Ok, thanks. I'm learning!Evidently it’s a reference to Miami rapper Rick Ross and his song Hustlin.
The Center makes everything go (or conversely) and it can be amplified dependent on the offense….thus the ample discussion in the preseason about how important Van Wells was to what they wanted to do. I am convinced that Zilinskas has a bright future, but was in over his head against CSU and that tank of a NT they have. Hopefully we see quick improvement AND Van Wells comes back soonFrom watching Lloyd Cushenberry **** things up with the Broncos - an inexperienced, over his head center can make competent guards look incompetent because they're having to try to cover for him.
Team | 1st Q | 2nd Q | 3rd Q | 4th Q | Total |
TCU | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.71 | 0.77 | 0.49 |
NU | 0.16 | -0.07 | 0.30 | 0.84 | 0.29 |
CSU | -0.43 | -0.42 | 0.06 | 0.57 | 0.07 |
OREGON | -0.09 | -0.36 | GARBAGE | GARBAGE | -0.26 |
I'm no expert, but a two back set with McCaskill, or Smoke, or Wilkerson and Edwards would take some pressure off. You could fake a give to the back other than Edwards, and throw to DE in the flat, you could set DE in motion, you could keep both backs in to supplement the sieve of an OL on pass pro (assuming you aren't just going to throw 3 yard outs and five yard come backs), you could have a lead blocking back for DE or simply give it to a back who isn't going to go down the first time a defensive player puts a hand on him.Know there's limitations due to a **** OL & SS2 holding the ball too long but would love to see some motion be added into the offense and get some misdirection going in the run game...something other than what we've seen over the last 3 weeks:
Team 1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q Total TCU 0.32 0.28 0.71 0.77 0.49 NU 0.16 -0.07 0.30 0.84 0.29 CSU -0.43 -0.42 0.06 0.57 0.07 OREGON -0.09 -0.36 GARBAGE GARBAGE -0.26
No data for the 2nd half of Saturday's game due to it being garbage time but the EPA we're seeing from this offense gotta get better if we're going to make a bowl. Oregon is stacked on the lines for sure but the NU & CSU games no real excuse.
I think he will be able to run between the tackles by about his Junior Year, but right now he is a remarkable open-field athlete, and thus he needs to get out in the open field. I like the idea of two backs as a way to change the snapshot of the CU backfield. Right now, we have a super-talented, but relatively stoic QB and a very small single-back set that teams are just hammering on.I'm no expert, but a two back set with McCaskill, or Smoke, or Wilkerson and Edwards would take some pressure off. You could fake a give to the back other than Edwards, and throw to DE in the flat, you could set DE in motion, you could keep both backs in to supplement the sieve of an OL on pass pro (assuming you aren't just going to throw 3 yard outs and five yard come backs), you could have a lead blocking back for DE or simply give it to a back who isn't going to go down the first time a defensive player puts a hand on him.
I doubt anyone at this point is afraid of DE running between the tackles. Has anyone seen him break a tackle? He is a remarkable talent, but he is not an every down back. DC's are probably quite comfortable with a CU game plan that has him running the ball inside.
This! a million times. Edwards is not going to be part of a two back set. McCaskill should be the back that is featured in a two back set and Edwards will need to be used on the outside either in motion or as a outlet/screen. Put in a back with McCaskill that can help with the blocking, that is not going to EdwardsI'm no expert, but a two back set with McCaskill, or Smoke, or Wilkerson and Edwards would take some pressure off. You could fake a give to the back other than Edwards, and throw to DE in the flat, you could set DE in motion, you could keep both backs in to supplement the sieve of an OL on pass pro (assuming you aren't just going to throw 3 yard outs and five yard come backs), you could have a lead blocking back for DE or simply give it to a back who isn't going to go down the first time a defensive player puts a hand on him.
I doubt anyone at this point is afraid of DE running between the tackles. Has anyone seen him break a tackle? He is a remarkable talent, but he is not an every down back. DC's are probably quite comfortable with a CU game plan that has him running the ball inside.
Good point, but if we were to hear from Lew, and I am convinced we won't, a two back set robs the O of one more WR to spread out the coverage. I suspect that is why you will continue to see one back sets, but I don't know how you scheme around an OL that can't run block, can't pass pro, with a smallish fast RB who gets dropped by the first defensive contact on run plays and blown up on pass pro. A two back set with McCaskill and another RB with size would help, but you are trading the outside speed Lew apparently covets with RB who can try to cover up the OL deficiency. Tough choice.This! a million times. Edwards is not going to be part of a two back set. McCaskill should be the back that is featured in a two back set and Edwards will need to be used on the outside either in motion or as a outlet/screen. Put in a back with McCaskill that can help with the blocking, that is not going to Edwards
Would love to hear honestly what Lewis sees or is planning to fix. So many talented skill players and with 4 games film on us, we are hot garbageGood point, but if we were to hear from Lew, and I am convinced we won't, a two back set robs the O of one more WR to spread out the coverage. I suspect that is why you will continue to see one back sets, but I don't know how you scheme around an OL that can't run block, can't pass pro, with a smallish fast RB who gets dropped by the first defensive contact on run plays and blown up on pass pro. A two back set with McCaskill and another RB with size would help, but you are trading the outside speed Lew apparently covets with RB who can try to cover up the OL deficiency. Tough choice.
