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!

Is Colorado not a good rushing team?

Boy, good thing U$C had almost no talent on "D" and a shi*ty DC in Clancy Pendergast, or the Buffs would have been in real trouble.....
Oh......wait....
Those guys on the other side get schollies for being 4* recruits and their DC is one of the best and highest-paid assistant coaches around(even if he is a legend in his own mind). That might have had a little something to do with their defensive success.
 
MiamiBuffs said:
The goal is to make a bowl game and prove The Rise is real and net some recruits that are a next level upgrade from what we've been getting (last 10 years) that put the future for CU Football in a better place.

If we can win most of the rest of our games and keep all our coaches we should be in good shape for that. Bonus if we beat Stanford. Bonus if we win the south. Bonus if we hang around the Top 25 rankings to the end. It would be nice to look back and see our only losses were Michigan and USC because they are considered power houses that just reload. Though I expect at least one more loss to come from someone.
Click to expand...
I think we should be prepared for CU to drop at least 2 more. Between ASU, Stanford, UCLA and Utah, I see at least 2 losses from those 4. Luckily 3 of them are at home. Need to get back on track this weekend against ASU.
 
Play calling has almost nothing to do with it. If anything, creative play calling is getting some ground game production with a duct tape and bailing wire approach.

This OL simply cannot get a push or open a hole against top flight competition. Sorry, that is the problem. They are hell on UMass, CSewe or Charleston Southern, but P5 competition exposes them.

Until CU upgrades across it OL, this will continue.

Just for fun, I went and looked at this year's pre-season all P12 lists from ESPN, Athlon, CFBNews and Pacific Takes. None listed any CU OL anywhere. Even Pacific Takes that listed a 1st, 2d and 3d all P12 team AND honorable mention besides, still had not one CU OL listed. Athlon goes 1st, 2d and 3d, same thing. What does that mean? I would submit it means CU's OL is lightly regarded when compared to their peers.

Alex Kelley, a player I really like BTW, is a four year starter and cannot get a sniff at pre-season honors? Ditto with Nembot last year? That exposes the depth of the problem. Four year starters should be your very best at the position they play. When you have four year starters who are not even on the all-league radar, you have a unit that has a pretty severe talent gap.

I like where the Buffs are headed, but the above has been one of the criticisms of MikMac's recruiting. Need OL talent upgrade yesterday.
 
If we can't get a push, which has shown up a few times this year, I'd like to see some creativity with it. Meaning getting guys in space and let them make plays. We can't abandon the run completely, never the answer imho. Mix it up and show a lot of looks, doesn't mean we can't run basic stuff still but it puts it in their heads that maybe they are running something else.
 
leftybuff said:
Play calling has almost nothing to do with it. If anything, creative play calling is getting some ground game production with a duct tape and bailing wire approach.

This OL simply cannot get a push or open a hole against top flight competition. Sorry, that is the problem. They are hell on UMass, CSewe or Charleston Southern, but P5 competition exposes them.

Until CU upgrades across it OL, this will continue.

Just for fun, I went and looked at this year's pre-season all P12 lists from ESPN, Athlon, CFBNews and Pacific Takes. None listed any CU OL anywhere. Even Pacific Takes that listed a 1st, 2d and 3d all P12 team AND honorable mention besides, still had not one CU OL listed. Athlon goes 1st, 2d and 3d, same thing. What does that mean? I would submit it means CU's OL is lightly regarded when compared to their peers.

Alex Kelley, a player I really like BTW, is a four year starter and cannot get a sniff at pre-season honors? Ditto with Nembot last year? That exposes the depth of the problem. Four year starters should be your very best at the position they play. When you have four year starters who are not even on the all-league radar, you have a unit that has a pretty severe talent gap.

I like where the Buffs are headed, but the above has been one of the criticisms of MikMac's recruiting. Need OL talent upgrade yesterday.
Click to expand...
Our OL and running game has been hell for 4 of our 6 opponents, with 2 of them being of the P5 variety. CU is a middle-of-the-road running team that will thrive against other mediocre P5 teams. They aren't good enough to compete with the top end P5 programs, let's dispose of the narrative that we can only run on G5 and FCS teams.

I do agree that CU needs a talent upgrade on the OL, going forward. Gray shirting and then Red Shirting project OL and waiting for them to physically mature isn't the worst strategy in the world, and it's paying off better this year than most would have thought, but at some point we are going to need more talented and naturally gifted athletes to compete with the top P5 programs.
 
Darth Snow said:
Our OL isn't dominant, so we have to scheme our running game. We also have solid but not elite talent at rb. So it's ok to good but can't be seen as dependable against good defenses that can rely on athletes to win enough individual battles
Click to expand...

This is right. The play calling has been fine. We have to rely on misdirection to run the ball. The run game is what will limit how far this team can go. Really good teams can run the ball when the have too, even if the other team is focused on stopping it. We aren't there yet. But even so, we are a good team and have a good shot at winning the South.
 
