Now what?

[CUFan]

I would be psyched if we got those kids WR.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

I would trade virtually anyone on your wish list for Ballage.

:stupid:

 

[sackman]

Ballage and Ihenacho would be really great additions to this class. Not sure how realistic that is, but if MM can pull it off, he'll be laying the foundation for some great teams in another 3-4 years.

 

[Jaximus]

Ballage may be a special talent. But unless we have an OL who can block, he will be totally useless. I'd trade Ballage for a highly recruited OT.

This program will only be fixed once we can establish strong play from our lines. There are no gimmicks or tricks that will sustain us long term.

IMO, this is the order of importance in regards to position for OUR program:

1. QB - Most important position on any team.
2. OT - Look at the recent NFL drafts... Need I say more?
3. DE - Pass Rush = sacks and TO's.
4. CB - Must have good cover corners in the PAC
5. G/C - OL play dictates everything on the offense
6. LB - Speed and athleticism is key in the PAC
7. S - What happens when you don't have a great safety in the PAC? See CU football for last two years...
8. RB - Luxury position. If OL and QB are good, get a great RB and see your program soar.
9. WR - See RB.
10. DT - Not as big of a need in the PAC compared to the SEC or Big 12.
11. TE - Doesn't appear that our system calls for much TE play making.

If our program was built by successfully filling positions in that order, we'd be on track. Too many struggling programs try building through RB and WR recruiting which are dependent positions. It all starts up front!

Case and point. Oregon and Stanford. Totally different schemes. Led by strong OL and DL play.

 

[SECOBuffsFan]

You will get good running backs when you have an above average to great offensive line year in and year out....that is the key to CU rebuilding in my opinion.....Stanford and Wisconsin

 

[leftybuff]

Ballage may be a special talent. But unless we have an OL who can block, he will be totally useless. I'd trade Ballage for a highly recruited OT.

This program will only be fixed once we can establish strong play from our lines. There are no gimmicks or tricks that will sustain us long term.

IMO, this is the order of importance in regards to position for OUR program:

1. QB - Most important position on any team.
2. OT - Look at the recent NFL drafts... Need I say more?
3. DE - Pass Rush = sacks and TO's.
4. CB - Must have good cover corners in the PAC
5. G/C - OL play dictates everything on the offense
6. LB - Speed and athleticism is key in the PAC
7. S - What happens when you don't have a great safety in the PAC? See CU football for last two years...
8. RB - Luxury position. If OL and QB are good, get a great RB and see your program soar.
9. WR - See RB.
10. DT - Not as big of a need in the PAC compared to the SEC or Big 12.
11. TE - Doesn't appear that our system calls for much TE play making.

If our program was built by successfully filling positions in that order, we'd be on track. Too many struggling programs try building through RB and WR recruiting which are dependent positions. It all starts up front!

Case and point. Oregon and Stanford. Totally different schemes. Led by strong OL and DL play.

Shouldn't this be in another thread?

 

[somebody]

Shouldn't this be in another thread?

lol, yes

 

[Quattro]

Ballage may be a special talent. But unless we have an OL who can block, he will be totally useless. I'd trade Ballage for a highly recruited OT.

This program will only be fixed once we can establish strong play from our lines. There are no gimmicks or tricks that will sustain us long term.

IMO, this is the order of importance in regards to position for OUR program:

1. QB - Most important position on any team.
2. OT - Look at the recent NFL drafts... Need I say more?
3. DE - Pass Rush = sacks and TO's.
4. CB - Must have good cover corners in the PAC
5. G/C - OL play dictates everything on the offense
6. LB - Speed and athleticism is key in the PAC
7. S - What happens when you don't have a great safety in the PAC? See CU football for last two years...
8. RB - Luxury position. If OL and QB are good, get a great RB and see your program soar.
9. WR - See RB.
10. DT - Not as big of a need in the PAC compared to the SEC or Big 12.
11. TE - Doesn't appear that our system calls for much TE play making.

If our program was built by successfully filling positions in that order, we'd be on track. Too many struggling programs try building through RB and WR recruiting which are dependent positions. It all starts up front!

