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 worried

Shldr2Shldr said:
Honestly the team reminds me a bit of the Ducks in recent years. Not this year obviously. Our offense puts pressure on other teams to play more risky. However our defense is good, so they make people pay when they make mistakes.

The biggest difference IMO is that CU is playing with a bit of old school big 8/12 toughness and physicality. Something the Ducks never did. It is an interesting hybrid that so far has been a ton of fun to watch.
Click to expand...

Defensively, what has surprised me is how vanilla Leavitt has been able to go this year. Buffs play a lot of straight up base D. I guess when you've got a 3-man DL that requires all 5 OLs to get blocked and 3 CBs that can all shut down a good Pac-12 WR in man coverage without safety help, you don't have to screw around too much. The cool thing with that, though, is that Leavitt's got the horses to take major risks if he feels that he needs to.
 
Buffnik said:
Defensively, what has surprised me is how vanilla Leavitt has been able to go this year. Buffs play a lot of straight up base D. I guess when you've got a 3-man DL that requires all 5 OLs to get blocked and 3 CBs that can all shut down a good Pac-12 WR in man coverage without safety help, you don't have to screw around too much. The cool thing with that, though, is that Leavitt's got the horses to take major risks if he feels that he needs to.
Click to expand...

You saw this against UM, which is probably the best OL we will face all year. Not only does Leavitt have the players to take those kinds of risks, he has the players that are versatile enough that he can disguise his attack in a variety of ways.
 
Darth Snow said:
our defensive efficiency numbers are slightly above average, but we cause turnovers/havoc at a high rate. Basically, we bend a bit, but make teams pay for mistakes and don't give up a lot of explosive plays, especially in the pass game. We don't do well with short fields. I will take that kind of defense, especially with an offense like ours.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If you run up tempo like we are doing then you have to be BdB on D...because clock has to be eaten somewhere. Chip Kelly's ideal D for an uptempo team: Make opposing O eat clock even if it means non-red-zone yards, outside the redzone focus on turnovers even if you risk yards (high tempo wants high # of possessions), revert to normal in red-zone, Only 3-4 offers flexibility for this. Doesn't do wonders for your Defensive efficiency...but that is really the fault of the offensive scheme. Curious to me that Oregon has reverted back to 4-3 with Hoke. This seems antithetical given their offense.

Cool thing is we have really been able to slow down once we are ahead. If we didn't our seconds per play would be ridiculous.
 
I am worried about field goal kicking. At some point we are going to need a field goal to win a game.
 
8Jah said:
Exactly. If you run up tempo like we are doing then you have to be BdB on D...because clock has to be eaten somewhere. Chip Kelly's ideal D for an uptempo team: Make opposing O eat clock even if it means non-red-zone yards, outside the redzone focus on turnovers even if you risk yards (high tempo wants high # of possessions), revert to normal in red-zone, Only 3-4 offers flexibility for this. Doesn't do wonders for your Defensive efficiency...but that is really the fault of the offensive scheme. Curious to me that Oregon has reverted back to 4-3 with Hoke. This seems antithetical given their offense.

Cool thing is we have really been able to slow down once we are ahead. If we didn't our seconds per play would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to explain why you have to eat clock somewhere. This argument doesn't make any sense to me. If you run an up-tempo offense, why would you want the opposing defense to get as much extra rest as possible? If anything, you'd want the reverse with an uptempo offense: a defense that gets a lot of turnovers and 3 and outs, but is susceptible to big plays.
 
Darth Snow said:
our defensive efficiency numbers are slightly above average, but we cause turnovers/havoc at a high rate. Basically, we bend a bit, but make teams pay for mistakes and don't give up a lot of explosive plays, especially in the pass game. We don't do well with short fields. I will take that kind of defense, especially with an offense like ours.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on the bold? Defensive efficiency sits at 82.4 and is good enough for #1 in the Pac 12 and #12 in the country. I'd say that is considered more than slightly above average.
http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings/_/sort/defEfficiency/tab/efficiency
 
Skidmark said:
Also, PSU and Wiscy never had a lead.
Click to expand...

