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!

The Running Game - or lack thereof

Darth Snow

Darth Snow

Hawaiian Buffalo
Club Member
Junta Member
We just aren't committed to it. And there are reasons why, but it's so frustrating to see this two years in a row now. In running situations, the OL could not deliver. Early, we caught them napping by actually running the ball in 2d and 3d and mid (Offerdahl's 1st down comes to mind). After that, they steadily clamped things down.

Beyond a lack of push, I saw pulling guards coming around and missing both guys in front of them. I saw a refusal to try and play in a phone booth (outside of the 4th down disaster). Some of that was matchup oriented. But damn, we didn't even try. Do we have a TE that we trust at all? Because trying to have a run game running 4 wide is going to suck.

But another issue was the RPO. First, Shedeur pulled it a LOT. I won't pretend to know if he was making the right read, but if you give him a decision to make and it's 60/40 towards handing it off, he's gonna keep it. And we did get 500 yards of offense, etc., so obviously he wasn't making terrible reads. But in the red zone, we couldn't run and needed a miracle from Hunter to convert by the end. At some point this team needs to show it can run the ball on purpose with purpose.

TL;DR: I think we don't really want to run the ball and it shows. Prime may say he wants to, but the proof is in the puddin.
 
Most of the time, we are running 4 wide with QB in shotgun. That's not "committing to run the ball". Also, most of the run plays we have is running inside. Do we have any designed outside run, at all?

So ya, I completely agree with your observation. They don't have the desire, nor effort, to try to run the ball.
 
I don't remember one snap under center. I think they didn't use a TE until late in the second half. Hopefully both will change.
 
By formation we aren't committed to running the ball and with 2 and our WRs it's tempting to throw.

I think we are moving more towards being at least respectable running the ball but it will take some time.

NDSU by nature is hard to run on. They are built to stop the run and their run D is well coordinated.

We have brought in linemen who will be better run blockers but it takes time. To effectively run the ball requires more coordination on the OL than pass blocking does. @FlaBuff can describe it better than I but to run well you need the entire line not only using good technique but also working together. If not you see defenders slip into holes and killing plays.
 
What's the scheme against CU's offense? You obviously cannot go man-to-man against Hunter (and I wouldn't advise it against to other outside receivers). Whatever choice they make, it seems like there should be room to run.
 
Benson and Hank seemed to be the weak links last night. I thought everyone else was decent to pretty good
 
ZandiBuff said:
Having a guard playing RT limits the ability to run to the right.
Click to expand...
Excuse Me Reaction GIF by One Chicago
 
patebuff said:
There were a few large, very large holes and the backs seemed to be running in quick sand
Click to expand...
Our running game doesn't seem to lend itself to going downhill.

The one time we had a back actually take the handoff and charge forward was when Charlie got 7 yards in that third down.

The only encouraging sign with the O line so far is we potentially have 4 returning starters next year...so experience should at least help them gel...but that doesn't help with this season.
 
Medford M. said:
Our running game doesn't seem to lend itself to going downhill.

The one time we had a back actually take the handoff and charge forward was when Charlie got 7 yards in that third down.

The only encouraging sign with the O line so far is we potentially have 4 returning starters next year...so experience should at least help them gel...but that doesn't help with this season.
Click to expand...
Haden does seem like he can shed tackles so there is something there
 
Buffnik said:
Shurmur doesn't seem like the type to give up on the run game. It will develop. Won't be our strength, but will be enough to keep defenses honest and sometimes be able to take control as the season progresses.
Click to expand...
We started off running well for CU standards. The Bison started (run) blitzing for most early downs, so they adjusted. I think that most teams will start shading safeties against THun. That’s where we will see success against light boxes.
 
Shurmur won't give up on the run game at all. I don't know why anyone on here thinks he's going to change. Expect a lot of run, run, pass short of the marker, punt in our future. I'm tickled Shedeur can audible, I think in the end he's much smarter than Shurmur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top