We are better than many ABers think

[boydbuff]

Don't get me wrong, we were a disgusting disgrace to div 1 football last year-or maybe just football in general. I have been vocally optimistic about our chances under HCMM and made numerous arguments on AB to suggest our overall talent is good enough to be a middle of the pack team in the nation (i.e. in the neighborhood of 60th instead of 124th).

I have no interest or time to actually research this in depth, but I bet there are a few Pac 12 teams and probably 40-60 other Div 1 teams that do not have as many athletes on preseason watch lists as we do. We have a LB, a running back, a wide receiver, a punter, I think our center (?) and a Defensive End on preseason watch lists.

Our cupboard is not bare. The right schemes, the right coaches, the right mentality (arguably the most important part of this puzzle), can get us to respectability very quickly. If Wood can put it together, we can be a decent team this year.

Don't get me wrong, I realize our overall depth and team speed has plenty of room for improvement, but we have enough talent to win some games and be competitive in most. The talent was hidden by one of the worst coaching staffs ever assembled for D1 football.

 

[GoBuffs08]

 

[liverflukes]

opcorn:

 

[tante]

I hope you are on the east coast because 9:00 AM is way to early to be that drunk.

 

[boydbuff]

I hope you are on the east coast because 9:00 AM is way to early to be that drunk.

I am on East Coast time and I had a very strong drink last night but I don't think it is affecting my brain functioning. I'm just sayin, we have some athletes that are being recognized as among the best in the nation, and it is not just our punter and PRich.

 

[WizzersGhost]

I hope you are on the east coast because 9:00 AM is way to early to be that drunk.

Simple task to review our roster and check the credentials of the players coming out of HS. Most were well-regarded.

Last staff was a divisive, non-developing bunch of FU's, well maybe not the whole staff, but......

 

[Dark Bohner]

:drink2::drunk::cheers::smokin::canabis::drink:

 

[dio]

Man - I see this thread every season

 

[leftybuff]

Lordy mercy...

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Crack kills

 

[tante]

I am on East Coast time and I had a very strong drink last night but I don't think it is affecting my brain functioning. I'm just sayin, we have some athletes that are being recognized as among the best in the nation, and it is not just our punter and PRich.

someone talked about this a few days ago. Which positions on are roster are better than their pac:12 counterparts. I really don't care if we have better players than Wyoming.

 

[sackman]

To a certain degree, we've been conditioned to expect the worst, because that's what we've gotten. It's hard to have much optimism when there isn't any recent success to hang our hat on. Even going into last year, we had won two of three to finish 2011 and there was some guarded optimism that we could carry that into 2012. When we shat the bed against CSU, we all knew the whole season was shot. We've been in a funk ever since. If MM can figure out a way to coax 4-5 wins out of this team, there will be kool-aid flowing like the Nile this time next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[CUwhit21]

I have no interest or time to actually research this in depth, but I bet there are a few Pac 12 teams and probably 40-60 other Div 1 teams that do not have as many athletes on preseason watch lists as we do. We have a LB, a running back, a wide receiver, a punter, I think our center (?) and a Defensive End on preseason watch lists.



As far as the Pac 12 goes, you're actually right. Here are the total nominations (Granted, you have to consider that certain players receive multiple nominations):

Stanford - 24
USC - 21
Oregon - 19
Arizona St - 17
UCLA - 15
Oregon St - 11
Washington - 7
Colorado - 6
Arizona - 4
Cal - 3
Washington St - 3
Utah - 3

I don't know that this means all that much other than it's unfortunate that we play Utah at Utah and don't play Washington St this year.

 

[MtnBuff]

Every team has a few players that they can name as relatively outstanding players on whom they pin their hopes. We have PRich, CUD, Pow, etc. but how many major conference schools can't do the same. Even a lot of lower BCS schools and even FCS schools can name a similar number of key players.

The trouble is that our opponents have those outstanding top 5 or so. Beyond that is where the problem starts. Our next 20 are below what our opponents have, the next 40 are way below.