CU run game is decent. The reason we didn't look good on Saturday was that we couldn't make SC pay for stacking the box. They had our talented receivers in man coverage with the safeties forward. That is how much they trust Adoree Jackson and crew. ...but between their athletes in coverage and their pass rush, Montez had accuracy and timing issues. That is what he meant when he said after the game he had a lot to learn.

Hit the long ball a couple of times and we would have all the sudden gotten the run going too.

I would have loved to seen Carr though. He could have made us a lot more explosive.
 
8Jah said:
CU run game is decent. The reason we didn't look good on Saturday was that we couldn't make SC pay for stacking the box. They had our talented receivers in man coverage with the safeties forward. That is how much they trust Adoree Jackson and crew. ...but between their athletes in coverage and their pass rush, Montez had accuracy and timing issues. That is what he meant when he said after the game he had a lot to learn.

Hit the long ball a couple of times and we would have all the sudden gotten the run going too.

I would have loved to seen Carr though. He could have made us a lot more explosive.
Click to expand...
The radio said they zoned alot. Was it that or more of a combo look? Ya know, part of the secondary zoning and some manning up.
 
I'd say play calling can make a diff. Prob is there are very few OCs who are talented enough to scheme around being out physicalled. No dis on BL...just tough to do...in fact I can't think of an OC off the top of my head who is that good.
 
TSchekler said:
Our OL and running game has been hell for 4 of our 6 opponents, with 2 of them being of the P5 variety. CU is a middle-of-the-road running team that will thrive against other mediocre P5 teams. They aren't good enough to compete with the top end P5 programs, let's dispose of the narrative that we can only run on G5 and FCS teams.

I do agree that CU needs a talent upgrade on the OL, going forward. Gray shirting and then Red Shirting project OL and waiting for them to physically mature isn't the worst strategy in the world, and it's paying off better this year than most would have thought, but at some point we are going to need more talented and naturally gifted athletes to compete with the top P5 programs.
Click to expand...
You know, you are right, averaging roughly five yards a carry against the 98 and 121st rushing D's in the land is impressive, what was I thinking?
 
the LBs went to a zone when they dropped back in coverage to kill the short slants we like to do. What I saw was them trusting their dbs in man.
 
I'm no expert by any stretch, but I'm told running out of the shotgun or pistol is less effective than if the QB is under center. Something to do with the vision the RB has (or doesn't) from that vantage point and diminished play-action threat. It's something the Broncos struggled with last season with the Manning offense. This is not to excuse the relative lack of talent CU has at RB but I think combining things like scheme, OL development, talent, speed, etc results in what we see. Something that sort of works, occasionally.
 
leftybuff said:
You know, you are right, averaging roughly five yards a carry against the 98 and 121st rushing D's in the land is impressive, what was I thinking?
Click to expand...
You said P5 competition exposes them. I qualified that by saying top end P5 competition exposes them. Is that not factually accurate?
 
I agree 1st downs are an issue but I think good defenses are causing a lot of it. We'[ve been able to get 3-4 yards running against the lesser teams pretty reliably. Getting good yards on 1st sets everything else up. Would like to see more Julmisse on offense, his speed can help neutralize a good defense crowding the LOS. I wish Lindsay would cut up instead of always going out of bounds, he leaves some yards on the table. Would like to see something quick to a TE on occasion as well. Mix it up.
 
TSchekler said:
You said P5 competition exposes them. I qualified that by saying top end P5 competition exposes them. Is that not factually accurate?
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstand, you are totally correct, 97th ranked run D and up is top end. I stand corrected.
 
leftybuff said:
No, you misunderstand, you are totally correct, 97th ranked run D and up is top end. I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
And they ran for 260 and 247 yards on Oregon and OSU, respectively. They absolutely dominated bad defenses, as they should have, and then got dominated by top end P5 teams in UM and SC. What don't you understand about my statement?
 
TSchekler said:
And they ran for 260 and 247 yards on Oregon and OSU, respectively. They absolutely dominated bad defenses, as they should have, and then got dominated by top end P5 teams in UM and SC. What don't you understand about my statement?
Click to expand...
I am trying really hard to agree with you, why won't you let me?
 
TSchekler said:
I think we should be prepared for CU to drop at least 2 more. Between ASU, Stanford, UCLA and Utah, I see at least 2 losses from those 4. Luckily 3 of them are at home. Need to get back on track this weekend against ASU.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
It's a very average OL and the recruitment of these very slight micro-backs. The next phase of The Rise needs to get a few bigger backs on the roster.
 
Skidmark said:
Clancy earned his paycheck. That's for sure.
Click to expand...

That's the thing. It's what many people here, @Duff Man in particular, have stressed. The Buffs are playing in the Pac-12, not some low G5 conference. The coordinators CU goes against on a weekly basis are at the top of the profession in college football. We might win the chess match to gain advantage on a week-to-week basis, but we are not going to dominate an opponent at this level on scheme, game plan & play calling. Those guys we're up against are simply too good at their job. So this is where recruiting comes into play. CU has to have roughly equivalent talent & depth so that things like development & retention giving us veterans who play with better technique, prepare better with their maturity, and execute better all come into play so that we can win these games. Right now, where CU is at, winning on the road with our backup QB against a dialed in USC is not something this program should be able to do very often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top