After the Buff game ended I watched the end of UM/UW. Neither team could complete a pass - but not due to amazing coverage or defense. They were just bad at it. It was one of the most boring things I've seen - and I even like rushing football. But, each team would rush it about 5 times. Get a total of one first down, then fail on a pass play followed by a punt. Repeat. I missed the very end when UM was finally able to score. These teams are both vulnerable to a good passing attack.
 
I have a lot of confidence in our pass D. I'm less confident in our run D. We are pretty solid up the middle but Michigan had success against us when they ran wide because our LBs (Gamboa most noticeably) are just not fast enough. You could even see it a little in the CSU game. You know SC is watching the film on us and taking note. If SC can get the run game working by going wide (and they do have a ton of speed) our safeties have to do more run support which leaves our CB on an island against some of the most talented WRs in all of CFB.
 
SJBuff said:
I have a lot of confidence in our pass D. I'm less confident in our run D. We are pretty solid up the middle but Michigan had success against us when they ran wide because our LBs (Gamboa most noticeably) are just not fast enough. You could even see it a little in the CSU game. You know SC is watching the film on us and taking note. If SC can get the run game working by going wide (and they do have a ton of speed) our safeties have to do more run support which leaves our CB on an island against some of the most talented WRs in all of CFB.
Click to expand...

This is why they have put Moeller in at OLB. He may not rack up a ton of numbers out there but he helps set the edge and allows the rest of the LB's to catch up. If there was one team I expected to kill us on the edge it was Oregon, and they didn't.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
This is why they have put Moeller in at OLB. He may not rack up a ton of numbers out there but he helps set the edge and allows the rest of the LB's to catch up. If there was one team I expected to kill us on the edge it was Oregon, and they didn't.
Click to expand...
agreed - they have as much speed if not more than the condoms
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
This is why they have put Moeller in at OLB. He may not rack up a ton of numbers out there but he helps set the edge and allows the rest of the LB's to catch up. If there was one team I expected to kill us on the edge it was Oregon, and they didn't.
Click to expand...
The team I'm most worried about killing us on the edge is Stanford. McCaffery has the speed and their Oline is (usually) very solid.
 
SJBuff said:
The team I'm most worried about killing us on the edge is Stanford. McCaffery has the speed and their Oline is (usually) very solid.
Click to expand...

Usually, although they have struggled lately. Not sure what is going on there. UW made McCaf invisible.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Our kicker against OSU was 5/5 on PAT and 2/2 on FG including a 54 yarder. Obviously need to see him do it again, but I think we might be ok.
Click to expand...
Psyched for the kid - would like to see the trajectory a bit higher, but that will take some time. All in all, he did a great job on Saturday.
 
Also, his 54 yarder had 3 or 4 yards to spare. But, yeah, it was a low laser, haha.
 
8Jah said:
I am worried about field goal kicking. At some point we are going to need a field goal to win a game.
Click to expand...

Ct3rhfIXYAQt4ff.jpg
 
Buffnik said:
Michigan's 45 included 14 directly from special teams and almost everything else indirectly from special teams giving short fields.

Oregon's 38 was very much due to turnovers and a fake punt, otherwise the defense holds them in the 20s at Autzen. Shut them out in the 4th quarter to win that game, which is not getting enough attention.

The stats lie with those 2 point totals.
Click to expand...
Kind of been my rational. Oregon regardless of their W/L record for the remainder of the season they are a dangerous team for anyone. Containment is all a DC can try to achieve, we bent but didn't break. I'll add one of the picks was partially due to going to the well one too many times with the slant and they jumped it. Montez threw one bad pass the entire game and it got picked.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
This is why they have put Moeller in at OLB. He may not rack up a ton of numbers out there but he helps set the edge and allows the rest of the LB's to catch up. If there was one team I expected to kill us on the edge it was Oregon, and they didn't.
Click to expand...
Hate to say it but Moeller is much faster than McCartney, in the PAC speed is more important than size in most games. In the future I would expect we will begin to see lighter faster LBs on the outside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top