Would love to hear honestly what Lewis sees or is planning to fix. So many talented skill players and with 4 games film on us, we are hot garbage
In game 2 the point total was padded by woeful Nebraska O turning the ball over. 21 points by the offense in regular time in game 3. Barely. The trend was worrisome before Oregon, and now it's getting dire. I'd like to see some growth now that the warts have been exposed.45, 36, 43 and 6.
Hot garbage indeed.
In game 2 the point total was padded by woeful Nebraska O turning the ball over. 21 points by the offense in regular time in game 3. Barely. The trend was worrisome before Oregon, and now it's getting dire. I'd like to see some growth now that the warts have been exposed.
If the garbage were luke warm we’d still be 3-1.45, 36, 43 and 6.
Hot garbage indeed.
Fair, although Prime himself said the offense played like hot garbarge against UO. USC has given up 28 points twice this season (San Jose St, ASU), 14 to Nevada, and 10 to Stanford.UO's defense is as good as any save UU that CU will see this season. Exposed is a fair point, hot garbage is just a race to see who can have the most hyperbolic take.
TCU had no film to study. They had no idea what to prep for. Everyone else got to see what we were going to do. CSU figuring us out should have been our first warning. Beating us is pretty simple if you can get in our pocket and make Shedeur run backwards a lot you will win the gameThe offense was up tempo against TCU. TCU was playing on their heels. The CU offense has slowed down since then, and the drop off obvious. I would really like to see Lewis tweak the intensity and pace up like they did against TCU, wear the defenses down. USC has a suspect defense, Lewis should expose that.
All good points. I agree. I also believe if the pace returned to what we saw in the TCU game, opposing defenses, not matter how prepared you are, if they are scrambling to lineup as we snap the ball, over and over, it creates an advantage. I am curious why the pace has slowed down.TCU had no film to study. They had no idea what to prep for. Everyone else got to see what we were going to do. CSU figuring us out should have been our first warning. Beating us is pretty simple if you can get in our pocket and make Shedeur run backwards a lot you will win the game
Pace only matters if you get first downs. Look at the first half against Oregon and CSU. It’s really pathetic.All good points. I agree. I also believe if the pace returned to what we saw in the TCU game, opposing defenses, not matter how prepared you are, if they are scrambling to lineup as we snap the ball, over and over, it creates an advantage. I am curious why the pace has slowed down.
TCU had no film to study. They had no idea what to prep for. Everyone else got to see what we were going to do. CSU figuring us out should have been our first warning. Beating us is pretty simple if you can get in our pocket and make Shedeur run backwards a lot you will win the game
Ain’t nobody running a two back set anymore in college. Unless you’re a service academy.I'm no expert, but a two back set with McCaskill, or Smoke, or Wilkerson and Edwards would take some pressure off. You could fake a give to the back other than Edwards, and throw to DE in the flat, you could set DE in motion, you could keep both backs in to supplement the sieve of an OL on pass pro (assuming you aren't just going to throw 3 yard outs and five yard come backs), you could have a lead blocking back for DE or simply give it to a back who isn't going to go down the first time a defensive player puts a hand on him.
I doubt anyone at this point is afraid of DE running between the tackles. Has anyone seen him break a tackle? He is a remarkable talent, but he is not an every down back. DC's are probably quite comfortable with a CU game plan that has him running the ball inside.
I was not suggesting a 2 back every play, but one need only go to post 134 ITT to find some team called Kent St. with two players in the backfield with the QB on occasion....Ain’t nobody running a two back set anymore in college. Unless you’re a service academy.
I still don't see how 2 backs helps us in any way. None of our backs are FBs types and none of them want to be lead blockers. You're better off running an attached TE or throwing Bishop Thomas back there again and saying, "here we come, try to stop us."I was not suggesting a 2 back every play, but one need only go to post 134 ITT to find some team called Kent St. with two players in the backfield with the QB on occasion....
It is just an idea for a floundering offense. Lew used what looked a lot like an H-Back in that game v. OU to lead block for the run game. What could it hurt?I still don't see how 2 backs helps us in any way. None of our backs are FBs types and none of them want to be lead blockers. You're better off running an attached TE or throwing Bishop Thomas back there again and saying, "we we come, try to stop us."
I kid, I kid.I'm noticing a disturbing trend here that you can't say anything slightly critical of this team without being "neg repped". It's as if we've all turned into Prime fans first instead of Buffs fans.
I like the H-Back idea a lot. Not sure who on the roster could fill that role of decent blocker AND receiver, though.It is just an idea for a floundering offense. Lew used what looked a lot like an H-Back in that game v. OU to lead block for the run game. What could it hurt?
You done gone and made it......I kid, I kid.
You had to expect the first response would be the obligatory neg rep....