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!

Why do Mike MacIntyre teams struggle to run the football?

Duff Man

Duff Man

Club Member
Club Member
Junta Member
Is it because he and his coaching staff simply do not value running the football or that the offense this coaching staff runs is just not effective in running the football? Or both?

In his three years at San Jose State, his teams never finished above 109th in the country in rushing offense.

At CU, the highest finish has been 77th in rushing yardage (2014), 82nd in yards per attempt (2014), and 63rd in rushing touchdowns (2015).
 
Former QB likes to throw the ball?

To be fair, and setting aside the SJSU period, CU hasnt exactly been built around the run game of late. We seem to have some of the pieces some of the time. But never all of them.
 
Its very hard to be great at all phases of the game. Usually, you have to pick something to emphasize and take your lumps in other areas. I suspect that's the case here. MM would prefer to have a prolific passing game. It's his comfort zone. He understands it better and can game plan it better.
 
Scheme is part of it. Also lack of a top flight back, oline trouble, coaches not staying committed to it, falling behind in games, etc...
 
sackman said:
Its very hard to be great at all phases of the game. Usually, you have to pick something to emphasize and take your lumps in other areas. I suspect that's the case here. MM would prefer to have a prolific passing game. It's his comfort zone. He understands it better and can game plan it better.
Click to expand...

To be a good running team you have to have a good OL and a star RB. We have neither. We do have a decent QB and weve had some pretty good WRs too.
 
I'm sure you're onto something with coaching philosophy, but I think part of the problem is that we just don't have very good running backs. I think our OL was pretty underrated in run blocking last year (pass blocking is a completely separate issue). For instance, we were 11th in the nation on 3rd or 4th and short last year. We were 12th in the nation on the preventing running plays for getting tackled for losses. Yet, we were 109th in the nation in ypc at 3.75. That screams " OL created a hole and a couple yards of space, but your running backs did jack**** after that."
 
The issues with the OL can be explained up to a point. I still maintain that this year is the first where we will actually be able to see the development strategy start to pay off. We have something like ten guys with game experience on the OL and another two or three redshirt Sophmores who are pushing for playing time. We haven't had that here for decades. I'm willing to give the OL the benefit of the doubt up until now. It HAS to be better this year, though.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
I'm sure you're onto something with coaching philosophy, but I think part of the problem is that we just don't have very good running backs. I think our OL was pretty underrated in run blocking last year (pass blocking is a completely separate issue). For instance, we were 11th in the nation on 3rd or 4th and short last year. We were 12th in the nation on the preventing running plays for getting tackled for losses. Yet, we were 109th in the nation in ypc at 3.75. That screams " OL created a hole and a couple yards of space, but your running backs did jack**** after that."
Click to expand...
Seems like our line has lacked athleticism but that doesn't mean you can't put them close together and have them maul other teams. Instead we ask them to pass protect some of the best athletes in college football.
 
onealcd said:
Seems like our line has lacked athleticism but that doesn't mean you can't put them close together and have them maul other teams. Instead we ask them to pass protect some of the best athletes in college football.
Click to expand...
We had some maulers who could run block on that line. Guys like Huckins and Nembot who were recruited for Embree's scheme. Granted, they were a massive liability in pass protection.
 
onealcd said:
Seems like our line has lacked athleticism but that doesn't mean you can't put them close together and have them maul other teams. Instead we ask them to pass protect some of the best athletes in college football.
Click to expand...

I think you and JR hit on the important part for me as it pertains to the offense. When it has been clear to everyone over the last couple years that our offensive line cannot effectively protect the quarterback over the course of an entire game, why has the coaching staff not helped the offensive line out by going to the running game more?
 
J.R. Ewing said:
We had some maulers who could run block on that line. Guys like Huckins and Nembot who were recruited for Embree's scheme. Granted, they were a massive liability in pass protection.
Click to expand...
Callahan and Kelley also did a good job in power run blocking.
 
Duff Man said:
I think you and JR hit on the important part for me as it pertains to the offense. When it has been clear to everyone over the last couple years that our offensive line cannot effectively protect the quarterback over the course of an entire game, why has the coaching staff not helped the offensive line out by going to the running game more?
Click to expand...

It comes down to the running backs. Against FBS competition, CU perfected the art of the 3 yard run. No more, no less.
 
I forget where I heard this, but it is something that has stuck with me about football over the years.

To win:

Play great defense
Play great special teams
Do 1 thing very well on offense

I don't really care if that thing on offense is running or throwing. Whether it is controlling field position & clock (running and/or throwing), or generating explosive plays (running and/or throwing). The important thing is to have an identity and to be able to hang your hat on that identity.

Where I think CU has struggled has been when the idea has been to be too "multiple" on offense and not having any sort of identity.

We have a pass offense. Coaching staff and fans need to embrace this. Doesn't mean we can't run the ball effectively, but the passing game has to set that up.
 
I've always believed part of a strong running game is a mentality, gotta stick with it and be patient. I've seen teams with mediocre talent up front that still had a solid rushing attack.
 
Easy to stuff the run when you see it coming.

No explosiveness on O means no worry about overplaying a running down.
 
Buffnik said:
I don't really care if that thing on offense is running or throwing. Whether it is controlling field position & clock (running and/or throwing), or generating explosive plays (running and/or throwing). The important thing is to have an identity and to be able to hang your hat on that identity.
Click to expand...
IDK about that. The PAC has been dominated by Stanford and Oregon...both running teams. I don't remember the last time a national championship was won by a predominantly throwing team. Champions seem to play great D, great ST and run the ball well (either as their identity or as a pro style type offense). Of course, in college, it helps to have a dominant player...usually at QB...but not required.

Not that you can't be a successful program throwing the ball, Dykes, Leach etc have had some success, but they will never win a championship with that strategy IMO. The one good thing about a great passing game is it sells tickets...not as much as winning but people seem to come out to see a light show.

This staff, with 6 years of history, has shown they are incapable of building a running game...through poor recruiting, poor development, poor scheme, poor coaching and what seems to be a general lack of interest.
 
Who said anything about letting them see it coming. That's why the OC needs to do a good job of mixing it up. Now there are downs they'll know it coming but so what? It's called being able to execute, that means everybody, not just the o-line.
 
Buffnik said:
I forget where I heard this, but it is something that has stuck with me about football over the years.

To win:

Play great defense
Play great special teams
Do 1 thing very well on offense

I don't really care if that thing on offense is running or throwing. Whether it is controlling field position & clock (running and/or throwing), or generating explosive plays (running and/or throwing). The important thing is to have an identity and to be able to hang your hat on that identity.

Where I think CU has struggled has been when the idea has been to be too "multiple" on offense and not having any sort of identity.

We have a pass offense. Coaching staff and fans need to embrace this. Doesn't mean we can't run the ball effectively, but the passing game has to set that up.
Click to expand...
Great point. Oregon and Stanford are the only two teams to win the Pac12 recently, and they both have strong off identities. UCLA, USC, ASU, Utah, Washington have all fielded some good teams, but what is their identity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top