teams later in the season and playstyle. for example, it seems to me that a great deal of the more pass-happy teams, or at least the notable ones, play in relatively temperate or warmer climates. does anyone think that it would make more sense, or if there's any correlation, to colorado's traditional success with a powerful running game and the general weather conditions at boulder and other big 12 north stadiums? is needing a running game to win more applicable in this situation because of where and who colorado plays after the early season?

i hadn't visited these forums until recently and i find the identity discussion to also be intriguing. darrell scott was certainly a big name signee this year, but looking at the recruiting targets and prospects for this coming season, it does appear that it's leaning towards the wideouts. i think this year was definitely a disappointment after the 3-0 start, but i'd say that hawkins still needs time to continue tuning the system and getting the talent that he wants in place. i'm not sure what everyone makes of this, but it seems that at least on the recruiting front he has done better than barnett (comments about the scandals aside) and perhaps he needs to finish getting his own groceries

 

[Deleted member 807]

Welcome Rep to DJug for his first post!

I'd venture that weather is much less a factor than talent and coaching philosophy when it comes to style of play, at least in the B12. But weather does make a convenient excuse as to why the Big East and Big 10 are playing second fiddle to the SEC or B12.

There's no doubt, however, weather plays a factor in recruiting. A lot of the kids who get offers from CU and Texas schools often mention the weather in Boulder as a determining factor. This is why it was so important for CU to get that practice bubble constructed to stay competitive in the facilities arms race. Even UT has a practice bubble, so having a climate controlled facility isn't just for schools in colder climates.

I recall the pass happy WAC of yesteryear that proves that teams like AFA and BYU can have an identity of being a throwing team while playing at elevation and in a similar climate as Boulder.

I'd also point out that the autumn temperatures and percipitation in Lubbuck isn't that different from the front range of Colorado, except maybe for more wind in the Panhandle. We all know about the TT offensive identity.

Game day weather is a factor, though. If it's raining, snowing, or freezing outside, any team will likely revert to a ground game. But I don't think gameday weather has been much of a factor in late season B12 play in the North or the South during this decade.


As the season wears on, injuries and fatigue have to also be brought into consideration.

 

[FSU>Colorado]

Colorado should do the 'Heavy Pass' system like TxTech or Hawaii.

 

[leftybuff]

Colorado should do the 'Heavy Pass' system like TxTech or Hawaii.

Yeah, that would be great.

I think FSU should go back the the wing T....

 

[Kameltosis]

The option can be a beast to stop...especially nowadays when not to many teams run it anymore.

Georgia Tech had a weird season...they struggle with cup cake teams and blow better teams out of the water.

Come on they beat Gardner-Webb by 3 points yet take Miami to the woodshed?

Strange deal

 

[buffalo30]

I never thought this thread would go as far as is did when I started it. Just a couple more thoughts. First of all, it's plain silly to think Dan should be moved out. You have to see what he will do next season. There are around 14 offensive linemen on the current roster who should be returning, several tailbacks, tightends and a couple of fullbacks. That is plenty to get a nasty running game going. The quarterback and receiver positions might be problematic once again. It will depend on a couple of things I won't go into now.

Yes, yes, yes, there was inexperience and there were injuries and academic problems. Nevertheless, a big problem is the offensive coordinator is doing on the job training and he CLEARLY hasn't shown that he is up to snuff for 3 years. However, I think we will see year 4 of his OJT experiment next season. With that in mind and everything else that will/should be in place, I expect a minimum of 8 wins before a bowl game. If the Buffs don't win 8 games then I think the coaching has failed. I'm convinced there is another related problem, the origin of which can be traced back to Boise about 8-10 years ago. I'm still hesitating to be very specific, but all one has to do is look up who was where and when. And then put 2 and 2 together. This is big boy football and there should be only one mission. That is to win football games. Excuses and reasons for not winning football games have all been used up this season.

Back to the job Paul Johnson did in his 1st year with an offensive system. He did it with players that weren't even recruited for such a system. He had 2 junior, 1 sophomore, and 2 freshmen starting on the offensive line the last 3 games. The young offensive line sure didn't appear to be a problem. It doesn't matter what their recruiting rankings were or the schedule that Georgia Tech faced. They went 9-3 in the first year of a coach with an entirely new offensive system, and it IS division 1 football, folks.

