some of you ****s are going to be tragically insufferable when we take the next step.
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: CU vs. Arizona Game Thread 10/19/24
- Thread starter Bread
- Start date
my close to the program friends have all aged out of caring that much. currently, they appear to be quite focused on how to unwind the Lincoln problem. and they still do not believe in CP.
the best they will say "it will be interesting to see how it goes" and similar sentiments. I hope they get rolled, pressed, and hand tossed like a pizza in the big10.
Glad it turned out the way it did
Good lord; how is ISU undefeated if they are giving up 6.1 YPC? Second question: why are teams refusing to run the ball against ISU? Third fewest carries per game against. Its also not like those teams were having to go pass heavy to try to catch up- in every single B12 game, ISUs opponent was either leading or within a score at the half.
He has basically been Automata this year
7/9 FG, 28/28 XP
He had a very rough patch earlier in the year, but has been dialed in the past few weeks.
A good example as to why we shouldn't turn on these players if they have a bad game or two.
I caught the "should I go behind the back" line in the full WOM video, but didn't catch the rest. I like how Bucky put this together, along with some of the backstory from the UCF walk trough, and I love that $$2 went with the better part of valor and the underhand pitch.
Yeah, it was a really cool sequence. Bucky has been killing the WOM videos lately.
You realize we all thought this after UCF right? I would like to see it two games in a row before I am optimistic.
That point aside, I think we are all a little jaded by 10 personnel. We can and should use it. It just can't be the majority of our personnel groupins throughout a game. It would be a disservice to the incredible talent we have at both QB and WR to not use it. What makes it possible is by mixing in the 11/12 personnel, keeping the defense on their back heel, and then mixing it in.
Rewatch the game and the ONLY time 10 worked well was Quick throws, 3 step drop and throw
It also worked IF our offensive line could give him 4 seconds, but when we are in 11 or 12 or tight formations, you could see the ability to have a good play
The problem with 10 is just the normal things, weak OL, no motion, slow drops and slow decisions from Shedeur, Long Routes, and the Defenses having so much film on how to attack it
Would it be fair to say that if we do these things we could continue to put "belt to ass"?
Yes, I am trying to be optimistic. 10 personnel works, it just cannot be the primary set like it has been. Nobody runs 10 personnel as much as we do and there is a reason.
We still ran a lot of 10p against UA, but I felt like we were much more successful with our runs when we were 11p
Mixing it up and using 11 p to run makes the O so much more versatile. You can still have pass plays out of 11p. I am not saying abandon 10p, but it cannot be our base/default set.
That's a playcalling issue. If we aren't getting enough protection with 10, then the play calls should be quick hitters. The issue is Shurmur calls these long developing plays that require 3, 4, 5 seconds to throw.
The first number in a personnel naming dictates the number of running backs. The second number dictates the number of tight ends. Then the number of receivers is determined by the combination of those two number subtracted from 5.
So 10 personnel = 1 running back, 0 tight ends, 4 receivers
11 = 1 running back, 1 tight end, 3 receivers
21 = 2 running backs, 1 tight end, 2 receivers.
10 personnel is four wide outs, one RB and QB in a shotgun.
11 personnel brings a second rb, te or h-back into the formation.
EDIT: Bread beat me to it.
How is that the case when they only had a TE in for <20% of the plays but had an EPA/play of 0.2325 & a 54% success rate?
This personnel argument is really over the top.
Boulder
Well-Known Member
Unless he got better because we turned on him.
Last edited:
We call that the Undefeated effect here on AllBuffs.
Chidozie was a game changer on Saturday.