Whatever you think of Eliot, it's ridiculous anyone would complain that we're actually paying coaches semi-close to a respectable P5 level.
No kidding.
Whatever you think of Eliot, it's ridiculous anyone would complain that we're actually paying coaches semi-close to a respectable P5 level.
Fire coach! Gotta love fandom.Demoted at Kentucky for being a pile of garbage. Given a giant raise and promotion by Macintyre to replace elite DC JL.
While we're at it, let's reminisce on our current OCs track record here.
Fire coach! Gotta love fandom.
Is it possible that the coaches had a plan?
Is it possible that some of the athletes were to slow to execute the plan?
Please tell me where I said the coaches were doing a good job. Maybe you need to quit being a jerk.The coaches recruit those athletes. Eliot will not be fired anytime soon, but if you seriously think all the coaches on this team are doing a good job, maybe you should dig a little deeper.
Please tell me where I said the coaches were doing a good job. Maybe you need to quit being a jerk.
First of all, when I was at CU, we were dominating year in year out. Hence my expectation maybe a bit out of kilt with yours.They held UCLA to 27 points on the road. If the receivers just catch the damn ball in the end zone CU wins. The defense did their part last week, and the same could be said against Washington. They've had one bad game under Eliot, it happens.
Yes, the offense lost the UCLA game. You are making an argument for a conclusion not in contention.Um, CU had 4 red zone chances and kicked 3 fg's and ran a dumb fake. The offense lost the ucla game.
I think it is typical fandom.You seem to think anyone advocating any firings is really dumb. You even made a whole thread about it.
I think it is typical fandom.
Go to every fan board where a top 25 team got beat. You can bet that their fans are saying fire the coach same as CU fans
It's absurd on a game by game basis.
A suggestion for you: quit the personal attacks on posters. You are only mod that does it.
False.We've lost five straight to FBS opponents.....given up 188 points in those games....Pathetic...
Too much truth here, batten down the hatches, incoming....Tate and RR were locked in and confident.
Call a play. But it really didn’t matter. Just stroll to line, look at D, look at RR, change play or keep play, clap... then BOOM.
Same exact thing UDub did checking to runs to soft guard.
Did you see one single line adjustment or D adjustment pre-snap while on the ball?
Child’s play.
We've lost five straight to FBS opponents.....given up 188 points in those games....Pathetic...
False.
First of all, when I was at CU, we were dominating year in year out. Hence my expectation maybe a bit out of kilt with yours.
For you to find 27 points acceptable says a lot about the standards at CU. While 27 points against an NFL caliber QB isn't shameful, our inability to stop them on 3rd Down was.
Any time we needed a stop at a key juncture in the game, anytime the game was at a critical point, UCLA moved the chains.
That's on Elliott.
I hvnt argued that the offense has performed well. To the contrary. The OLine is an enigma. Up and down performances against the expectation that this was the strongest unit on the team. QB and Receivers hv been inconsistent. But long term, I dnt think CU is in trouble on Offense the way it is shaping up to be on Defense with Elliott in charge.
Questionable hire when he was brought in and beginning to look like a disaster of a hire by the day.
yep, I kept waiting for that.I think a bigger concern with Eliot is that his position group is struggling getting a pass rush and setting the edge. Saturday night was no doubt a disaster defensively and we will see if that continues or if it was a bad night against a different offensive system but I don't think anyone can sit here and say all is good right now. Also, if Mac was telling the offensive coordinators to run the ball more for the rest of the game then why didn't he get more involved in the defensive adjustments at half time? Sub out Moeller for an actual linebacker and see if they have more success against the run game. Makes no sense to not stack the box and make Tate throw the ball.
No doubt, but he also needs to up the recruiting as it stands right now. I hope he is is Mac's ear about replacing Jeffcoat because that is hurting the defense right now.I'm not sure about this one boys....last week everyone way saying what a great job Elliott was doing replacing Levitt. I think he deserves an entire season before the torches and pitchforks come out.