 

[buffwings]

I never thought this thread would go as far as is did when I started it. Just a couple more thoughts. First of all, it's plain silly to think Dan should be moved out. You have to see what he will do next season. There are around 14 offensive linemen on the current roster who should be returning, several tailbacks, tightends and a couple of fullbacks. That is plenty to get a nasty running game going. The quarterback and receiver positions might be problematic once again. It will depend on a couple of things I won't go into now.

Yes, yes, yes, there was inexperience and there were injuries and academic problems. Nevertheless, a big problem is the offensive coordinator is doing on the job training and he CLEARLY hasn't shown that he is up to snuff for 3 years. However, I think we will see year 4 of his OJT experiment next season. With that in mind and everything else that will/should be in place, I expect a minimum of 8 wins before a bowl game. If the Buffs don't win 8 games then I think the coaching has failed. I'm convinced there is another related problem, the origin of which can be traced back to Boise about 8-10 years ago. I'm still hesitating to be very specific, but all one has to do is look up who was where and when. And then put 2 and 2 together. This is big boy football and there should be only one mission. That is to win football games. Excuses and reasons for not winning football games have all been used up this season.

Back to the job Paul Johnson did in his 1st year with an offensive system. He did it with players that weren't even recruited for such a system. He had 2 junior, 1 sophomore, and 2 freshmen starting on the offensive line the last 3 games. The young offensive line sure didn't appear to be a problem. It doesn't matter what their recruiting rankings were or the schedule that Georgia Tech faced. They went 9-3 in the first year of a coach with an entirely new offensive system, and it IS division 1 football, folks.

:dito: I dont believe DH should be fired. I always said a change was needed at the OC and ST position because DH, while a great PR and recruiter, might not be the best X's & O's guy.

 

[Junction]

:dito: I dont believe DH should be fired. I always said a change was needed at the OC and ST position because DH, while a great PR and recruiter, might not be the best X's & O's guy.

In that case, I probably owe you an apology. I had understood your posts to be calling for DH's head for a while now. I agree 100% on Riddle, but I'd probably give Helfrich another year, with some changes needed. I'm just not sure, on CU's assistant coaching budget, what the alternatives to Helfrich would realistically be at this point...

 

[Deleted member 807]

I never thought this thread would go as far as is did when I started it. Just a couple more thoughts. First of all, it's plain silly to think Dan should be moved out. You have to see what he will do next season. There are around 14 offensive linemen on the current roster who should be returning, several tailbacks, tightends and a couple of fullbacks. That is plenty to get a nasty running game going. The quarterback and receiver positions might be problematic once again. It will depend on a couple of things I won't go into now.

Yes, yes, yes, there was inexperience and there were injuries and academic problems. Nevertheless, a big problem is the offensive coordinator is doing on the job training and he CLEARLY hasn't shown that he is up to snuff for 3 years. However, I think we will see year 4 of his OJT experiment next season. With that in mind and everything else that will/should be in place, I expect a minimum of 8 wins before a bowl game. If the Buffs don't win 8 games then I think the coaching has failed. I'm convinced there is another related problem, the origin of which can be traced back to Boise about 8-10 years ago. I'm still hesitating to be very specific, but all one has to do is look up who was where and when. And then put 2 and 2 together. This is big boy football and there should be only one mission. That is to win football games. Excuses and reasons for not winning football games have all been used up this season.

Back to the job Paul Johnson did in his 1st year with an offensive system. He did it with players that weren't even recruited for such a system. He had 2 junior, 1 sophomore, and 2 freshmen starting on the offensive line the last 3 games. The young offensive line sure didn't appear to be a problem. It doesn't matter what their recruiting rankings were or the schedule that Georgia Tech faced. They went 9-3 in the first year of a coach with an entirely new offensive system, and it IS division 1 football, folks.

Out with it already. Sounds so nefarius, yet worthy of a tinfoil hat. Is this some Area 51 / Grassy Knoll thing?

...The devil said, "Hawk, if you embrace the blue Smurf Turf of spudsville, you will be a winner, but should you ever leave, your son's 60 game HS winning streak shall end, your winning percentage shall forever dwell below .500, and your soul belongs to me.

