Who is responsible for offensive lineman being placed in situations where their play is so bad it appears designed to fail if the fault does not rest upon their position coach or on the players?Bill O'Boyle is hired by northwestern and their OL play is so much better than us, at least from the perspective of the first two games.
Not in any way saying that a team doesn't need talent on the OL but more than any other position OL relies on technique and coordination.Wells and Washington were the two OL I really wanted CU to keep. They did reasonably well. I watched TT/WSU and OU/UH. The problems at CU are schematic and play calling, almost exclusively. All four of those teams run a shotgun based attack, but bring in HBacks TE and mix in the run. All but OU are far less talented and more productive. Willie Fritz is first year and moving the ball. Prime is not showing he belongs at this level.
ND losing to double digits underdog is more of the HC problem rather than protal problem.Early season performance of CU, FSU, and to an extent ND is opening bigger questions about whether you really can build a CFB roster from the portal. Forget outside-in in terms of position, I dont know yet if it works in terms of team construction.
Early season performance of CU, FSU, and to an extent ND is opening bigger questions about whether you really can build a CFB roster from the portal. Forget outside-in in terms of position, I dont know yet if it works in terms of team construction.
Ole Miss uses the portal differently. They use the portal to sign players who are elite for millions. We don't have millions to sign anyone. We use our millions for bulk. They just have a lot more money than us.Last year, FSU and Michigan relied heavily on transfers, FSU much more so. Michigan had 3 transfers on the Oline/TE, 2 from Stanford. Both Michigan and FSU were gutted by the NFL draft and graduation. Doubtful a team can wholesale transfer in an entire Oline without growing pains. I do think having a # of guys playing in transfer year 2 is probably helpful, if they have talent for the 2-deep.
It does not look like teams can TP to Prime's extent in flipping rosters yearly, however he inherited a 1-11 team pretty much bare talent wise. However Ole Miss is still out there to prove us wrong. I think continuity of good coaches and systems pays off, so it is not a new O/D install every season.
Bill O'Boyle is hired by northwestern and their OL play is so much better than us, at least from the perspective of the first two games.
Ole Miss uses the portal differently. They use the portal to sign players who are elite for millions. We don't have millions to sign anyone. We use our millions for bulk. They just have a lot more money than us.
Running those two off was a terrible idea. People were down on Wells after last season, but he was always pretty solid. There’s something else going on with our offensive scheme that doesn’t put the line in a position to win, imo.FWIW, Oregan State is again better than CU in the trenches. Their starting C is Van Wells and their starting LT is Gerard Christian-Lichtenhan. IMO, we ran off too many guys in the trenches.
My biggest concern with Prime from the jump was that he said he was building from the outside in.
Well, we've got great players on the outside. Much better than Nebraska. But we can't pass block, can't get a push in the run game, can't threaten the middle with a TE, can't bring consistent pressure, can't consistently stop run, and can't cover backs or TEs.
Got to hope that things gel on the OL, a TE emerges, and our front 7 can start forcing throws into our secondary. Otherwise, this team is too flawed to allow the stars to shine.
Lining up against a DL that can completely disregard any gap integrity or run responsibility might have something to do with it.Running those two off was a terrible idea. People were down on Wells after last season, but he was always pretty solid. There’s something else going on with our offensive scheme that doesn’t put the line in a position to win, imo.
Not sure I buy this narrative for transfers - Michigan has signed 22% of their classes as transfers, FSU is 42%....CU i 64%. That's a huge difference especially when CU has signed 128 guys total over the last 2 classes.Last year, FSU and Michigan relied heavily on transfers, FSU much more so. Michigan had 3 transfers on the Oline/TE, 2 from Stanford. Both Michigan and FSU were gutted by the NFL draft and graduation. Doubtful a team can wholesale transfer in an entire Oline without growing pains. I do think having a # of guys playing in transfer year 2 is probably helpful, if they have talent for the 2-deep.
It does not look like teams can TP to Prime's extent in flipping rosters yearly, however he inherited a 1-11 team pretty much bare talent wise. However Ole Miss is still out there to prove us wrong. I think continuity of good coaches and systems pays off, so it is not a new O/D install every season.
TRANSFER PORTAL | TOTAL | % | |||||||
Year | Colorado | Michigan | FSU | Colorado | Michigan | FSU | Colorado TP% | Michigan TP % | FSU TP % |
2022 | 6 | 3 | 14 | 31 | 25 | 31 | 19% | 12% | 45% |
2023 | 52 | 9 | 12 | 73 | 34 | 31 | 71% | 26% | 39% |
2024 | 43 | 9 | 17 | 55 | 35 | 40 | 78% | 26% | 43% |
101 | 21 | 43 | 159 | 94 | 102 | 64% | 22% | 42% |
I think that the lower-risk portal gets are at WR, Edge, maybe CB, and situationally at QB. And even those in limited doses.Early season performance of CU, FSU, and to an extent ND is opening bigger questions about whether you really can build a CFB roster from the portal. Forget outside-in in terms of position, I dont know yet if it works in terms of team construction.
Not sure I buy this narrative for transfers - Michigan has signed 22% of their classes as transfers, FSU is 42%....CU i 64%. That's a huge difference especially when CU has signed 128 guys total over the last 2 classes.
