Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

I am trying to be patient with Sefo

Sefo is locked in, in my opinion. Locked in on one ****ing receiver! You watch him in the pocket and his head never moves. Time after time after time he threw to a covered guy or just threw it away when he had guys wide open elsewhere. And he always, always, always gets flushed and scrambles to his right, essentially condensing the passing zone down to an area about 15 or 20 yards wide and saturated with defenders. His running on the read/option is below average.

But the biggest issue I have with Sefo is that he lacks that "intangible." I don't know how to define it because, well, it's intangible. He just lacks that ability, at this point, to come up with the big play at the critical time. Every close game he has failed to kind of pull off that extraordinary play that the "winners" seem to pull off regularly. DAMMIT! I'M FRUSTRATED!!
 
Sefo is the right player to put CU in a position to show progress.

Players make plays. Great players make plays when it matters most.
 
Mac2 has been tempting fate for a while now with those long slant patterns that are barely break the LOS. Sefo's arm strength isn't stout enough, and honestly I'm surprised that there haven't been a few more disastrous picks of these throws. Pac 12 teams generally get away with a lot more high risk plays that would kill them in a conference where great defense was played more consistently.

Also, I'm not going to call out individual players here but there were a few guys on the field today that aren't quite ready for prime time.

Listening to the locker room interviews I have to say the players are 100% class acts. I'm completely sold on Mac2, just need to keep improving the talent.
 
PAHIBuff said:
Mac2 has been tempting fate for a while now with those long slant patterns that are barely break the LOS. Sefo's arm strength isn't stout enough, and honestly I'm surprised that there haven't been a few more disastrous picks of these throws. Pac 12 teams generally get away with a lot more high risk plays that would kill them in a conference where great defense was played more consistently.

Also, I'm not going to call out individual players here but there were a few guys on the field today that aren't quite ready for prime time.

Listening to the locker room interviews I have to say the players are 100% class acts. I'm completely sold on Mac2, just need to keep improving the talent.
Click to expand...

Agree.....but chicken and egg. How do we keep improving talent if we cannot win?
 
Assessing Sefo if you back out the Cal game is fair. He averages 267 ypg, has 18 TDs and 11 INTs. Hardly world beater numbers. I have not advocated for benching Sefo all year; however, he may have maxed out his potential. We are not bowl eligible, have lost every Pac12 game, and he is not making great decisions. Frankly, I am not sure I want him to set all kinds of records in meaningless games... sat through that scenario with Cody at the helm. I'd rather KNOW that the other guy couldn't do any better than WONDER if Sefo was the best we had.
 
DiggerBuffs said:
Sefo cost the Buffs at least 7. ST cost us 14. You do the math. Not on the defense this week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Washington was 2/11 on 3rd downs and we forced 3 turnovers.

Despite horrendous run defense and ****ty tackling, this week is not on the defense.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Stanford won the conference the past two years; last year they only passed the ball 35% of the time. Is that not good enough for Colorado? Is that not good enough for 2014?

Stanford has an amazing defense, which certainly helps. But a solid ball control (and clock control) offense has proven that it can (and does) win this conference.

CU had an RB today who averaged 8+ yards per carry -- and he only touched the ball 14 times (and 1 of those was a reception!). Meanwhile the QB attempted 52 passes.

The player on offense who should be the focus of the offense wears #19, not #13.
Click to expand...
How'd that power offense go with Embree?
 
Not on the defense? UW's averages 355 yards/game. On the road, they delivered 442 while mailing in the fourth quarter. Our defense is killing us. And special teams did not help. (our fumble and their return).

i am not making the argument that Sefo's is a future AA, I am stating he is at a level above our other units.
 
I have been critical of Sefo much of the year and hoped the Cal game was a real breakthrough for him as he played lights out. A lot of Buffs fans anointed him a 4 year starter but I sure hope that is not the case unless he has a major improvement leading up to his Junior year. Not sure Gehrke would do any better, which many have said.

But I believe Apsay could challenge next year and if not Montez, IMHO, is the real deal and could end up being a 4 year starter. My hope would be that he redshirts and maybe Apsay gives Sefo a real run for his money before then.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
Sure - but we aren't winning.

I've got no problem with the pistol. Just would like to see them try something different.

Historically - Colorado has been at their best as a power running team. They've never won anything as a finesse team. A stronger running game - and more emphasis on a running game - would open up the passing game (especially the play-action passing game).

It would also improve the defense, IMO.
Click to expand...