 

[buffwings]

In that case, I probably owe you an apology. I had understood your posts to be calling for DH's head for a while now. I agree 100% on Riddle, but I'd probably give Helfrich another year, with some changes needed. I'm just not sure, on CU's assistant coaching budget, what the alternatives to Helfrich would realistically be at this point...

The times I bashed DH was when I believed he was stubborn in sticking with the same gameplan that wasnt working. Either Offensive scheme or staff. I dont want him gone, like many of you, I have met him a couple of times and he seemed like a real nice guy. I wanted him to realize this isnt the WAC like he said is rant and that he might need some good assts to overcome his shortfalls in coaching. ANd maybe he has. As far as the head coach goes, I think he is the biggest part of the puzzle of what a succesful program needs, HOWEVER I believe he hasnt surrounded himself with people that may set him up for success but rather has stuck to misplaced friendships and loyalties that if, not changed, may be his undoing.

I dont want him to fail, but I think he needs to change some things that apparently arent working.

 

[Liver]

Out with it already. Sounds so nefarius, yet worthy of a tinfoil hat. Is this some Area 51 / Grassy Knoll thing?

...The devil said, "Hawk, if you embrace the blue Smurf Turf of spudsville, you will be a winner, but should you ever leave, your son's 60 game HS winning streak shall end, your winning percentage shall forever dwell below .500, and your soul belongs to me.

:lol: i dunno. i just spend 5 minutes looking some of this up on the bsu website:

98 6-5, koetter
99 10-3, koetter
00 10-3, koetter
01 8-4, hawk
02 8-4, hawk
03 13-1, hawk
04 11-1, hawk
05 9-4, hawk
06 13-0, petey
07 10-3, petey
08 undefeated thus far, petey

when did petey get promoted to offensive coordinator at bsu? perhaps that it was 30 is alluding to? or, maybe it is the fact that hawk has never called plays?

 

[buffalo30]

Here you go guys. Dan Hawkins was tight ends, special teams, and assistant head coach at Boise State in '98, '99 and '00. Helfrich was quarterback coach at Boise State those same 3 years. It's pretty obvious they became good friends there and it was also the time when young Cody was hanging around practice as a little kid becoming a football quarterback junkie. Nothing wrong with that at all, mind you. I think it's great for Cody to develop that way. I love the kid. However, you now have an offensive coordinator, who with that background, obviously attempted to design an offense this year at Colorado with someone in particular in mind. I think it's undeniable when you look at the offensive scheme that they tried to run this year. The trouble was it blew up and didn't work.

They must have thought the shotgun would place Cody Hawkins back in the pocket without having to drop back. It is undeniable that Cody does not have much foot speed. They also thought he would be able to see the entire field right away. It is undeniable that he is not very tall and still can't see over the linemen to effectively pass over the middle unless the linemen can create passing lanes. How many passes were blocked at the LOS? The young linemen were not skilled enough yet to finesse defensive linemen in such a way to create passing lanes. Therefore, they couldn't attack the middle of the field. The defense could key sideline pass and cheat up to stop the run because they just didn't need to worry about the middle of the field.

The handoffs to backs standing still made it easy for the defense. The finesse blocking and zone blocking wasn't clearing anything because the young line was not skilled enough to do it. They were outnumbered on top of it because the defense could cheat up since they didn't have to worry about passing over the middle. Slow developing run plays with handoffs to backs at a standstill were getting blown up. That's why I keep saying that running with a blocking back in front of a tailback getting a handoff with a couple-three steps head of steam, coupled with drive blocking linemen, would have been much better for this young group.

Dead last in the Big 12 in offense and 95th out of 119 D1-A teams in offense is undeniable. I have no idea what they might try next season, but what they did this year sure didn't work. I think the Buffs have the personnel returning next year to have a pretty effective offense. I don't know that the coaching will realize what they have to do to get it done, or if they realize it, have the fortitude to actually do it.

Anyone is free to tell me I'm FOS regarding anything that I have brought up, but I think it's pretty hard to argue with. All of this is why I have continually said that the offense this year was flawed to begin with. It all went back to relationships built in '98-'00.