I'm as big a Kool-aid drinker as anyone here but realistically 4 wins would be a very good season for us, 3 is much more realistic. Two of these come against a CSU team that is even more talent deficient than we are (and they can name their 4-5 notable players as well,) and an FCS school. From there I expect us to get 1-2 more wins based on factors such as coaching and opponents simply having a bad day. Even with that we have some teams on the schedule that could play their worst game possible and we still couldn't beat them, the talent gap is just to large.

 

[boydbuff]

someone talked about this a few days ago. Which positions on are roster are better than their pac:12 counterparts. I really don't care if we have better players than Wyoming.

I mostly agree with this in that we compete in the Pac 12 so we need to have talent at that level. My 2 responses to this are: 1.) we have way better athletes on this team than many ABers seem to think and I think that is proven by the # of players getting attention from pre-season watch lists. Besides the comparison to the Pac 12, this also suggests that we should perform WAY better across the board IF HCMM & Co. are good at what they do.

2.) WRT comparison to Pac 12, I posited that we must have more athletes on the preseason watch lists than some of the lower tier Pac 12 teams. If so, that is a start. Anyone care to do the research on this? Would be interesting to see a comparison of the Pac 12 teams and how many players are on watch lists.

 

[boydbuff]

I have no interest or time to actually research this in depth, but I bet there are a few Pac 12 teams and probably 40-60 other Div 1 teams that do not have as many athletes on preseason watch lists as we do. We have a LB, a running back, a wide receiver, a punter, I think our center (?) and a Defensive End on preseason watch lists.

As far as the Pac 12 goes, you're actually right. Here are the total nominations (Granted, you have to consider that certain players receive multiple nominations):

Stanford - 24
USC - 21
Oregon - 19
Arizona St - 17
UCLA - 15
Oregon St - 11
Washington - 7
Colorado - 6
Arizona - 4
Cal - 3
Washington St - 3
Utah - 3

I don't know that this means all that much other than it's unfortunate that we play Utah at Utah and don't play Washington St this year.

Rep! Thanks for doing the research. This is just another indication, along with average team recruiting rankings, which suggests we have enough quality players on this team to be a way better team if we have better coaching. The jury is still out on HCMM at Colorado, but if he and his staff or legit BCS coaches than we should perform even this year closer to our overall team talent which is probably in the middle of the pack nationally (i.e. rank around 60th at the end of the year) and probably around 10th in the Pac 12. That is not a bad start for year 1 post Embree debacle

 

[WizzersGhost]

someone talked about this a few days ago. Which positions on are roster are better than their pac:12 counterparts. I really don't care if we have better players than Wyoming.

When was the last time CU had a coaching staff with a plan, in place? IMO, it was original Mac.

Neweasel lived off Mac's recruiting. GB had a decent run in a weakened conference, but hired and couldn't fire his buddies, then got lazy and distracted (Fore!)under a "longevity contract". DH was...uh...well, DH....out to make his kid a star and sans Peterson, not much. WB was a waste of skin and oxygen that I still can't figure out. None had a college-level S&C coach worth spit (and that's where so much player development comes from when you're dealing with teens) and none had a plan or much solid organization.

Current talent is entitled to benefit of all that doubt introduced by mediocre to piss-poor coaching.

 

[tante]

I mostly agree with this in that we compete in the Pac 12 so we need to have talent at that level. My 2 responses to this are: 1.) we have way better athletes on this team than many ABers seem to think and I think that is proven by the # of players getting attention from pre-season watch lists. Besides the comparison to the Pac 12, this also suggests that we should perform WAY better across the board IF HCMM & Co. are good at what they do.

2.) WRT comparison to Pac 12, I posited that we must have more athletes on the preseason watch lists than some of the lower tier Pac 12 teams. If so, that is a start. Anyone care to do the research on this? Would be interesting to see a comparison of the Pac 12 teams and how many players are on watch lists.

so go over the schedule and tell me how many wins we are going to have.

 

[GoBuffs08]

Until we get better QB play it does not matter how many preseason watch list players we have. Hell we had O linemen drafted in the first round the last few years and still could not run the ball for 3 yards when we needed a first down.

