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!

Quick Analysis

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Following 2 weeks, here's what I'm seeing in a general way:

Defense
1. NDSU ran the ball 43 times, but at only 3.7 ypa. That's a good effort and significant improvement from prior seasons.
2. NDSU passed 26 times at 11.2 ypa on a 77% completion rate. That's horrible pass defense.
3. NU ran the ball 35 times with 4.2 ypa. That's another good effort that's something you can win with.
4. NU passed 30 times for 6.2 ypa on a 77% completion rate. That's much better on not giving up chunk plays but still is allowing the offense to be way too efficient.
5. Momentum plays - no turnovers forced in either game. Against NDSU, 2 sacks and 7 TFLs. No sacks vs NU with 7 TFLs. This may be the biggest concern. The CU defense is not making offenses uncomfortable by putting them into negative situations and hasn't reversed the field, let alone scored, by creating turnovers.
6. 3rd down efficiency was 7/11 (0/1 on 4th down) vs NDSU and held NU to 3/12. That was a good improvement in week 2 after not being able to get off the field in week 1.

Offense
1. Against NDSU, CU ran the ball 23 times for only 59 yards - that's 2.6 ypa. And that average was with only giving up 1 sack and 1 TFL. That's about as bad as it gets.
2. Against NDSU, CU passed 34 times for a 13.1 ypa and completed 76% of passes. That was fantastic.
3. Against NU, CU ran the ball 22 times for 0.7 ypa. Gave up 6 sacks and 10 TFLs, which significantly hurt those numbers, but our RBs had 11 total carries for 3.8 ypa. That's bad, but serviceable enough that the RBs should have gotten more carries to keep NU honest up front. CU has to embrace the mentality that sometimes 2 runs which put you in a 3rd and 5 were useful and a necessary part of game management.
4. Against NU, CU passed 40 times for a 6.1 ypa and a 58% completion rate. Pretty pedestrian if I'm nice enough to say that it looks better if the refs had given Horn that long catch on the sideline and that Staub was 0/2... but "pedestrian" is really being generous. It was bad and wasn't winning football. The pass rush pressure was the biggest problem here, but there wasn't a lot of separation by our receivers either.
5. Momentum plays - Against NDSU, no fumbles but a red zone INT which took points off the board. 2 turnovers vs NU, 1 fumble in garbage time, but a pick 6 which was a game changer. We're on the wrong side of the ledger here, too.
6. 3rd down efficiency was 7/13 (1/1 on 4th down) against NDSU and were 4/14 (1/3 on 4th down) vs NU. Excellent in the opener and horrible in week 2. Too inefficient against NU on 1st & 2nd downs, putting the offense in obvious passing situations against a rush the OL couldn't handle.

Special Teams
Not going to say much here. Returns and coverage have been pretty good. Seem to be losing the field position battle on punts which aren't fielded. Kickoffs have been fine. FG kicking has been an un-fun adventure. Haven't blocked anything but have had kicks blocked. CU has serious issues with its placekicks, but that's the only thing I think is notable here.

This won't be news to anyone, but in sum I see a defense that has played well enough to win both games, I see an offense that isn't running the ball enough and has challenges in pass protection, and I see a major problem with losing the turnover battle.
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
Following 2 weeks, here's what I'm seeing in a general way:

Defense
1. NDSU ran the ball 43 times, but at only 3.7 ypa. That's a good effort and significant improvement from prior seasons.
2. NDSU passed 26 times at 11.2 ypa on a 77% completion rate. That's horrible pass defense.
3. NU ran the ball 35 times with 4.2 ypa. That's another good effort that's something you can win with.
4. NU passed 30 times for 6.2 ypa on a 77% completion rate. That's much better on not giving up chunk plays but still is allowing the offense to be way too efficient.
5. Momentum plays - no turnovers forced in either game. Against NDSU, 2 sacks and 7 TFLs. No sacks vs NU with 7 TFLs. This may be the biggest concern. The CU defense is not making offenses uncomfortable by putting them into negative situations and hasn't reversed the field, let alone scored, by creating turnovers.
6. 3rd down efficiency was 7/11 (0/1 on 4th down) vs NDSU and held NU to 3/12. That was a good improvement in week 2 after not being able to get off the field in week 1.