 

[Liver]

Here you go guys. Dan Hawkins was tight ends, special teams, and assistant head coach at Boise State in '98, '99 and '00. Helfrich was quarterback coach at Boise State those same 3 years. It's pretty obvious they became good friends there and it was also the time when young Cody was hanging around practice as a little kid becoming a football quarterback junkie. Nothing wrong with that at all, mind you. I think it's great for Cody to develop that way. I love the kid. However, you now have an offensive coordinator, who with that background, obviously attempted to design an offense this year at Colorado with someone in particular in mind. I think it's undeniable when you look at the offensive scheme that they tried to run this year. The trouble was it blew up and didn't work.

They must have thought the shotgun would place Cody Hawkins back in the pocket without having to drop back. It is undeniable that Cody does not have much foot speed. They also thought he would be able to see the entire field right away. It is undeniable that he is not very tall and still can't see over the linemen to effectively pass over the middle unless the linemen can create passing lanes. How many passes were blocked at the LOS? The young linemen were not skilled enough yet to finesse defensive linemen in such a way to create passing lanes. Therefore, they couldn't attack the middle of the field. The defense could key sideline pass and cheat up to stop the run because they just didn't need to worry about the middle of the field.

The handoffs to backs standing still made it easy for the defense. The finesse blocking and zone blocking wasn't clearing anything because the young line was not skilled enough to do it. They were outnumbered on top of it because the defense could cheat up since they didn't have to worry about passing over the middle. Slow developing run plays with handoffs to backs at a standstill were getting blown up. That's why I keep saying that running with a blocking back in front of a tailback getting a handoff with a couple-three steps head of steam, coupled with drive blocking linemen, would have been much better for this young group.

Dead last in the Big 12 in offense and 95th out of 119 D1-A teams in offense is undeniable. I have no idea what they might try next season, but what they did this year sure didn't work. I think the Buffs have the personnel returning next year to have a pretty effective offense. I don't know that the coaching will realize what they have to do to get it done, or if they realize it, have the fortitude to actually do it.

Anyone is free to tell me I'm FOS regarding anything that I have brought up, but I think it's pretty hard to argue with. All of this is why I have continually said that the offense this year was flawed to begin with. It all went back to relationships built in '98-'00.

i am with you, all the way to the part where you suggest that they are blinded by their feelings for cody.

the rest is, is factual, i think. your opinion as the "why" of it is just an opinion, of course.

i've always enjoyed your posts here and on nb, but may i offer a counter-theory? let's say they did, in fact, build a passing offense for the year around cody to try to hide his limitations. why would they do that unless they had little faith that any other qb in the program was ready to take the reigns?

i don't think these guys are dumb or really playing favorites (that's just my opinion), but i do think they have an "idea" (but not really a plan) on what kind of offense they want... i think they think they are trying to install some kind of high scoring passing machine offense. so, when they sat down and looked at the personnel this year, they schemed in a way that they thought they could be an effective passing offense, given the fact that their starter is small and not fleet of foot. they messed up.

the spread type offenses only work if you've got a guy who can beat you with his feet at the qb position. and, i totally agree with you about the middle of the field. CU simply couldn't do anything across the middle and once defenses figured that out, the Buffs were cooked on offense.

i also totally agree with their failed scheming on running the ball. i think they want to run the ball effectively but i am not sure they know how to set up an offense that does that well. do any of these guys have any background at all with serious running teams?

i also agree about the o-line being asked to do too much too soon. a running offense would have helped them a lot.

i think it is less favoritism and more the fact that the staff is pretty dang inexperienced. the learning curve has been steep. this isn't the wac. i hope the on-the-job training takes hold next year.

we've got some horses but they've got to install an offensive plan that plays to their strengths. i would say our biggest weaknesses on offense are qb and wideout and they tried to run an offense centered around qb and wideouts. i don't get that at all. take that stable of backs and those good tightends and what should be a 3 deep set of good o-linemen next year and pound people.