 

[The Ogre]

We Buff fans are like dogs that have been whipped over and over (and over) again. The new master's hand is extending a treat, but only the most thick headed and trusting among us are crawling out from under the soiled confines of the porch to risk a closer sniff. I'm more in your camp, Boyd, but I'm willing to let you be the first to get smacked. Thanks.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

6 players on a pre-season watch list not comprised by the Boulder DA!:wow:

 

[Liver]

getting guys on watch lists is primarily a function of a quality SID. plati is very good at this.

 

[Buffnik]

I know we don't have an elite team.

But if we got off to a good start, built confidence, and the key guys were achieving their upsides, how good can this team be?

Last year was such a hot mess that I don't even have a good feeling for this team's ceiling if it gelled quickly and got some fortunate bounces along the way.

Is 6 wins the ultimate ceiling? Could it be 7, 8 or even 9 if they catch magic in a bottle? Maybe 4 or 5 wins is the ultimate upside?

I can't remember going into a season with so little feel for a CU team.

 

[boydbuff]

We Buff fans are like dogs that have been whipped over and over (and over) again. The new master's hand is extending a treat, but only the most thick headed and trusting among us are crawling out from under the soiled confines of the porch to risk a closer sniff. I'm more in your camp, Boyd, but I'm willing to let you be the first to get smacked. Thanks.

Thanks Bethesda. You are right-all Buff fans have been through unfair abuse the past several years. We have had a string of terrible coaches and an inept administration. I was a supporter of Bohn for the most part but I believe RG is the real deal. Overall, there is reason for optimism. I know we have all been burned before but we have to get back on the horse.

I am certainly not promising a winning season or anything but I believe our coaching staff is way better equipped to get the best out of our athletes than the past several coaching staffs. This thread is suggesting that we actually do have some athletes on this team. If HCMM is who some of us think he is, he should be able to turn that into some victories this year, and vastly improved overall play. If he doesn't I think it is on him, not due to severely worse talent on the team.

Again depth is an issue but we have some skill and impact players that are objectively seen as amongst the best in the country at their positions.

As for which games we will win, there is a thread on that already and I have participated in that too. I believe that if our staff does what they should do, we should have about 4 victories this year. The first 3 are all winnable although I have my doubts about Fresno, and there are a few conference games that are winnable too (especially Utah).

I am also still holding out hope (maybe the spiked Kool-Aid) that we will actually pull off a real upset this year (I know we will be underdogs in most games we play-I mean I think we will beat one of the best teams in the Pac 12 this year). Probably a home game and there was a thread on this too, I am betting USC b/c I think Kiffin is over rated and will be on the hottest seat in the country (or maybe even already fired) by the time we play them. And if my theory is right that we will be much better as a team this year, by the end of the season HCMM may have the team believing in themselves.

But as many other ABers have said, this year is probably less about wins, and more about getting them to believe again and being competitive in most games. If HCMM& Co are competent that will happen.

 

[boydbuff]

I know we don't have an elite team.

But if we got off to a good start, built confidence, and the key guys were achieving their upsides, how good can this team be?

Last year was such a hot mess that I don't even have a good feeling for this team's ceiling if it gelled quickly and got some fortunate bounces along the way.

Is 6 wins the ultimate ceiling? Could it be 7, 8 or even 9 if they catch magic in a bottle? Maybe 4 or 5 wins is the ultimate upside?

I can't remember going into a season with so little feel for a CU team.

I agree that it is a crap shoot. But given that our aggregate team talent is nowhere near the bottom of D1, if our coaches are not near the bottom of D1 either, we should do much better than last year. Much better than last year could be 3 wins and a margin of defeat of 20 in my opinion. That is not of course my goal and I don't think that is our upside.

My bet is the ultimate upside potential for this year is 6 wins but the realistic upside is 4.

 

[ahoelsken]

I think we were more talented last year than our results show---Anybody remember that bootleg on 4th and an inch against CSU? If we score there, we win that game, and we probably don't lose to Sac State the following week. I get that thats water under the bridge now, but that just proves how detrimental the coaching was on us last year. I think 3-5 wins is realistic.....and the schedule for me breaks down as follows:

Must wins-
CSU
Central Arkansas

Games we could steal-
Fresno---At home, there has got to be motivation coming from last year....
Cal---kind of in a similar boat to us
Arizona---Rich Rod doesn't have the athlete needed for his system at QB this year.
Utah
USC---Who knows what shape they'll be in when they come here? They're more talented, but if they epically underachieve like they did last year, Kiffin won't be coaching in the game here.
Oregon State---These guys are like the Texas of the Pac 12. They underachieve until people start talking about Riley's job being on the line, and they come out and have a year like 2012. Who knows what we'll see from them in 2013?