Offense
1. Against NDSU, CU ran the ball 23 times for only 59 yards - that's 2.6 ypa. And that average was with only giving up 1 sack and 1 TFL. That's about as bad as it gets.
2. Against NDSU, CU passed 34 times for a 13.1 ypa and completed 76% of passes. That was fantastic.
3. Against NU, CU ran the ball 22 times for 0.7 ypa. Gave up 6 sacks and 10 TFLs, which significantly hurt those numbers, but our RBs had 11 total carries for 3.8 ypa. That's bad, but serviceable enough that the RBs should have gotten more carries to keep NU honest up front. CU has to embrace the mentality that sometimes 2 runs which put you in a 3rd and 5 were useful and a necessary part of game management.
4. Against NU, CU passed 40 times for a 6.1 ypa and a 58% completion rate. Pretty pedestrian if I'm nice enough to say that it looks better if the refs had given Horn that long catch on the sideline and that Staub was 0/2... but "pedestrian" is really being generous. It was bad and wasn't winning football. The pass rush pressure was the biggest problem here, but there wasn't a lot of separation by our receivers either.
5. Momentum plays - Against NDSU, no fumbles but a red zone INT which took points off the board. 2 turnovers vs NU, 1 fumble in garbage time, but a pick 6 which was a game changer. We're on the wrong side of the ledger here, too.
6. 3rd down efficiency was 7/13 (1/1 on 4th down) against NDSU and were 4/14 (1/3 on 4th down) vs NU. Excellent in the opener and horrible in week 2. Too inefficient against NU on 1st & 2nd downs, putting the offense in obvious passing situations against a rush the OL couldn't handle.

Special Teams
Not going to say much here. Returns and coverage have been pretty good. Seem to be losing the field position battle on punts which aren't fielded. Kickoffs have been fine. FG kicking has been an un-fun adventure. Haven't blocked anything but have had kicks blocked. CU has serious issues with its placekicks, but that's the only thing I think is notable here.

This won't be news to anyone, but in sum I see a defense that has played well enough to win both games, I see an offense that isn't running the ball enough and challenges in pass protection, and I see a major problem with losing the turnover battle.
Click to expand...
Great post.
 
Buffnik said:
Following 2 weeks, here's what I'm seeing in a general way:

Defense
1. NDSU ran the ball 43 times, but at only 3.7 ypa. That's a good effort and significant improvement from prior seasons.
2. NDSU passed 26 times at 11.2 ypa on a 77% completion rate. That's horrible pass defense.
3. NU ran the ball 35 times with 4.2 ypa. That's another good effort that's something you can win with.
4. NU passed 30 times for 6.2 ypa on a 77% completion rate. That's much better on not giving up chunk plays but still is allowing the offense to be way too efficient.
5. Momentum plays - no turnovers forced in either game. Against NDSU, 2 sacks and 7 TFLs. No sacks vs NU with 7 TFLs. This may be the biggest concern. The CU defense is not making offenses uncomfortable by putting them into negative situations and hasn't reversed the field, let alone scored, by creating turnovers.
6. 3rd down efficiency was 7/11 (0/1 on 4th down) vs NDSU and held NU to 3/12. That was a good improvement in week 2 after not being able to get off the field in week 1.