Case and point. Oregon and Stanford. Totally different schemes. Led by strong OL and DL play.

1. Special talents at RB like Ballage can make subpar to mediocre lines much better than they actually are. Case in point: Rodney Stewart

2. Sure they are now, but how did they build their teams? Speed or did they focus on the trenches? That should be a more important question at the momeny.

No I'm not saying we should ignore OL but we aren't getting any highly rated OL this class and Ballage is the best we've got a shot at (albeit a small one)

 

[buffaholic]

To me, I've always felt RB was over-rated. Shanahan never valued them, and year after year, he had productive guys.

Elway has wasted two high draft picks in two years in my opinion. Much rather he'd have used those on OL guys. RBs just don't last in the NFL long enough to get that value. In College, they can be difference makers, but they are just part of a machine, no more valuable than any other cog, imo.

 

[MtnBuff]

Ballage may be a special talent. But unless we have an OL who can block, he will be totally useless. I'd trade Ballage for a highly recruited OT.

This program will only be fixed once we can establish strong play from our lines. There are no gimmicks or tricks that will sustain us long term.

IMO, this is the order of importance in regards to position for OUR program:

1. QB - Most important position on any team.
2. OT - Look at the recent NFL drafts... Need I say more?
3. DE - Pass Rush = sacks and TO's.
4. CB - Must have good cover corners in the PAC
5. G/C - OL play dictates everything on the offense
6. LB - Speed and athleticism is key in the PAC
7. S - What happens when you don't have a great safety in the PAC? See CU football for last two years...
8. RB - Luxury position. If OL and QB are good, get a great RB and see your program soar.
9. WR - See RB.
10. DT - Not as big of a need in the PAC compared to the SEC or Big 12.
11. TE - Doesn't appear that our system calls for much TE play making.

If our program was built by successfully filling positions in that order, we'd be on track. Too many struggling programs try building through RB and WR recruiting which are dependent positions. It all starts up front!

Case and point. Oregon and Stanford. Totally different schemes. Led by strong OL and DL play.

Don't disagree about the importance of OL but you can develop guys to play those positions. In the NFL RBs aren't that important, in the college game a quality RB can be a big difference maker. A RB who can consistently gain yardage and who had the potential to make big plays can and does make college QBs much more effective.

 

[Buffnik]

Where the team currently is, I think that having a RB make yards when there isn't a ton there is what our OL needs to build its confidence. OLs improve pretty rapidly when they have success to build upon. We need it to come from that direction right now rather than trying to count on our OL suddenly becoming good enough to make mediocre RBs successful. My 2 cents.

 

[Jaximus]

1. Special talents at RB like Ballage can make subpar to mediocre lines much better than they actually are. Case in point: Rodney Stewart

2. Sure they are now, but how did they build their teams? Speed or did they focus on the trenches? That should be a more important question at the momeny.

No I'm not saying we should ignore OL but we aren't getting any highly rated OL this class and Ballage is the best we've got a shot at (albeit a small one)

1. Rodney Stewarts size and running style worked well for our crappy OLine. Ballage isn't that type of runner (and I still maintain that he'd have a better career as a Rush OLB). He requires an OL push to open holes and create running lanes. I can see why the Big 10 schools are after him. There is overwhelming support that systems and OL are more responsible for RB success than RB's who succeed on teams with crappy OL.

2. Show me a program with a top notch OL and I'll show you a winning team. Lots of losing teams with great RB's and WR's (PRich in CO). Is Montee Ball a special talent? No? Then why did he run for all those yards in Wisconsin? Look at the Alabama RB's who haven't done much in the NFL (Richardson has averaged 3 yards a carry. I own him in Fantasy....).

The point is that Ballage will not turn this program into a winner until we have an above average OL in front of him. It appears to me that we are a long way away from that based on what I've seen on the field and with our failed OL recruiting for years. We're just WISHING that we develop talent.