Games I'm already writing off-
Oregon
Arizona State
Washington
UCLA

 

[boydbuff]

I think we were more talented last year than our results show---Anybody remember that bootleg on 4th and an inch against CSU? If we score there, we win that game, and we probably don't lose to Sac State the following week. I get that thats water under the bridge now, but that just proves how detrimental the coaching was on us last year. I think 3-5 wins is realistic.....and the schedule for me breaks down as follows:

Must wins-
CSU
Central Arkansas

Games we could steal-
Fresno---At home, there has got to be motivation coming from last year....
Cal---kind of in a similar boat to us
Arizona---Rich Rod doesn't have the athlete needed for his system at QB this year.
Utah
USC---Who knows what shape they'll be in when they come here? They're more talented, but if they epically underachieve like they did last year, Kiffin won't be coaching in the game here.
Oregon State---These guys are like the Texas of the Pac 12. They underachieve until people start talking about Riley's job being on the line, and they come out and have a year like 2012. Who knows what we'll see from them in 2013?

Games I'm already writing off-
Oregon
Arizona State
Washington
UCLA

+1

 

[Duff Man]

So here are the number of players that appear on those watch lists:

Biletnikoff Award Watch List (Richardson)-75 players
Bednarik Award Watch List (Uzo-Diribe)-74 players
Doak Walker Award Watch List (Powell)-64 players
Butkus Award Watch List (Webb)-56 players
Rimington Award Watch List (Handler)-44 players

All I can gather from those numbers is that we might have some decent players at a handful of positions. But realistically what does that really mean? We have question marks at QB, LT, and in the secondary, but thankfully we might have an average center... okay? I asked in another thread if Christian Powell could get to 1,000 yards and the overwhelming consensus was no. So if he is a pretty good RB, but does not have a special season, how does that really help us win more games? I asked a few months ago if PRich can compete for all-conference honors at WR and it was pretty much split down the middle. So if it is a hard question to answer whether he will be able to challenge to be one the top 4-5 WRs in the PAC-12, what does that mean? The point being that even our best players have some pretty major questions surrounding them.

But more than anything, it is a bit odd to see some posters that think Embree was the biggest reason for us being so bad the last two years, yet apparently have confidence that he was a good talent evaluator. That he did everything else completely wrong, but he apparently knew what he was doing in that arena. Weird.

 

[boydbuff]

But more than anything, it is a bit odd to see some posters that think Embree was the biggest reason for us being so bad the last two years, yet apparently have confidence that he was a good talent evaluator. That he did everything else completely wrong, but he apparently knew what he was doing in that arena. Weird.

Who ever said all coaches suck at everything or are great at everything? Embree and Bienemy had incredibly strong recruiting resumes from their days at UCLA and CU, etc. That they were able to recruit some good talent to Colorado yet absolutely sucked at implementing an offense and defense, sucked at coaching up most players, were divisive in the locker room, and pathetic game day coaches is not inconsistent. Furthermore they got lucky on occasion such as when PRich fell in their lap and potentially the same with Wood if he proves he can really play this year.

 

[Duff Man]

Who ever said all coaches suck at everything or are great at everything? Embree and Bienemy had incredibly strong recruiting resumes from their days at UCLA and CU, etc. That they were able to recruit some good talent to Colorado yet absolutely sucked at implementing an offense and defense, sucked at coaching up most players, were divisive in the locker room, and pathetic game day coaches is not inconsistent. Furthermore they got lucky on occasion such as when PRich fell in their lap and potentially the same with Wood if he proves he can really play this year.

My point is those recruiting resumes at UCLA meant next to nothing the last few classes. The last coaching staff took a lot of fliers on guys who were not highly rated and I am somehow supposed to take comfort in the fact they were great recruiters a decade ago?