It is so hard for me to think logically about this subject because I am such a fan of the power game we historically have favored (most of the time anyway). I think I would be biased towards that style of football as our choice whether or not it was best for us (or the best way to win games in general).

Go back and look at the 2001 era teams...wow. How can any CU fan look at that and not think "That looks like a CU team right there". Smashmouth football...I am all in for that.

BUT

Look at that O-Line. We are a long way from having that sort of talent upfront to make that offense possible. If we wanted to start to go in that direction, we might have to start with something gimmicky to get us through the recruiting (and development) black hole until our personnel matched our objectives. Might have to take a page out of Mac 1's playbook and go option or something for a few years...

But I would still be up for that. Help us eventually get to a Stanford-style offense. If we could control the ball more it would help our defense too. In addition, such an offense can do well without a star QB (a position that has never been CUs traditional strength anyway. Now, RB...and O-line...those are traditional strengths of ours...).

But as it stands now, we are a long way from being in a position to make that offense happen. But my heart would sure be glad if we could make that work again.
 
When do we finally hold our QB accountable for anything? Our OC called an amazing game. The only issue I have in this area is not taking any chances down the field as well as our stupid rb rotation. Our D played well enough for us to win.

FYI - Can we just go ahead and can Neinas now? What a joke.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
I don't consider any team that averages only 100 yards rushing per game over the course of a season to be a "power" offense.

Hell - this year's team is averaging almost 170 yards rushing per game.
Click to expand...
Your argument makes no sense to me. Our offensive scheme is what keeps us in these games, IMO
 
Duff Man said:
Just so I understand some of the arguments, Sefo is likely to lead the league in interceptions and that is not a primary reason for our losses? Really?
Click to expand...

Not when the defense is by far the worst in the Conference. I'd love it if he played better, and there is certainly room to improve but when you are giving up what Colorado gives up on the defensive side of the ball, it is really hard for me to believe a QB change is really what would turn around the football program
 
Buffnik said:
Wouldn't that also be true of running the ball?

You can fumble, you can get no gain or a loss, or you can gain yardage.
Click to expand...

We did have a catch for -4 yards today. So that kinda blows up the" three things can happen" stuff.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
You think throwing the ball 52 times is a good thing?!?!?!
Click to expand...
So our offensive scheme is the reason why we are losing games? I am really trying to understand your argument for changing offensive schemes and I am at a loss. I do agree we should have kept feeding Adkins the ball, but our scheme should not be changed.
 
rolandftw said:
Not when the defense is by far the worst in the Conference. I'd love it if he played better, and there is certainly room to improve but when you are giving up what Colorado gives up on the defensive side of the ball, it is really hard for me to believe a QB change is really what would turn around the football program
Click to expand...
The defense is bad, but actually not the worst in the conference by far.You are giving the most important offensive player on a 2-7 team a complete pass. That confuses me.
 
rolandftw said:
Not when the defense is by far the worst in the Conference. I'd love it if he played better, and there is certainly room to improve but when you are giving up what Colorado gives up on the defensive side of the ball, it is really hard for me to believe a QB change is really what would turn around the football program
Click to expand...
:nod:

If the D can get a stop against Cal or OSU we likely go on to win those games. the D wasn't terrible today, but Peterson definitely took advantage of White starting.
Illegal Jesus said:
So our offensive scheme is the reason why we are losing games? I am really trying to understand your argument for changing offensive schemes and I am at a loss. I do agree we should have kept feeding Adkins the ball, but our scheme should not be changed.
Click to expand...
Tradition, man
 
Illegal Jesus said:
So our offensive scheme is the reason why we are losing games? I am really trying to understand your argument for changing offensive schemes and I am at a loss. I do agree we should have kept feeding Adkins the ball, but our scheme should not be changed.
Click to expand...


How do you keep feeding ANY RB the ball, let alone Adkins - when the QB passes the ball 50+ times?

I agree 110%, Adkins should have carried the ball 20+ times. I said that early in the 3rd quarter when he had 11 carries and was already over 100 yards. He finished with 13 carries. Stupid.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
How do you keep feeding ANY RB the ball, let alone Adkins - when the QB passes the ball 50+ times?

I agree 110%, Adkins should have carried the ball 20+ times. I said that early in the 3rd quarter when he had 11 carries and was already over 100 yards. He finished with 13 carries. Stupid.
Click to expand...

Agree. We have to keep running more. Sefo is not a guy we want chucking 50+ times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top