 

[buffalo30]

i don't think these guys are dumb or really playing favorites (that's just my opinion), but i do think they have an "idea" (but not really a plan) on what kind of offense they want... i think they think they are trying to install some kind of high scoring passing machine offense. so, when they sat down and looked at the personnel this year, they schemed in a way that they thought they could be an effective passing offense, given the fact that their starter is small and not fleet of foot. they messed up.

the spread type offenses only work if you've got a guy who can beat you with his feet at the qb position. and, i totally agree with you about the middle of the field. CU simply couldn't do anything across the middle and once defenses figured that out, the Buffs were cooked on offense.

i also totally agree with their failed scheming on running the ball. i think they want to run the ball effectively but i am not sure they know how to set up an offense that does that well. do any of these guys have any background at all with serious running teams?

i also agree about the o-line being asked to do too much too soon. a running offense would have helped them a lot.

i think it is less favoritism and more the fact that the staff is pretty dang inexperienced. the learning curve has been steep. this isn't the wac. i hope the on-the-job training takes hold next year.

we've got some horses but they've got to install an offensive plan that plays to their strengths. i would say our biggest weaknesses on offense are qb and wideout and they tried to run an offense centered around qb and wideouts. i don't get that at all. take that stable of backs and those good tightends and what should be a 3 deep set of good o-linemen next year and pound people.

These are all pretty fair-minded points. I have to sit back and say yes. And yes, the biggest weaknesses were quarterback and wide receiver and asking a young line to cover for those weaknesses was too much. I think they had what is called a "psychological set" on what they wanted to do and who they wanted to do it with. And yes, it blew up. My big concern is that the "psychological set" on the passing offense may not be overcome.

I really think that the linemen, tight ends and backs who return next year set the Buffs up for a powerful rushing attack. Like I said, I don't know if the coaches even want to see it for what it could be, and if they do, do they have what it takes to get it done? I know Paul Johnson probably would have wherewithall to get it done. Imagine if Paul Johnson had told Colorado he would come.:wink2: Snap me back to reality... maybe the current guys will get it done...

 

[Deleted member 807]

With Ron Prince ousted in his third year as a reminder, and with the internet scum getting in Hawkins' head, he knows that his performance on the field has a direct impact on his employement. We've seen HCDH's quotes about how fickle the coaching profession can be. Most importantly, he put Tyler Hansen on the field to exploit the KSU defense, and buy himself some more time. He's not afraid to bench Cody if that brings a better chance of winning.

The OTJ training is a point well made. I look forward to seeing the Y/Y progression of Hawk, his staff, and his players. Pessimism is futile.

 

[sackman]

Back to the job Paul Johnson did in his 1st year with an offensive system. He did it with players that weren't even recruited for such a system. He had 2 junior, 1 sophomore, and 2 freshmen starting on the offensive line the last 3 games. The young offensive line sure didn't appear to be a problem. It doesn't matter what their recruiting rankings were or the schedule that Georgia Tech faced. They went 9-3 in the first year of a coach with an entirely new offensive system, and it IS division 1 football, folks.

Contrast that to what happened in Michigan. New Coach, new system, lots of talent, crappy record.

 

[Liver]

Contrast that to what happened in Michigan. New Coach, new system, lots of talent, crappy record.

i'll retort to that, too. rich rod's whole system is built around a qb who can wreck you. michigan didn't have that qb. they have great talent, but if you want that spread to work, you need an uber-athlete at qb. paul johnson goes to michigan and i guar-an-effing-tee you they are a bowl team. hell, aaron pryor as a true frosh if he had gone to michigan would have made them a bowl team.

see a pattern here? if we can't get an elite qb here, then let's at least play to the strengths we have. cody has heart and brains but he isn't going to scare anyone with his feet and i think we must have lead the universe in tipped passes.

 

[sackman]

i'll retort to that, too. rich rod's whole system is built around a qb who can wreck you. michigan didn't have that qb. they have great talent, but if you want that spread to work, you need an uber-athlete at qb. paul johnson goes to michigan and i guar-an-effing-tee you they are a bowl team. hell, aaron pryor as a true frosh if he had gone to michigan would have made them a bowl team.

see a pattern here? if we can't get an elite qb here, then let's at least play to the strengths we have. cody has heart and brains but he isn't going to scare anyone with his feet and i think we must have lead the universe in tipped passes.

Any system that is 100% dependent on a top flight quarterback is doomed to failure. Injuries, academics, competitive recruiting, etc all combine to make it nearly impossible to have both a starter and backup that are capable of running that kind of offense consistently. If Rich Rod's system is that dependent on one single player, then he was a very poor choice at Michigan.