Offense
1. Against NDSU, CU ran the ball 23 times for only 59 yards - that's 2.6 ypa. And that average was with only giving up 1 sack and 1 TFL. That's about as bad as it gets.
2. Against NDSU, CU passed 34 times for a 13.1 ypa and completed 76% of passes. That was fantastic.
3. Against NU, CU ran the ball 22 times for 0.7 ypa. Gave up 6 sacks and 10 TFLs, which significantly hurt those numbers, but our RBs had 11 total carries for 3.8 ypa. That's bad, but serviceable enough that the RBs should have gotten more carries to keep NU honest up front. CU has to embrace the mentality that sometimes 2 runs which put you in a 3rd and 5 were useful and a necessary part of game management.
4. Against NU, CU passed 40 times for a 6.1 ypa and a 58% completion rate. Pretty pedestrian if I'm nice enough to say that it looks better if the refs had given Horn that long catch on the sideline and that Staub was 0/2... but "pedestrian" is really being generous. It was bad and wasn't winning football. The pass rush pressure was the biggest problem here, but there wasn't a lot of separation by our receivers either.
5. Momentum plays - Against NDSU, no fumbles but a red zone INT which took points off the board. 2 turnovers vs NU, 1 fumble in garbage time, but a pick 6 which was a game changer. We're on the wrong side of the ledger here, too.
6. 3rd down efficiency was 7/13 (1/1 on 4th down) against NDSU and were 4/14 (1/3 on 4th down) vs NU. Excellent in the opener and horrible in week 2. Too inefficient against NU on 1st & 2nd downs, putting the offense in obvious passing situations against a rush the OL couldn't handle.

Special Teams
Not going to say much here. Returns and coverage have been pretty good. Seem to be losing the field position battle on punts which aren't fielded. Kickoffs have been fine. FG kicking has been an un-fun adventure. Haven't blocked anything but have had kicks blocked. CU has serious issues with its placekicks, but that's the only thing I think is notable here.

This won't be news to anyone, but in sum I see a defense that has played well enough to win both games, I see an offense that isn't running the ball enough and has challenges in pass protection, and I see a major problem with losing the turnover battle.
Click to expand...
Spot on and let's throw in the lack of desire to change up the offense and give some relief to the lines by inserting quick hitting passes. Too many plays that take too damn much time to develop. SS needs the ball out in under 2 seconds. Find a way to do it. Period.
 
Buffalo Brad said:
Spot on and let's throw in the lack of desire to change up the offense and give some relief to the lines by inserting quick hitting passes. Too many plays that take too damn much time to develop. SS needs the ball out in under 2 seconds. Find a way to do it. Period.
Click to expand...
It wasn't that they had no desire to run a quick passing game (they did and they started off doing it), it was an issue that Nebraska knew Shedeur had no time to stand in the pocket to let anything down field develop, so they had their DBs come up and sit on the quick game.

Obviously, offenses should be combatting this by running the ball, using the TE in the passing game, moving the pocket, etc.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
It wasn't that they had no desire to run a quick passing game (they did and they started off doing it), it was an issue that Nebraska knew Shedeur had no time to stand in the pocket to let anything down field develop, so they had their DBs come up and sit on the quick game.

Obviously, offenses should be combatting this by running the ball, using the TE in the passing game, moving the pocket, etc.
Click to expand...
They did very little in trying to do this. It was a garbage plan that wanted to make SS look like he could throw it down field. There were a couple of efforts but they did not try to help out with a quick hitting passing game. That was completely missing as was the dedication to the run
 
Buffalo Brad said:
They did very little in trying to do this. It was a garbage plan that wanted to make SS look like he could throw it down field. There were a couple of efforts but they did not try to help out with a quick hitting passing game. That was completely missing as was the dedication to the run
Click to expand...
It's like we're trying to emulate Tom Brady throwing from the pocket without having much of a running game... but we're ignoring the fact that Brady made a living off of short-intermediate passes to his TE, dump offs to his little, quick WRs, and screen passes to his RBs.
 
Buffalo Brad said:
They did very little in trying to do this. It was a garbage plan that wanted to make SS look like he could throw it down field. There were a couple of efforts but they did not try to help out with a quick hitting passing game. That was completely missing as was the dedication to the run
Click to expand...
Literally first play from scrimmage was a screen to Hunter that was batted down. Second play was a behind the LOS pass to Wester that was dropped. Third play was a sack but the outside routes were hitches.

Second drive, first play was a sack with all routes being run within 5-7 yards of the LOS and nobody open. Second play of the drive was a pass to Horn 3 yard beyond the LOS that turned into a 9 yard gain. On 3rd and 11 it was a slant to Will Sheppard for a gain of 10 and 4th down was a shotgun handoff to Charlie for a loss of two.

