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!

Special Teams Concerns

Orr said:
Responsibility is the task, or the job itself. For the case of Coach Leavitt, the entire defense is his responsibility.
Authority refers to the resources and oversight to do the job.
Accountability is the stand tall and face the music aspect of the job. No excuses.

Responsibility and accountability can never be transferred. Not ever.

However, new responsibilities and accountabilities can be created.

So Coach Leavitt creates a new responsibility and accountability for Crawley to know the playbook, his role in the playbook. Coach gives him the authorities to do his job and holds him accountable. Just because Coach Leavitt holds Crawley accountable, does not mean he himself is NOT accountable. He is. He can't give that accountability away. Ever.

So if Crawley fails to look back, you bet that he's accountable for his failure. And he must be held accountable. But it's still on Coach Leavitt, because he's accountable for the defense. So he doesn't get a pass. Not one. Either does the Head Coach.

And here's how it works in its proper execution.

Example one. DBs play a great game and the press tries to give credit to Coach Leavitt. Coach Leavitt responds and says, "those guys played lights out tonight. KC was really doing a great job of looking back in stride and fighting the ball to make make a play."

Example two. Crawley looks like **** and, even though he's in position, he repeatedly fails to make a play. The press (or HCMM) ask Coach Leavitt what happened, Coach Leavitt says, "That's on me. Period."

Accountability can never be transferred. But new accountability can be created.
Click to expand...

Good write up, thank you.

At the end of the day, the coaches will always be held responsible and accountable for the results on the field; I completely agree with that.

However, is there a point at which the responsibilities and accountabilities that were created for the player, become heavier than the responsibility and accountability at the top? Essentially, at what point can we say that the coaches had them 100% prepared to succeed, but the player/s failed to do their job when it mattered?
 
Said it before but I'll say it again. If the kicker can kick the ball out of the end zone, they better jolly damn well tell him to do so. Sick of seeing CU getting burned for 50 yard returns the first three games each year because they didn't kick the damn ball out of the EZ.
 
TSchekler said:
Good write up, thank you.

At the end of the day, the coaches will always be held responsible and accountable for the results on the field; I completely agree with that.

However, is there a point at which the responsibilities and accountabilities that were created for the player, become heavier than the responsibility and accountability at the top? Essentially, at what point can we say that the coaches had them 100% prepared to succeed, but the player/s failed to do their job when it mattered?
Click to expand...

I don't think that point exists. This is a system where the coach is responsible for identifying and recruiting the players and then preparing them. If the coach recruited a player who is ultimately uncoachable (can't remember assignments, etc) then it's still the coach's responsibility.
 
It will be interesting. Diego appears to be a guy who is very inconsistent- not a good trait for a FG kicker. CU relied on Field Goal kicking last year because of the poor red zone offense. Hopefully the Red Zone will not be as much of an issue as far as getting TDs.
 
Orr said:
Responsibility is the task, or the job itself. For the case of Coach Leavitt, the entire defense is his responsibility.
Authority refers to the resources and oversight to do the job.
Accountability is the stand tall and face the music aspect of the job. No excuses.

Responsibility and accountability can never be transferred. Not ever.

However, new responsibilities and accountabilities can be created.

So Coach Leavitt creates a new responsibility and accountability for Crawley to know the playbook, his role in the playbook. Coach gives him the authorities to do his job and holds him accountable. Just because Coach Leavitt holds Crawley accountable, does not mean he himself is NOT accountable. He is. He can't give that accountability away. Ever.

So if Crawley fails to look back, you bet that he's accountable for his failure. And he must be held accountable. But it's still on Coach Leavitt, because he's accountable for the defense. So he doesn't get a pass. Not one. Either does the Head Coach.

And here's how it works in its proper execution.

Example one. DBs play a great game and the press tries to give credit to Coach Leavitt. Coach Leavitt responds and says, "those guys played lights out tonight. KC was really doing a great job of looking back in stride and fighting the ball to make make a play."

Example two. Crawley looks like **** and, even though he's in position, he repeatedly fails to make a play. The press (or HCMM) ask Coach Leavitt what happened, Coach Leavitt says, "That's on me. Period."

Accountability can never be transferred. But new accountability can be created.
Click to expand...

Seems fair, but only partly addresses all the issues, your textbook analysis entirely ignores "EXECUTION", which in sport, is carried out in the face of someone else trying to meet their responsibility. Where does that come in? Part of responsibility? And you also fail to address multiple responsibilities that a player must consider on any given play. For example: KC covering OSU's Cooks has to consider many things when covering him: His speed, his moves, the possibility of YAC going for a TD, if KC is too aggressive stepping in front, leaving himself open to miss a tackle.....the possibilities are mind-boggling and are endless. Thus, it all comes down to execution in that moment in time.
 
I think the bigger concern is when one (or several) coach can get a player to make the right read, get to the right spot and make a play, but another coach routinely has problems coaching that same player to make the right read, get to the right spot and make a play.

Seems to me there might be a problem with latter coach's talents and not necessarily the player's.
 
Buffenuf said:
Seems fair, but only partly addresses all the issues, your textbook analysis entirely ignores "EXECUTION", which in sport, is carried out in the face of someone else trying to meet their responsibility. Where does that come in? Part of responsibility? And you also fail to address multiple responsibilities that a player must consider on any given play. For example: KC covering OSU's Cooks has to consider many things when covering him: His speed, his moves, the possibility of YAC going for a TD, if KC is too aggressive stepping in front, leaving himself open to miss a tackle.....the possibilities are mind-boggling and are endless. Thus, it all comes down to execution in that moment in time.
Click to expand...

