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!

Official Buffs vs. USC Game Thread --- 8:45 PM on FS1

hawg1 said:
Here is a brief summary of issues raised this morning:

Playcalling
Coaching
Depth
Talent
Recruiting
RB
Happy feet
Too focused on one playmaker
Clock management
DB
OL

I could go on. It’s a plethora of issues, not just one.

A program in Year Six should not have this many issues.
Click to expand...
I think your last statement is far too simplistic. There is not always year by year, linear growth in a program. Most of those items you listed (depth, talent, recruiting, OL, DB, RB) can all be wrapped into one: Recruiting. If you want to say that a program in year 6 shouldn’t have recruiting issues like CU does, particularly on the OL, then fine. Playcalling, coaching, and clock management aren’t somehow tied to how long a HC has been at a program. Every program has issues w playcalling, poor schemes, and bad clock management at times. Until last night, none of those were glaring issues, outside of substandard OL play. Funny how a team with elite talent and depth can expose a bunch of issues with a team without either of those.
 
White_Rabbit said:
after sleeping on it, some thoughts:

that sucked. We just played really ****ty in a lot of areas. Our OL is ****ing bad. We lack depth all over the place. Chev has to bring a better plan going forward.

But we're still 5-1. I've been thinking ever since the Nebraska game that we're not a very good team, we're maybe a top 25 team, but not a real top 10-15 type team. But it's ok because the P12 is really bad this year. We can still win double digits this year. I can't say I'm optimistic next week against UW, but the rest of the season I'm pretty optimistic. IMO we don't play anyone else we shouldn't beat.

I hope Chev takes the training wheels off of Montez. He's a lot better than that gameplan last night. 47 passes for 170 yards? You have to be kidding me. Let the guy throw the ball down the field and to more than one receiver.

and hopefully we left Bernardi in LA last night. How in the mother **** that guy still has a job at this school is a travesty.
Click to expand...
Agreed. At the end of the day, I still think they are in position for a 9-3 regular season. Loss to UW likely, and then a loss to either Utah or WSU.
 
TSchekler said:
Agreed. At the end of the day, I still think they are in position for a 9-3 regular season. Loss to UW likely, and then a loss to either Utah or WSU.
Click to expand...

Getting both at home I think we should win those games. I was more worried about the Cal game on the road, but then they managed to get dumpstered by UCLA. So I'm going with we should win that one too. But still even if we drop a should win game, still a really good season and way above my personal expectations.
 
White_Rabbit said:
I hope Chev takes the training wheels off of Montez. He's a lot better than that gameplan last night. 47 passes for 170 yards? You have to be kidding me. Let the guy throw the ball down the field and to more than one receiver.
Click to expand...

Count up how many drops there were? Take half those away and he'd have had 200+ yards. Their secondary was really really good.
 
I feel like had they sent Viska deep it would really opened up the underneath stuff to Brown, KD, Jay Mac, etc. It was clear they were keying on him , but everything we were running kept all 4-5 receivers within 0-15 yards of the LOS. Pretty easy to play defense when it’s cluttered in that area and there’s no worries of a deep shot.
 
White_Rabbit said:
just no. and even if he had 200 that's still pathetic. 47 attempts you should have 300+ yards passing. Chev had our possible NFL QB throwing WR screens and flares the entire ****ing game.
Click to expand...
you nailed it! whole usc d was within 10 yards of the line and they just clogged all the passing lanes...pretty easy to do when they dont have to worry about a route going deeper than 10 yards
 
hawg1 said:
Im glad you watched, kid. Cause you then witnessed a timid, bless your heart, afraid coach who lacks gravitas and leadership.

Nice guy. Not right for this job.
Click to expand...
You're really trying to skirt around the truth of my original statement. Whatever you like to tell yourself, go ahead.
 
I guess my final thoughts were that using Viska as a decoy would mean that his stats and his individual accolades would have to take a backseat to the TEAM. So, is there a chance that all the eyeballs on Viska hurts team morale and does not make the rest of the team remained focus. Remember our motto is "Nothing to say, lots to prove" Well, unfortunately a LOT WAS SAID about one guy, and we win as a team. Need a reset, and possibly need to let Viska be Viska without this much attention right now.

Had he been used as a decoy, and Montez looked at him early, but then moved onto the other receivers, we could have picked them apart!!! Chiv had to choose to get the big dog the ball, or use the big dog as a decoy, and he made the wrong choice this time! Learn from it and improve.
 
The defense played well enough overall to win. That includes inexplicable sets that had Abrams blitzing while Taylor was in deep coverage .

That said, the OL had nothing to do with the 5-0 start and everything to do with their first loss. Exposed big time.
 
Bliff Cranch said:
The defense played well enough overall to win. That includes inexplicable sets that had Abrams blitzing while Taylor was in deep coverage .

That said, the OL had nothing to do with the 5-0 start and everything to do with their first loss. Exposed big time.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with the 5 wins? Come on man.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
You're really trying to skirt around the truth of my original statement. Whatever you like to tell yourself, go ahead.
Click to expand...
For some reason, the term bothers you. I’m quite comfortable using it, and choosing to use it when I see abysmal leadership. His presser was embarrassing.
 
Bliff Cranch said:
The defense played well enough overall to win. That includes inexplicable sets that had Abrams blitzing while Taylor was in deep coverage .

That said, the OL had nothing to do with the 5-0 start and everything to do with their first loss. Exposed big time.
Click to expand...
If Abrams is gonna blitz, he can’t chop his steps. That’s coaching.
 
hawg1 said:
For some reason, the term bothers you. I’m quite comfortable using it, and choosing to use it when I see abysmal leadership. His presser was embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Original statement is still true. Continue justifying yourself in your head however you see fit. I don't care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top