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!

Should the Buffs go with a 4 WR offense this year?

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Could open up space for Lindsay in the run game.

More importantly, I think we're a much scarier offense to defend with Fields-Bobo-Ross-Winfree on the field than we are with 3 WR and a TE. Without any of our TEs being in the same league as Irwin as a blocker, aren't we better off forcing opponents into Nickel and rolling our WR talent at them?
 
No. The running game forced opponents to play inside against the Buffs. This, in turn, opened up the passing attack. That is my thought, and MM prefers a running game. I think there will be plenty of 4 WR sets, but not as a base.
 
BuffinCali said:
No. The running game forced opponents to play inside against the Buffs. This, in turn, opened up the passing attack. That is my thought, and MM prefers a running game. I think there will be plenty of 4 WR sets, but not as a base.
Click to expand...
Problem is they don't have any TE that has the blocking capabilities as Irwin did. You are basically wasting a spot on the field if you go with a TE with your base offense, with what they have at TE. I see no upside at all with that scenario unless someone takes a gigantic step forward in both blocking and receiving.

Frazier moving to defense also tells me that the 4 WR base is probably coming. I like the idea if we can still be somewhat balanced on offense.
 
Another option to consider is 3 WR with split backs. Especially since we've got some RBs like Lee and Nixon who can motion out to become a 4th WR.
 
Buffnik said:
Another option to consider is 3 WR with split backs. Especially since we've got some RBs like Lee and Nixon who can motion out to become a 4th WR.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. Thought we were going to see more of that last year, but with Nixon, I think you've got two play-makers in the backfield who are very good at catching the ball.
 
BuffLuKe said:
What would the rushing numbers need to be for balance there pate?
Click to expand...
I always think you want to be 50/50, but probably be more of a 55/45 or 60/40 with what we have seen with Lindgren. Anything more than that and you become the Texas Tech/Cal offenses, which is never good.
 
BuffinCali said:
No. The running game forced opponents to play inside against the Buffs. This, in turn, opened up the passing attack. That is my thought, and MM prefers a running game. I think there will be plenty of 4 WR sets, but not as a base.
Click to expand...

Plus, the route trees were horrible in 4-wide sets last year. They will have to revamp the offense this offseason. Four guys all running short and over the of each other clearly wasn't good. This is fixable.
 
This is another question where our lack of a real big back hurts. If you have that solid 220lb+ guy in the backfield you can use him to do some of the things that you would do with a TE in terms of blocking, both in the run game but moreso in the passing game when you might need a guy to help on an edge rusher or pick up a blitz or a stunt.

Lindsay gives everything he has every play but 195lbs vs. 230lbs+ isn't a good match-up. There are times when you have to have an extra guy to bang.
 
Will we see some 4 WR sets? Sure. Will it be our base offense? I doubt it.

Although it can't be denied that our deepest and most talented position right now is WR. They will have to get pretty creative to get a lot of those guys meaningful plays this season.
 
patebuff said:
Anything more than that and you become the Texas Tech/Cal offenses, which is never good.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's bad. Those offenses haven't been their problem, it's been D. Spread it out and you can really run effectively, see WSU.

I suspect 4 WR will be our base look. Until we have the TE time go with it.
 
buffaholic said:
I don't think it's bad. Those offenses haven't been their problem, it's been D. Spread it out and you can really run effectively, see WSU.

I suspect 4 WR will be our base look. Until we have the TE time go with it.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I think they go hand in hand. Those offense's can be very effective and we've seen tons of success with it, but I think it ends up wearing your defense down when you are throwing it 60 times a game, IMO.
 
patebuff said:
Agreed, but I think they go hand in hand. Those offense's can be very effective and we've seen tons of success with it, but I think it ends up wearing your defense down when you are throwing it 60 times a game, IMO.
Click to expand...
See WSU run the ball a lot now, with 4 WRs.

See CU go the same way!
 
patebuff said:
Agreed, but I think they go hand in hand. Those offense's can be very effective and we've seen tons of success with it, but I think it ends up wearing your defense down when you are throwing it 60 times a game, IMO.
Click to expand...

It puts a lot of pressure on the defense, lots of 3 and outs.

When your offense doesn't run standard sets well it also makes it difficult for them to simulate your opponents and prepare defensively.
 
If you haven't read the book "The Perfect Pass" by S.C. Gwynne yet, I highly recommend it. It centers around the birth of the air raid and what Hal Mumme did to make it work. Basically, and Mike Leach will say this today, the air raid was meant to be a run heavy system. I think that's what CU is going for, is the original version of the Air Raid. Quick passes, runs with simple trap and power plays, over and over again. Irwin just worked so well as a blocker last year that they could do a lot more power runs. I think this year they will spread it out a bit more
 
I wouldn't mind seeing a 4 WR set mixed in more but not sure I want to see us go full air raid-ish. But with our D probably taking a step back, we have to do something on O to score more points.
 
I think we pretty much have to. You get your best players on the field and adapt your system to the players, not the other way around
 
Bufffan68 said:
I wouldn't mind seeing a 4 WR set mixed in more but not sure I want to see us go full air raid-ish. But with our D probably taking a step back, we have to do something on O to score more points.
Click to expand...
Or do we need to control the ball and keep the other offense off the field?
 
I just hope to see no more than 1-2 QB run plays per game from now on. I really think that Sefo called audibles into all those runs? If not, then Lindgren cannot call this years team! Painful watching replays on PAC 12 network
 
buffaholic said:
Please enlighten us with what you found on your deep dig!
Click to expand...

Your conclusion that Wazzu had the "best running game in the league" appears to be based on the yards per carry average by their RBs and the amount of TDs scored by their RBs because those are the main stats addressed by the article you linked. You also implied they run "a lot." . If you look at rushing stats as a whole, their rushing average was 9th in the conference while they ranked 11th in rushing attempts. Even if you generously add some rushing attempts to their total because their short passing game is the same as running the ball, they would still need 120+ attempts added to their season total of 362 to even get near the middle of the conference.

Also, two of the three games in which they rushed for 200+ yards were against Cal and Oregon, the two worst rushing defenses in the conference and two bottom ten teams in the entire country.

Wazzu might be a reasonably efficient rushing offense, but they are not the best rushing offense in the conference, nor do they try to be.
 
Duff Man said:
Your conclusion that Wazzu had the "best running game in the league" appears to be based on the yards per carry average by their RBs and the amount of TDs scored by their RBs because those are the main stats addressed by the article you linked. You also implied they run "a lot." . If you look at rushing stats as a whole, their rushing average was 9th in the conference while they ranked 11th in rushing attempts. Even if you generously add some rushing attempts to their total because their short passing game is the same as running the ball, they would still need 120+ attempts added to their season total of 362 to even get near the middle of the conference.

Also, two of the three games in which they rushed for 200+ yards were against Cal and Oregon, the two worst rushing defenses in the conference and two bottom ten teams in the entire country.

Wazzu might be a reasonably efficient rushing offense, but they are not the best rushing offense in the conference, nor do they try to be.
Click to expand...

I would also go past the stats and ask a couple other questions.

Can they control a game with their running attack, can they hold a lead and burn clock with it, can they use it consistently in the red zone or on short yardage?

I don't have the stats and am not going to look for them but the games I watched with Wazzuo last year the answers to those questions were no. Compare them on those questions to for example a Stanford and tell me which team is better at running the ball.
 
Our offense isn't built to be a power running game. The athletes we have lend themselves to a predominantly passing game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top