TRANSFER PORTAL TOTAL % Year Colorado Michigan FSU Colorado Michigan FSU Colorado TP% Michigan TP % FSU TP % 20226 3 14 31 25 31 19% 12% 45% 202352 9 12 73 34 31 71% 26% 39% 202443 9 17 55 35 40 78% 26% 43% 101 21 43 159 94 102 64% 22% 42%
The point was there is a massive difference in what CU has done and what the two schools you called out have done.Your stats are probably on in terms of overall transfer #/%'s of transfers. I was talking about guys in their respective teams starting line-up and/or two deep last year. Huge difference between the depths that CU is trying to overcome and where two teams started-out last year. Prime/CU was turning over a 1-11 roster and now in year 2. However, the transfer story for FSU and MI is notable.
For FSU, it was the conference title game not bowl depth chart that counts, since they missed playoffs. Norvell was in year 4. Florida State hit boxcars with their transfers producing last season with huge starter production. They had 10 guys drafted into NFL, 9 were transfers into their program. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Florida_State_Seminoles_football_team. Also, they took Casey Roddick from CU that started for them too.
With Michigan, they were definitely more home-grown given Harbaugh was in year 9; however their story is Oline transfers. Hinton (from Stanford) was starting LT well into season, then went down with injury or he probably starts all games. Of their 9 transfers in last year, 8 made a huge contributions, as all were Srs or RS S. Nugent (C), Henderson (OL) and Barner (TE) all were transfer starters and now onto the NFL. That is 4 OL. 8 played in the two deep (one QB sat), 6 started substantial games. Not just the Oline, but their starting CB (who did not allow a TD last season) and all-conference K were also transfers in. Those are big contributions.
It probably goes without saying but those teams had much more experience and stability with their HC, AC coaching staff's and were not installing new O's and D's two (2) years in a row. That is unfortunate and some learning for CU and Prime. Also, they were further in the roster process. No doubt Prime's roster build methods are extreme, but for MI and FSU their transfers pushed a ton last season ... substantial inputs, monumental for FSU. With less transfers and less holes than CU, MI and FSU were certainly more palatable transfer destinations and maybe they could grab the creme of the crop, however they also had more established rosters, schemes, and coaching staffs. I'll be interested to see if Ole Miss and Lane Kiffin push into the playoff this season.
In some ways it is fair to criticize Prime and question the extreme methods given the sheer amount of turnover (both CU kids, past transfers and coaches), in other ways we are simply in Year 2 with a HC (new to P-4) and our fans/pundits really wanting/expecting to be in Year 4-5, not Year 2 building off of a 1-11 roster. If hope we win at CSU and Baylor at home over the next 2 weeks, we could still look like a good team coming off the bye week in Week 5.
Last thing it that Prime by bringing SS, TH and the other play-makers put buzz back in the CU program. It is harder to fill positions that require depth and time within a certain system than plugging transfers into an established system. CU did not have that. I would not say MI or FSU built from the outside in, I would say they built over years then bringing key transfers into something already running including on OL.
The point was there is a massive difference in what CU has done and what the two schools you called out have done.
Patching depth she bringing in high level players is completely different than changing the roster over nearly twice in two years, being almost completely reliant on it, and not showing quality HS recruiting (no a HS class of 9 or whatever is not quality HS recruiting, yes I know dudes like Seaton).
Michigan won the natty last year and FSU went 13-0. Nothing wrong with the portal, you Just gotta hit on the players you bring in. Also, it takes time to build chemistry so schedule lightlyNot sure I buy this narrative for transfers - Michigan has signed 22% of their classes as transfers, FSU is 42%....CU i 64%. That's a huge difference especially when CU has signed 128 guys total over the last 2 classes.
TRANSFER PORTAL TOTAL % Year Colorado Michigan FSU Colorado Michigan FSU Colorado TP% Michigan TP % FSU TP % 20226 3 14 31 25 31 19% 12% 45% 202352 9 12 73 34 31 71% 26% 39% 202443 9 17 55 35 40 78% 26% 43% 101 21 43 159 94 102 64% 22% 42%
You're not building a team with the quantity of transfers brought in - there's a huge gap between CU and everyone elseMichigan won the natty last year and FSU went 13-0. Nothing wrong with the portal, you Just gotta hit on the players you bring in. Also, it takes time to build chemistry so schedule lightly
CU had to do it due to the lack of quality. Then this year was about fit and areas of weakness plus depth.You're not building a team with the quantity of transfers brought in - there's a huge gap between CU and everyone else
They had to do it in 2023, they didn't need to last year & there's still little to no focus on HS recruiting thus leaving the portal to be highly relied again once again.CU had to do it due to the lack of quality. Then this year was about fit and areas of weakness plus depth.
Let's not act like CU wasn't in a terrible position
Nwankwo, Barnes, Carter, BJ Green, Hayes, Okunlola, NHG, Hodge, McKinney, Benson, Mayers, Houston, Wester, Sheppard, Hayden, Augustave.They had to do it in 2023, they didn't need to last year & there's still little to no focus on HS recruiting thus leaving the portal to be highly relied again once again.
12-16 out of 55 transfer players...Nwankwo, Barnes, Carter, BJ Green, Hayes, Okunlola, NHG, Hodge, McKinney, Benson, Mayers, Houston, Wester, Sheppard, Hayden, Augustave.
That's anywhere between 12-16 starters and/or guys who play and rotate a lot. I'm not sure why you think they didn't need to hit the portal and bring these guys in again this year.
The 2023 roster still needed massive upgrades in order to compete in Shedeur and Travis' last year.