I do not think it takes much analysis to see our defensive line/front seven is in really bad shape due to some poor recruiting. I think it is okay to acknowledge some coaches are not doing much right now.
Who would have replaced Moeller that would have actually help against their QB runs? It wasn't Stanford or USC going smash mouth; their run game requires so much more speed, athleticism and discipline to stop, and we don't have a bigger, more athletic player than Moeller. That is the exact offense a Buff Back is designed for. He just wasn't good enough.I think a bigger concern with Eliot is that his position group is struggling getting a pass rush and setting the edge. Saturday night was no doubt a disaster defensively and we will see if that continues or if it was a bad night against a different offensive system but I don't think anyone can sit here and say all is good right now. Also, if Mac was telling the offensive coordinators to run the ball more for the rest of the game then why didn't he get more involved in the defensive adjustments at half time? Sub out Moeller for an actual linebacker and see if they have more success against the run game. Makes no sense to not stack the box and make Tate throw the ball.
You can try to sub in Sparaco to pretty much run a 5 man front with Lewis and Gamboa as the only standing linebackers right? Then put Worthington down at about 7 yards. Moeller was getting beat around the edge and was getting mauled straight up because of his size. I just thought the defense needed a little more power on Saturday, instead of letting Arizona dictate and move their line laterally we needed to more physical and keep those guys in the box.Who would have replaced Moeller that would have actually help against their QB runs? It wasn't Stanford or USC going smash mouth; their run game requires so much more speed, athleticism and discipline to stop, and we don't have a bigger, more athletic player than Moeller. That is the exact offense a Buff Back is designed for. He just wasn't good enough.
You can try to sub in Sparaco to pretty much run a 5 man front with Lewis and Gamboa as the only standing linebackers right? Then put Worthington down at about 7 yards. Moeller was getting beat around the edge and was getting mauled straight up because of his size. I just thought the defense needed a little more power on Saturday, instead of letting Arizona dictate and move their line laterally we needed to more physical and keep those guys in the box.
Yeah, they could have gone bigger and then brought a safety down in the box, but then that leaves a glaring hole in the passing game. I just don't think you combat that offense with size and numbers, unless you have some seriously disruptive DL. Oh, and at the end of the day, there isn't a player on CU's roster that is as dynamic as Tate. So many times, our guys were in position to make a play, and just couldn't. No adjustments can fix that.You can try to sub in Sparaco to pretty much run a 5 man front with Lewis and Gamboa as the only standing linebackers right? Then put Worthington down at about 7 yards. Moeller was getting beat around the edge and was getting mauled straight up because of his size. I just thought the defense needed a little more power on Saturday, instead of letting Arizona dictate and move their line laterally we needed to more physical and keep those guys in the box.
Maybe not, just seems like you would want to stack the box and prevent Tate from getting outside to space. Physicality is always the best way to slow down these spread offenses that consistently move the tackle box horizontally. And at the end of the day you have to try something or else you end up having a night like we just did.Yeah, they could have gone bigger and then brought a safety down in the box, but then that leaves a glaring hole in the passing game. I just don't think you combat that offense with size and numbers, unless you have some seriously disruptive DL. Oh, and at the end of the day, there isn't a player on CU's roster that is as dynamic as Tate. So many times, our guys were in position to make a play, and just couldn't. No adjustments can fix that.
By the 3rd quarter it was pretty apparent that if we sat back we wouldn't get a stop. We needed to get aggressive and take some chances to make a stop. What was the worst that would happen? They'd burn us on a deep pass? How was that worse than their QB eating us alive 30 yards a rush.Maybe not, just seems like you would want to stack the box and prevent Tate from getting outside to space. Physicality is always the best way to slow down these spread offenses that consistently move the tackle box horizontally. And at the end of the day you have to try something or else you end up having a night like we just did.