Well, we averaged 38 ppg over the 1st 5 games. If we'd hit 38 in any of our last 7 during regulation (keeping opponent points the same):
USC - win
UW - win
OSU - win
UA - loss
WSU - win
Utah - win
Cal - win
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 Coaching Search Thread
- Thread starter slider
- Start date
USC - win
UW - win
OSU - win
UA - loss
WSU - win
Utah - win
Cal - win
I am willing to concede that if we have a high flying offense, we will usually lose to more talented teams we play in slush storms by about 2 scores.
brettden
Well-Known Member
Lord of the flies, we are dividing into hunters and thinkers . . . Not sure which is which
Not enough Leavitty around here.
Ripp
Woke bitch
You should probably just Leavitt be.
Boom. That was what I was thinking.
I Lake what you did there toDay.
You average about 3 offensive possessions a quarter. That may push 4 when faster paced style of play teams meet up.I expect the offense to score at least one TD per quarter. I expect the defense to hold the opposition to less.
That is my definition of a balanced, winning and successful team.
I have nothing else to add.
I expect the offense to succeed most of the time, not just 1/3 or 1/4 of the time. So I want 10-14 points a quarter on offense. And I'm willing to give up 7-10 points a quarter on defense if I'm making that happen.
I remain unconvinced that being good at just offense or just defense will translate to anything beyond mediocre.
The advent of the zone-read changed the game. All sorts of programs starting winning, that had lesser talent. If anything, to me, defenses are mostly catching up.
I thought they would catch up once the NCAA fixed the rules exploit Chip had found on defensive substitutions. But they really haven't.
FIFY
Kool-aid FTW!
Yea he talked up Tucker quite a bit.
Interest in Tucker?
Jeric
Club Member
Yeah, I mean, he only talked about Tucker outside of a small mention of Mason.
@Duff Man and @Buffnik are arguing the same side of the coin and they don’t realize it yet.
Do you know why this age old debate of defense vs offense to win championships has still yet to be settled? It’s because what really wins championships is physicality, size, and speed.
In short, the biggest and most athletic players, when they impose superior physicality, will be the difference maker. Sometimes that’s on offense (Ohio state, Oklahoma) and sometimes a team focuses on building that on the defensive side of the ball (Michigan, Washington). And some lucky teams can out recruit everyone and do it on both sides in order to be truly dominate(Alabama, Clemson).
Then again, I’ve had a short glass of Don Julio already, so I could be full of ****. But I don’t think so.
Do you know why this age old debate of defense vs offense to win championships has still yet to be settled? It’s because what really wins championships is physicality, size, and speed.
In short, the biggest and most athletic players, when they impose superior physicality, will be the difference maker. Sometimes that’s on offense (Ohio state, Oklahoma) and sometimes a team focuses on building that on the defensive side of the ball (Michigan, Washington). And some lucky teams can out recruit everyone and do it on both sides in order to be truly dominate(Alabama, Clemson).
Then again, I’ve had a short glass of Don Julio already, so I could be full of ****. But I don’t think so.
I am impressed by your reasoning and might want to subscribe to your newsletter.
One final question, though, to test your mettle -- what is this revolutionary invention?
Good thing NIU pinned them deep. Old school, baby!
He said that CU is really intrigued by him and "he's got alot of traction there". TIFWIW
How I wish Oregon State would hire him!
Glenbuff95
Full grown idot
Why?
Sure. But I said “at least one td per quarter”. At least.
Some teams you smoke the opponent and roll up points every drive. Some opponents have really good defenses and you don’t.
I still want at least one td/qtr vs those really good d’s. You put up AT LEAST 28 points per game with a very good defense on your team, your gonna win a lot of games.
Now this time I mean it! I’m gonna go sit in the corner and chew on my “Captain Obvious” trophy.
Last edited:
What I was saying was, people are saying “you EITHER can have a good offense OR a good defense, but not both”. Lame argument. The TYPE of offense can be debated. But to say you can’t have both just because of the head coach’s background is kind of asinine to me.
Read what I was replying to.
I think the argument, which has some credibility (but probably is not absolute), is that certain types of offenses, especially if they're "good," make it really difficult to have a good defense (at least when measured by the traditional measurements of points/yards per game - points/yards per possession might yield different results).