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!

Pre-Season Prediction: CU wins 6 games

CUAviator said:
What happens if each of those instances happen in their respective games, is "Ghostbusters crossed-stream" type deal?
Click to expand...

The 2nd can't happen if the 1st does.

In college, this is an even bigger deal than the pros since so much about college is momentum. I think about that year we went to ASU when Cody was quarterback. We jumped on them to start the game. Then, we missed opportunities to connect on a couple bombs that would have been touchdowns. CU makes those plays, we win in a blowout. Instead, we missed on them, ASU grabbed momentum back, and they stomped us.
 
Buffnik said:
The 2nd can't happen if the 1st does.

In college, this is an even bigger deal than the pros since so much about college is momentum. I think about that year we went to ASU when Cody was quarterback. We jumped on them to start the game. Then, we missed opportunities to connect on a couple bombs that would have been touchdowns. CU makes those plays, we win in a blowout. Instead, we missed on them, ASU grabbed momentum back, and they stomped us.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree. Walker can make than catch and the Pats only end up with a field goal (he was falling down on the 20 anyway/guys were closing on him. Giants came back next series and hit that same bomb...both plays made. I submit the Baylor v UDub bowl game two years ago...huge play after huge play for a total score of about a thousand. But I do agree with you that the teams that make bigs plays as a matter of fact rather than chance are destined to be much more successful.
 
In my defense, 4/20 is coming up.

I've seen opposing coaches bang the repetitive drum of "how is CU not able to stop a simple slant pass?". And then substitute slant pass for a number of other plays, like a run to the right side, or blitzing linebacker. Our last 2 coaches have been total jokes. Frauds. Quacks. Inexperienced. Unfit for HC duties. The worst of the worst.

Not every coach is as bad as Hawk and Embree. We've been dealt a ****** hand from those 2 in the past 7 years because of Bohn. A competent coach will bring us back to what was once considered a subpar year.
 
I think there is no reasonable guess. I'll play tho, put me down for 4. We need a pool of some sort.
 
tumblr_lamb1i91kL1qa9yvvo1_400.gif
 
Just give me a reason to stay past halftime after last year's nightmare...2-3 wins but were more competitive and disciplined. 4-6 next year if things are moving in the right direction...
 
Like most posters- I'm believing we'll get 3 wins, hoping for more but prepared for less. It's hard to understand how bad we were last year.

Yes, we were not very talented. Yes, we were extremely young. Yes, we had awful coaching and play calling. How much of our beatings were due to talent? How much due to youth? How much was because of our coaching? Despite how atrocious we were last year, we were IN 4 games. We SHOULD have won against Sac. St. and Utah. We SHOULD have beaten CSU (although I will give them the credit that they just beat us). We are going from a team that actually only won 1 game last year, but in reality should have been a 3 win team.

I think we are all encouraged by the practices that we have seen as far as the coaching and the structure that they are showing. We are all more confident because of HCMM's turnaround at SJSU, however we have been confident before and I think our expectations are tempered accordingly (except for Gold's apparently). Assuming that coaching will not be a burden this fall, that leaves youth and talent as our main deficiencies. Well, we are another year older for a bunch of our starters, so that obviously will be a bit better - although we are still going to be a very young team. Talent - there is some. Not a whole lot, but enough to be competitive.

It's reasonable to expect that we will only be favored in 1 game to start the season. I think CSU will be a toss up that I would hope we win. We should beat Central Arky. I think we get beat by Fresno, Oregon St. and Oregon. We are winless in Tempe - can we break that this year? I doubt it. Arizona at home - I think is a L. @UCLA - L. @UW - I think we can beat the Huskies (don't know why, but they just don't scare me as much.) Cal at home - Probably a L. Hopefully USC comes to town and the game is snowy. Loss anyways. We beat the Utes to close out the season.
 
Last edited:
Buffskier said:
Like most posters- I'm believing we'll get 3 wins, hoping for more but prepared for less. It's hard to understand how bad we were last year.

Yes, we were not very talented. Yes, we were extremely young. Yes, we had awful coaching and play calling. How much of our beatings were due to talent? How much due to youth? How much was because of our coaching? Despite how atrocious we were last year, we were IN 4 games. We SHOULD have won against Sac. St. and Utah. We SHOULD have beaten CSU (although I will give them the credit that they just beat us). We are going from a team that actually only won 1 game last year, but in reality should have been a 3 win team.

I think we are all encouraged by the practices that we have seen as far as the coaching and the structure that they are showing. We are all more confident because of HCMM's turnaround at SJSU, however we have been confident before and I think our expectations are tempered accordingly (except for Gold's apparently). Assuming that coaching will not be a burden this fall, that leaves youth and talent as our main deficiencies. Well, we are another year older for a bunch of our starters, so that obviously will be a bit better - although we are still going to be a very young team. Talent - there is some. Not a whole lot, but enough to be competitive.

It's reasonable to expect that we will only be favored in 1 game to start the season. I think CSU will be a toss up that I would hope we win. We should be Arky St. I think we get beat by Fresno, Oregon St. and Oregon. We are winless in Tempe - can we break that this year? I doubt it. Arizona at home - I think is a L. @UCLA - L. @UW - I think we can beat the Huskies (don't know why, but they just don't scare me as much.) Cal at home - Probably a L. Hopefully USC comes to town and the game is snowy. Loss anyways. We beat the Utes to close out the season.
Click to expand...
probably a good thing we're not playing Arky State...I think they would crush us. Central Ark ain't half bad either though.
 