Well....
[video=youtube;E_bx6B3dBMM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_bx6B3dBMM[/video]

 

[SuperiorBuff]

1. Rodney Stewarts size and running style worked well for our crappy OLine. Ballage isn't that type of runner (and I still maintain that he'd have a better career as a Rush OLB). He requires an OL push to open holes and create running lanes. I can see why the Big 10 schools are after him. There is overwhelming support that systems and OL are more responsible for RB success than RB's who succeed on teams with crappy OL.

2. Show me a program with a top notch OL and I'll show you a winning team. Lots of losing teams with great RB's and WR's (PRich in CO). Is Montee Ball a special talent? No? Then why did he run for all those yards in Wisconsin? Look at the Alabama RB's who haven't done much in the NFL (Richardson has averaged 3 yards a carry. I own him in Fantasy....).

The point is that Ballage will not turn this program into a winner until we have an above average OL in front of him. It appears to me that we are a long way away from that based on what I've seen on the field and with our failed OL recruiting for years. We're just WISHING that we develop talent.

Well....
[video=youtube;E_bx6B3dBMM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_bx6B3dBMM[/video]

Not accurate. His film as a RB is not indicative of what he can do. I'm not sure why they chose the clips they did. He has far better runs than what was used on his film. He is extremely fast, very loose hips and can get to top speed in very few steps. I've seen him make holes where there are none, make defenders tackle air and flat out run the entire defense as soon as he hits the LB level.

 

[sackman]

I'm convinced. We should stop recruiting Ballage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[BuffLuke80]

Ballage is at the top of my list, no matter what problems the roster has. Him, plus a few others mentioned would make me happy.

 

[Jaximus]

FYI. Not advocating that we DON'T recruit Ballage. ESPECIALLY if he ends up on the defensive side of the ball. I'd love to have him even though we seem to have little chance... My point is that there are other positions than RB we need to recruit at a higher level to make a player like Ballage truly shine for us.

 

[Duff Man]

Is there some sort of rule that limits teams to using one RB per play?

 

[Buffnik]

Is there some sort of rule that limits teams to using one RB per play?

:lol:

And for the record, the "Pistol" has a different meaning to our coaches than the standard textbook description. To them, it means the QB is taking a snap from closer in than he would from a "Shotgun" formation. It doesn't mean single back behind. Back could be to the side. Could be split backs. Could be empty backfield.

 

[Darth Snow]

:lol:

And for the record, the "Pistol" has a different meaning to our coaches than the standard textbook description. To them, it means the QB is taking a snap from closer in than he would from a "Shotgun" formation. It doesn't mean single back behind. Back could be to the side. Could be split backs. Could be empty backfield.

actually, they don't. It's just that most people have no idea what they are talking about when they say pistol. All that matters is the position of the quarterback. That said, I've never seen an empty set "pistol" as the QB always moves back for a full shotgun at that point.

 

[Buffnik]

actually, they don't. It's just that most people have no idea what they are talking about when they say pistol. All that matters is the position of the quarterback. That said, I've never seen an empty set "pistol" as the QB always moves back for a full shotgun at that point.

When you've got OL issues, there's still a reason to snap it to the QB at 4 yards instead of 6 yards deep even out of an empty set. I'm not sure if we have, though. I really haven't been paying close attention. I think most of our "armchair pistol experts" think it means a RB behind the QB because that's how that set of formations was set up in Madden.

Only point I was trying to make is that it is basically the "sawed off shotgun" offense. Like with a shotgun, all it means is how far back the QB is when he takes the snap.

 

[patebuff]

When you've got OL issues, there's still a reason to snap it to the QB at 4 yards instead of 6 yards deep even out of an empty set. I'm not sure if we have, though. I really haven't been paying close attention. I think most of our "armchair pistol experts" think it means a RB behind the QB because that's how that set of formations was set up in Madden.

Only point I was trying to make is that it is basically the "sawed off shotgun" offense. Like with a shotgun, all it means is how far back the QB is when he takes the snap.

Awesome! No more "Pistol". It's the "Sawed off Shotgun"

 

[somebody]

SOS offense, not good (UBL).