I can keep going if you'd like. The gameplan was very much centered around the quick passing game.
 
Bottom line on kicking is that Matta should have never been brought in. What we had was better than Matta. You have to roll with Feely now and get him into the flow, misses are better than blocks. Matta just can't get his kicks over the line. I think he has gotten worse since he as been here.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
Bottom line on kicking is that Matta should have never been brought in. What we had was better than Matta. You have to roll with Feely now and get him into the flow, misses are better than blocks. Matta just can't get his kicks over the line. I think he has gotten worse since he as been here.
Click to expand...
But we already spent the royalty money on his song, and that'd just be a waste.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
Bottom line on kicking is that Matta should have never been brought in. What we had was better than Matta. You have to roll with Feely now and get him into the flow, misses are better than blocks. Matta just can't get his kicks over the line. I think he has gotten worse since he as been here.
Click to expand...
Matta is not a P4 kicker and you are correct, he should never have been brought in. He is obviously a CP favorite, however he is well below the caliber kicker we need.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Literally first play from scrimmage was a screen to Hunter that was batted down. Second play was a behind the LOS pass to Wester that was dropped. Third play was a sack but the outside routes were hitches.

Second drive, first play was a sack with all routes being run within 5-7 yards of the LOS and nobody open. Second play of the drive was a pass to Horn 3 yard beyond the LOS that turned into a 9 yard gain. On 3rd and 11 it was a slant to Will Sheppard for a gain of 10 and 4th down was a shotgun handoff to Charlie for a loss of two.

I can keep going if you'd like. The gameplan was very much centered around the quick passing game.
Click to expand...
Keep going because you are wrong. 2 drives are not a commitment. There was very little effort to stay with this and no effort on the running game.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
If you'd like to elaborate on your position instead of staring evidence in the face and saying it's not real, be my guest.
Click to expand...
You are the one who said they could keep going, do it. It was a drop back deeper when already in a shotgun approach to try and get it down field. Limited run attempts. No slants. Throw it 60 ****ing yards across the field in a slow developing play for a pick 6. There were very few attempts at getting it out in under 2 seconds. They want him standing back and going through progressions deep down field. Way too long to develop routes that only compound the problem of the line play. And how many run attempts were there? This was a coaching disaster from the get go and no offensive adjustments. None. Rinse and repeat. Failure after failure on the play calling
 
Buffalo Brad said:
You are the one who said they could keep going, do it. It was a drop back deeper when already in a shotgun approach to try and get it down field. Limited run attempts. No slants. Throw it 60 ****ing yards across the field in a slow developing play for a pick 6. There were very few attempts at getting it out in under 2 seconds. They want him standing back and going through progressions deep down field. Way too long to develop routes that only compound the problem of the line play. And how many run attempts were there? This was a coaching disaster from the get go and no offensive adjustments. None. Rinse and repeat. Failure after failure on the play calling
Click to expand...
Nobody is arguing about the run game. You complained about them not doing more in quick passing game and I showed you that the gameplan was centered around it, which is why that’s all they attempted on the first two series. Once Nebraska realized they couldn’t protect Shedeur, they took it away entirely.

No one is debating the ineffectiveness of the offensive plan, scheme or ability to adapt; that’s pretty obvious.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
Nobody is arguing about the run game. You complained about them not doing more in quick passing game and I showed you that the gameplan was centered around it, which is why that’s all they attempted on the first two series. Once Nebraska realized they couldn’t protect Shedeur, they took it away entirely.

No one is debating the ineffectiveness of the offensive plan, scheme or ability to adapt; that’s pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
Wow, so give up after 1 receivers drops a ball and they get pressure. They were not committed to it at all and never, never were committed not having SS look like a hero throwing it long. NU did not take it away, there was not an effort at slants or quick hitters that got the ball out in under 2 seconds. To claim there was is a complete lack of awareness in watching the game. Cannot help you if you think those 2 series were all it took to show a commitment to it. And 3 plays in 2 series does not demonstrate any type of effort decision to go with short quick hitting plays. Believe what you want or try watching the tape. This was about drop back deep and try to throw it. That is what they want SS to be and it will not work. If there is not an effort to change that thought process, we may beat CSU, Baylor and Cincinnati. That will be the ceiling on the season
 