I've been given responsibility and authority for teams numbering in the hundreds. It's not just sports where execution matters. It's everywhere. And sometimes folks under my direction do something stupid. Something their actions are contrary to my guidance, contrary to training that has been provided, and contrary to that individual's sound judgment. It doesn't matter. If I'm not accountable for that individual's stupid actions, the entire system breaks down.

Your assertion that sports are somehow different (preparing a player for so-called "multiple responsibilities" places accountability even further on the coach, in my opinion), is ridiculous. It's how life works, not just sports.
 
Like posted above...every kickoff should go through the end zone. Why even risk injury, coverage or a big return? if you have the leg to sail it. So maybe they were working on return blocking and catching?? hopefully.
 
I rewatched some games this weekend and it was either the hawaii or the csu game, but I definitely saw Diego handle a kickoff and it was short of the end zone. Not sure where the "blasting it out of the end zone" rumor mill began.
 
Orr said:
From an accountability perspective, I'd argue that coaches are there to achieve on field results, and that's the standard by which they're judged. Schemes are only part of that process.

That is mostly aimed at Buffenuf, by the way.

DBT, in response to your advocacy of the Devil, do you think it's fair to say that we've seen less progress in special teams than we have in other units? Also, I think many might argue that experience matters less in special teams that it does on offense and defense.
Click to expand...
Fair indeed.
 
Colobuffs21 said:
I rewatched some games this weekend and it was either the hawaii or the csu game, but I definitely saw Diego handle a kickoff and it was short of the end zone. Not sure where the "blasting it out of the end zone" rumor mill began.
Click to expand...

It was in the CSU game. A terrible kick that gave CSU good field position. i don't know if I ever saw him on the field after that. I think it was blamed on an injury later.
 
Well put Orr. Your discussion of coaches responsibility relates directly to why Nienas needs to go.

If a kid bites on a fake and ends up out of his coverage lane once that is something you can put on the kid (even if a good coach will still take the blame to deflect pressure from the kid.)

If you have coverage teams that consistenly don't maintain lane integrity like ours have the past couple years then that goes directly to the coach.

For two years we have had "fixable problems" on STs and they haven't been fixed. How long till he is accountable for not coaching the guys he has or finding guys who can do it right.
 
The theory of accountability is dead on but in reality at CU did Neinis have any personnel options-- depth was worse. Competition for playing time plus accountability does work.
 
Buffenuf said:
Explain. I never saw them give up points on a procedure penalty or allow blocked kicks or punts. How are breakdowns in player execution the coach's responsibility? In practice, a kid runs in his lane perfectly and finishes hard a hundred times, yet in a game he slows up or cheats out of his lane. That's on the player, not the coach.

SR kicker misses three at Cal, says he misjudged the wind. SR punter hits a line drive punt vs. UW when a pooch punt is called for. Those are execution mistakes, not coaching errors.
Click to expand...
Orr said:
Responsibility is the task, or the job itself. For the case of Coach Leavitt, the entire defense is his responsibility.
Authority refers to the resources and oversight to do the job.
Accountability is the stand tall and face the music aspect of the job. No excuses.

Responsibility and accountability can never be transferred. Not ever.

However, new responsibilities and accountabilities can be created.

So Coach Leavitt creates a new responsibility and accountability for Crawley to know the playbook, his role in the playbook. Coach gives him the authorities to do his job and holds him accountable. Just because Coach Leavitt holds Crawley accountable, does not mean he himself is NOT accountable. He is. He can't give that accountability away. Ever.

So if Crawley fails to look back, you bet that he's accountable for his failure. And he must be held accountable. But it's still on Coach Leavitt, because he's accountable for the defense. So he doesn't get a pass. Not one. Either does the Head Coach.

And here's how it works in its proper execution.

Example one. DBs play a great game and the press tries to give credit to Coach Leavitt. Coach Leavitt responds and says, "those guys played lights out tonight. KC was really doing a great job of looking back in stride and fighting the ball to make make a play."

Example two. Crawley looks like **** and, even though he's in position, he repeatedly fails to make a play. The press (or HCMM) ask Coach Leavitt what happened, Coach Leavitt says, "That's on me. Period."

Accountability can never be transferred. But new accountability can be created.
Click to expand...
Dude everyone is accountable. That's what a team is. At least some guys on the team seem to get that.
 
DBT said:
Playing the Devil's advocate, one reason we had issues on offense and, especially defense was because, I think most agree, of our youth and inexperience. And those were our starters. Special teams had as much or more inexperience. Why do we write off the offensive and defensive issues on inexperience but not give special teams the same consideration?
Click to expand...
Obviously irrelevant:rolleyes:
 
2012 vs. Utah. Fourth Quarter.
Marques Mosley's 100-yard kickoff return tied the score with 8:25 left. Then Utah senior Reggie Dunn responded with a 100-yard return of his own.
So back to back kickoff returns, but Buffs lose. It was also the last chance in 2012 to win one at home; we did not. First time buffs went winless at home since 1920.
 
Yep, you and I must have been typing at same time, Buff_since76.
Also, apparently I don't understand the quote function yet.
 
Ass
Mass
Pass
Lass
Glass
Assembly
Assemble
Assist
Assistant
Associate
Assassinate
Assign
Assignment
Oh, edit police!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top