Buffnik said:
Football games are won or lost based on explosive plays. Urban Meyer figured that out and had the statistics to back it up. Chip Kelley took that lesson to heart and took this concept to the next level.

Can we cause turnovers?

Can we score quickly with explosive plays?

Most plays are just window dressing. When I've been watching games the past few years, I've been focusing more and more on this. Almost invariably, when a team misses a wide open receiver for what would have been a touchdown (or he drops it), you can pretty much predict that team will lose if the game is anywhere close. Numerous examples from CU games the past few years (Washington State the past 2 years, Cal in 2011, etc.). I can also point to the Patriots-Giants games in recent Super Bowls. In the first one, if the Pats make the interception, they win. If the Giants don't get a playmaking catch on the following play, the Pats win. In the second one, if Brady makes a better throw or Welker makes a play, the Pats win. If the Giants don't hit that bomb down the sideline on the next series, the Pats win.

Football is a game of big moments and which team makes the big plays.

Great coaching can improve that by putting guys in position to make those plays. But do we have the playmakers on the roster needed to take advantage?

Not yet.

4 wins. (And I'm much closer to saying 3 than 5.)
Click to expand...

I disagree with that as an absolute...Stanford won the PAC 12 and they were not an explosive play team. Teams like Alabama and Stanford just squeeze the life out of the opposing team by grinding them down. Explosive plays are good but that is not always where football games are won or lost - PRich had a game of big plays a few years ago and we still lost, USC was a big play team but did not have a great season.
 
BlackNGold said:
I disagree with that as an absolute...Stanford won the PAC 12 and they were not an explosive play team. Teams like Alabama and Stanford just squeeze the life out of the opposing team by grinding them down. Explosive plays are good but that is not always where football games are won or lost - PRich had a game of big plays a few years ago and we still lost, USC was a big play team but did not have a great season.
Click to expand...

Disagree that Alabama didn't have explosive plays. An explosive play by Yeldon won the game against LSU. Cooper had some big plays against Georgia in the SEC title game.
 
Gold said:
My prediction is based on one fundamental: football is simple.

10 yards on 3 attempts. This isn't a very difficult process, but the past 2 coaches and athletic director have made that seem more difficult than the Higgs Boson mystery. To know the problem is to know the coaches who came before MacIntyre.


Hawkins: He talked in cliches, and coached in cliches. From bad recruiting strategies, no coaching identity on either side of the ball, and highly quotable but low on substance responses, he lived to make every quote the most interesting quip. He wanted to be seen as the teacher of life, but what he needed to be was a practical teacher of football x's and o's, his biggest weakness. The fast talk was a charade to hide how little hands on experience he had operating an offense or defense, planning, recruiting, basically all the essentials.


His key strategic mistake: So many but recruiting Cody meant attracting no better than the likes of a Tyler Hansen to sign up for QB. Add it up and that's 5 years of non-elite QB's at CU. Serviceable yes, but it's also a half a decade's worth of non-elite starting QB.


Embree: Chief Science Officer the past 2 years at CU. Let's not be shocked that an under-qualified position coach from the NFL who gets the chance of a lifetime career move at a pay grade well above anything they've seen before feels the need to prove just how smart he is. That smartness translated into implementing the West Coast Offense, easily the most confusing offense a low talented team can implement.


His key strategic mistake: Up was down, left was right. Greg Brown is on the sidelines, Brian Cabral is in the booth, and Eric Bienemy is caught in the middle. We want to run the ball, go no huddle, then switch midseason to shotgun, teach the defense how to tackle mid-season and then reassess which offense to use in 2013, all while rotating in every QB possible. Sound promising? Or like a train wreck of a science experiment gone wrong?


Bohn: Doesn't deserve a pass after 2 egregious mistakes in Hawk and Embree. His ability to find a solid, practical coach has been the biggest flaw, and it was about to continue after Embree. He was intent on hiring Butch Jones, a coach with no ties to the West Coast or affinity to CU, who had the character of a mob informant. Only luck and timing landed CU and Bohn MacIntyre.




My prediction isn't based on dissecting MacIntyre as a coach, planner, recruiter, etc. He's a straight shooter who has a plan. And that's what's been lacking: simplicity. Football is a simple game. It's not the science experiment we've seen the past 7 years. The downtrodden program is the result of just 3 people (Hawk, Embree, and Bohn) who had no business running CU football.


We have talent. Some may not be as impressed as others, but there are enough athletes on the team to win more games than many will predict. If you expect a 3 win season, let me ask, what would be a failure? A 2 win season? 1 win? If the delta between success and failure is 1 game, then there's a chance your math has a few flaws.


And lastly, if you are seeing a 3 win season on the horizon, my advice is to take up an additional hobby to divert your attention away from seemingly dreary and depressing situations. Can't imagine going the next 5 months expecting to win 25% of the games.


Here are the 6 wins:


1a. Spring Game
1b. Colorado State
2. Central Arkansas
3. Fresno State
4. Arizona
5. California
6. Utah
Click to expand...

Your argument basically appears to be that CU will dramatically best expectations because Hawkins and Embree sucked. Am I missing something...?
 
buffs04 said:
Your argument basically appears to be that CU will dramatically best expectations because Hawkins and Embree sucked. Am I missing something...?
Click to expand...

Yes. That other teams will inexplicably suck more, for no particular reason.

We'll be better by 25 points, they'll be worse by 25 points, and therefore we'll eek out a few wins.

If Gold is right, by the way, I'm buying him a beer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top