I tend to agree. But even so, it's a hell of a counter-point to the people who are thinking 2-3 WRs a year is the right number. I don't think most Buff fans have wrapped their head around what offense we're actually running.
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!
How many receivers per class?
- Thread starter DiggerBuffs
- Start date
I tend to agree. But even so, it's a hell of a counter-point to the people who are thinking 2-3 WRs a year is the right number. I don't think most Buff fans have wrapped their head around what offense we're actually running.
Do you realize you just disagreed with your original point?
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
Yes, but only slightly, and I am free to contradict myself as I choose. My original post did say if you can get this level of talent you don't turn it down but having 4-5 WRs per class just won't work numbers wise is my original thought as well. But for THIS level of class for a year or two, it is fine. Quit taking snippets out of a much larger opinion.
This would be a great signature for you. Anyways, as nik said above, I think lots of people are not realizing just how many WR's we will need in this offense. Also, average attrition rate is much higher than 20%.
(put together by fans, but a good resource):
38% attrition rate per class is the average from 02-14. For Colorado, it was 45%. The LOWEST I found was 24%. Two schools did that: Stanford & Northwestern.
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
Thank you for that information. Definitely an interesting thing to look back at.
HCMM has greatly reduced the attrition that is negative such as:
1. not caring
2. flunking out
3. Johnny Law
Now he needs to ramp up the good attrition, brought on by newcomers being better than the vets.
1. not caring
2. flunking out
3. Johnny Law
Now he needs to ramp up the good attrition, brought on by newcomers being better than the vets.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
I wish you two would shut the hell up. Get in your little fight in another thread. Snow, ur a mod and have no excuse so quit.
Don't be so mean.
Trump v Hillary 2.0!
DiggerBuffs
Well-Known Member
This thread is the best stuff @Darth Snow has put together since his initial anything Digger posts I have to be an ass on. So STFU @BuffLuKe.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
I'd be a cool ass mod, I'd ban Rugged and Snow in about 10 minutes. Reason? Umm Idk I have to think about it but ill let y'all know.
Oh **** me.
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
Btw, I've got a better dew than Trump and that crazy bitch.
You got some Code Red?
BuffLuke80
Well-Known Member
You know it, my son usually drinks it all.
You mean we aren't running the triple option anymore? You mean this offense is predicated on having playmaking WRs and YAC?
I don't see why this is even a discussion. You have to have good WRs to make this offense work. We won't use a traditional fullback, and we will line up with one TE at most, so there are those extra scholarships. The previous offense under this regime threw less than we will going forward, and was significantly more successful when we had options at WR.