This was my point as well. I can take losing, especially to very good teams if they at least have to try to beat us badly. When you see teams laughing at us in the second quarter as they try not to score, that hurts.
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!
We are better than many ABers think
- Thread starter boydbuff
- Start date
This was my point as well. I can take losing, especially to very good teams if they at least have to try to beat us badly. When you see teams laughing at us in the second quarter as they try not to score, that hurts.
Some of that was because we were over-matched and some of that was because I team simply quit trying in a number of games. Just going through the motions.
Or like the Fresno game never bothered to start trying in the first place.
Outside of the Washington State game, how many more games last year did it look like our players made a sincere effort to do more than just be there. They put did put out an effort in the CSU game until the coaching killed their belief they could win, Sac State the same. Going into the Utah game I thought that at least some of the players thought they could win and played accordingly. Other than those it seemed like most of the time they went in with a "lets get it over with and go home" attitude.
I thought the team kept up a reasonably good effort in the first halves against UCLA, ASU, and Arizona. They came unglued in the 2nd halves of those games. They quit early against USC, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington. Utah was a good effort.
Washington fell in the category of "decent first half effort."
Are you implying there are Embree defenders on this site?
I mentioned Saragrin rankings because it shows we were worse than #120.
Iowa is a good team to look at because they were nearly as bad as us on offense in 2012. They were not particularly good on special teams either. The difference being they had a top 35 scoring defense.
If you believe the difference between our defense and their defense was mostly coaching, I hope you are right. But it just seems like a monumental difference that cannot be easily explained away by coaching.
It is true, we have had more attrition, we are also on our third coach in 4 years who's had 15 practices to work with players and install the 4th new set of schemes in 4 years, which limits your ability to develope talent. As fo rthe classes you
2009 class - 6 of our top 8 recruits are gone, 5 of those 6 never contributed. Makes out class roughly comparable to Iowa's worst class in the stretch.
2010 class - Iowa 42 with 4 4* athletes, 3 still on team; CU no 4*'s #66 (worse than any Iowa class, with a larger # of players which boosts total points).
2011 class - Iowa 30 with 4 4* athletes, 3 still on team; CU no 4*'s #74 (worse than any Iowa class)
2012 class - the prize jewel of recent CU classes, only ranks this high because of size (27 players) Iowa had double the 4* athletes we did, and had a high average star rating as CU. Add to that 3 of out top 6 are gone to 1 of Iowa's.
So to summarize:
2009 Push with Iowa's worst class
2010 Iowa by a large margin
2011 Iowa by a large margin
2012 Iowa
boydbuff
Club Member
Sorry but it is kind of lame to cherrypick our attrition and use that to suggest our talent is way less than Iowa's. I don't have the time or inclination to go and research all the attrition Iowa has also experienced (Don't know why you guys seem to think attrition of good players only happens at CU), but I did one Google search and the 1st link was interesting: http://hawkcentral.com/2012/12/12/freshman-rb-greg-garmon-to-transfer/
Iowa las 7 running backs to attrition in a period of 3 years and something like 4 in 1 yr. No idea about the rest of their losses.
Anyway, I am done with this stupid argument. Those of you want to carry on believing that our talent last year reflects our ranking and that Water Bottle & Co were not meaningful factors, go for it. I'll leave you 5 people to debate amongst yoursevles because the rest of the college football world is pretty comfortable with the fact that Embree, EB, & Co. were way over their heads and were an embarrassment to the college coaching profession. (I am not talking about their ability to be position coaches but to be HCs and coordinators).
I don't think it's an "either/or" argument.
BlackNGold
Club Member
If coaching makes all the difference then explain MM first year at SJSU. Pretty dismal. NO coach can win without talent. CU has the least amount of talent in the PAC-12. I don't care about being some mythical rank of 70th and acting like that is so great. I see 3 wins as a probably best case scenario with 1 win a possibility and I am not going to get giddy over 3 wins. It is not going to be a great year. Just because you put a dress on a pig does not change the fact that it is a pig. CU has a ton of question marks on this team and going into the season it is unlikely that most of those questions will be answered in the positive for CU.
The gods of football are punishing us for the students storming the field after meaningless wins -
The gods of football are punishing us for the students storming the field after meaningless wins -
You pointed out the recruiting ranks of classes to say that we had comparable talent to Iowa, I looked at the classes as a whole and then the attrition of the most highly recruited players who would have contributed the most to those rankings. If you have a better way to do it without evaluating the progress of every single recruit then I am open to it. As for your example about Garmon he is listed in my line item about the 2012 class where i noted that 3 of the 4* athletes they recruited are still on the roster, he is the one who is not. That still leaves them with 3 more 4* athletes than we have for the year and thus, wait for it.........more talent.
As stated elsewhere I thought Embree was a terrible hire from day one, I've also stated them MikeMac wins 3-4 games with last years team. I differ with duff in that i think this years team may actually be worse than last years team from a talent perspective.
I wish MacIntyre was inheriting the 2011 offense. Experience and decent talent at most positions. When we finished last in the conference with that core, that was a giant red flag.
I thought this was a public poll, but I'm pretty sure I was the 1 person who voted "have never been on the bandwagon."
http://www.allbuffs.com/showthread.php/76180-Thoughts-on-this-regime
Edit: Nevermind I voted off the bandwagon and 1 other voted "have never been on the bandwagon." Man, we were dumb:lol:
Well having to travel to #1 Alabama and #11 Wisconsin hurt them a lot, on top of playing with 75 players due to APR sanctions. SJSU in MM's first year lost five games by a touchdown or less (UC Davis, NMSU, USU, La Tech, Idaho) and only lost by 13 to Wisconsin.
And based on how we played Utah the last two seasons, I'd argue that based on the on-field product that we have similar talent to Utah, who went 5-7 last year.
Or 100, one of the two
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
Per game.
BlackNGold
Club Member
Look at those 5 teams - UC-Davis is not even a Div-1a Team. That is like pumping sunshine because the Buffs only lost to CSU by 5 and Sac. St. by 2. Yes they had some tough games but overall their schedule had plenty of week teams. CU is going to have so tough games also - USC, Oregon, UCLA, etc.
Utah brings in a lot of JUCOs which gives then a quick boost but I do not think they are very good...
I'm fully aware of who they played and how bad some of them were. The big thing is the first two OOC games, they have SJSU zero chance of getting a win in their first two, where as our first two are extremely winnable giving us the very good chance of starting out 2-0 when compared to SJSU in 2010. Utah, Cal, and Utah are all very winnable games as well.
liverflukes
Resident Bear
Take another rip off the old plastic $19.99 smoke shop bong Kuato. Please explain why you think your team can defeat Cal late in the season. In fact, why will you defeat Utah? As always, thanks for the feedback.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
I personally don't think CU goes winless in the Pac. As such, Cal and Utah are seemingly the best chances. Cal typically plays like **** on the road and when our other choices are Oregon, UCLA, ASU et al on the conference slate, of course Cal in Boulder is one of the best opportunities.
liverflukes
Resident Bear
Ah gotcha! So you betting? :lol:
liverflukes
Resident Bear
Just messing with you beatniks. Good luck this season.
You won't be beating us though.
You won't be beating us though.
SINKRATZ
PhD in Analogy
Because tanking late in the season and losing to inferior teams is Cal's M.O.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
You out of your mind? **** no.
I will consider a bet on MacIntyre and whether you regret having let him get out of your backyard...5 years from now. Under consideration.
liverflukes
Resident Bear
Skip to 1:10 mark :rofl:
[video=youtube;3-IQWZ3rjuA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-IQWZ3rjuA[/video]
Like we steal games!