Buffalo Brad said:
Wow, so give up after 1 receivers drops a ball and they get pressure. They were not committed to it at all and never, never were committed not having SS look like a hero throwing it long. NU did not take it away, there was not an effort at slants or quick hitters that got the ball out in under 2 seconds. To claim there was is a complete lack of awareness in watching the game. Cannot help you if you think those 2 series were all it took to show a commitment to it. And 3 plays in 2 series does not demonstrate any type of effort decision to go with short quick hitting plays. Believe what you want or try watching the tape. This was about drop back deep and try to throw it. That is what they want SS to be and it will not work. If there is not an effort to change that thought process, we may beat CSU, Baylor and Cincinnati. That will be the ceiling on the season
Click to expand...
I’m literally providing you with the plays they ran, including a slant, and all you have is “no they weren’t and you obvi don’t watch film bro”. Take a deep breath and log off for the day.
 
The Alabaster Yak said:
I’m literally providing you with the plays they ran, including a slant, and all you have is “no they weren’t and you obvi don’t watch film bro”. Take a deep breath and log off for the day.
Click to expand...
Bro......really. you offer up 3 plays in 2 series. Not like you have much to stand on
 
Buffalo Brad said:
Bro......really. you offer up 3 plays in 2 series. Not like you have much to stand on
Click to expand...
I offered up two entire series, 6 plays in total, to begin the game that is usually a good indicator of what the gameplan is going to be. Of course they are going to try some mid range and deep ball stuff, particularly as they get into a 3 and 4 TD deficit, but it was very clear from the first play that their plan was quick game.

The creativity of it and persistence can be questioned, I guess, but without a run game or TE to speak of, and not enough time for Shedeur to sit there and let deep routes develop, Nebraska just sat on the short stuff. I honestly don’t know why this is controversial for you. It’s what happened.

I’m not absolving the gameplan, OC, Shedeur or Prime at all.
 
Buffnik said:
our RBs had 11 total carries for 3.8 ypa. That's bad, but serviceable enough that the RBs should have gotten more carries to keep NU honest up front. CU has to embrace the mentality that sometimes 2 runs which put you in a 3rd and 5 were useful and a necessary part of game management.
Click to expand...
So much this.

Shedeur's comment in the post game presser to the effect of, "We can't run the ball, so why would we try?" was infuriating.

They can't line up, in an obvious short yardage situation, and dominate at the point of attack. That is very different from, we've given our backs like 5 carries a half and decided it doesn't work.

It seems like Shedeur and Prime see a 3-4 yard run on first down as a missed opportunity for a 20 yard pass, instead of understanding that it opens up a much different set of routes that can allow you to make first downs and sustain drives. Not to mention forcing the D line to think about something other than just rushing the passer.
 
Robert Sorell said:
So much this.

Shedeur's comment in the post game presser to the effect of, "We can't run the ball, so why would we try?" was infuriating.

They can't line up, in an obvious short yardage situation, and dominate at the point of attack. That is very different from, we've given our backs like 5 carries a half and decided it doesn't work.

It seems like Shedeur and Prime see a 3-4 yard run on first down as a missed opportunity for a 20 yard pass, instead of understanding that it opens up a much different set of routes that can allow you to make first downs and sustain drives. Not to mention forcing the D line to think about something other than just rushing the passer.
Click to expand...
nailed it the league GIF by hero0fwar
 
Buffalo Brad said:
Spot on and let's throw in the lack of desire to change up the offense and give some relief to the lines by inserting quick hitting passes. Too many plays that take too damn much time to develop. SS needs the ball out in under 2 seconds. Find a way to do it. Period.
Click to expand...
Agree. Something has to be developed to compliment the passing game.

Nebraska's defensive coaches had a stupid easy night Saturday night.
 
Now do that for the defense per half and I bet we will see that our defense has played average to poor in the first half and good to really good in the second. There is hope on the defense front.

But I think our porous offensive line and poor play calling are gonna be the story of the season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top