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!

wonder if we had hired peterson instead of hawkins.. bygones

cdog

Well-Known Member
You have to admit Boise offensive football is fun to watch, and they don't recruit 5* qb's, but they currently have more playmakers than most of the Big 12 teams. This year they are more dangerous than Oklahoma and would be #1 in Big 12.
Hopefully, a smash-mouth, pro-style, play-action offense will work again for the Buffs.
If not lets just steal from Boise's Peterson, and Oregon's Kelly like everyone else.
Do we really care what offense Embree runs as long as it puts fear into the defense, moves the ball with first downs and our 4-5 of our drives result in touchdowns?
For CU however, the power running game just makes sense, but eventually
you have to throw on 3rd down, which is where CU needs to steal some new fresh plays...

http://smartfootball.com/gameplanni...rage-numbers-and-grass-to-gash-the-opposition
 
There's a good chance that Petersen would have also failed.

Nutt was run out of Arkansas and they don't like him in Mississippi.
Koetter was fired at Arizona State.
Hawkins failed at Colorado.

None got recruiting at this level. There were also major issues regarding loyalty to staff members who were brought along for the ride but were unable to cut it. Why would we think Petersen would be any different?
 
Buffnik said:
There's a good chance that Petersen would have also failed.

Nutt was run out of Arkansas and they don't like him in Mississippi.
Koetter was fired at Arizona State.
Hawkins failed at Colorado.

None got recruiting at this level. There were also major issues regarding loyalty to staff members who were brought along for the ride but were unable to cut it. Why would we think Petersen would be any different?
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

This is a big reason why I was so opposed to Calhoun. We need to have guys who have connections at the places where we can pull in a few 4* and 5* players from time to time. Furthermore, we need to have guys who know what to do with those players once they're here.
 
sackman said:
:yeahthat:

This is a big reason why I was so opposed to Calhoun. We need to have guys who have connections at the places where we can pull in a few 4* and 5* players from time to time. Furthermore, we need to have guys who know what to do with those players once they're here.
Click to expand...

Hawkins for sure didn't know what to do with talented players. He treated them like they were instant mashed potato's...... just add water and you were ready to eat.

Not worth a thread, but on another note, I saw in the Denver Post that Logan turned down a 4 year offer from UNC.
 
Last edited:
As said, recruiting is key. Sometimes players play above their scheme and do things like make a tackle they weren't supposed to, intercept a pass, catch a badly thrown ball, break a long run, etc.... Good game planning accounts for a good 80% of the game, but I'd venture that the other 20% is the players.

It seemed like Hawk wanted all of the players with lesser ability to surpass the ones that had greater, natural ability. You want your walkons and lesser guys to step up and push the genetic freaks you recruit, but you also need to coach up your big talent. Hawk was too much of an ideologue and it definitely felt as if he wanted to prove that he could win based on scheme alone (and bad ones at that). It just doesn't work out like that.
 
No way in the world that Boise is #1 in the Big XII or the Big X, PAC 10, SEC and although they are good and the league is bad, I doubt they are #1 in the Big East.

Boise has been in a unique situation because for the past few years of their success they have had to prepare for what is basically a 3-4 game schedule. In the WAC they play a yearly schedule of such powerhouses as Idaho, Utah State, San Jose, Louisiana State, New Mexico State. Their "tough" conference opponents have been Fresno, Nevada (recently) and Hawaii. Out of conference they play one or two BCS level schools and fill up with teams comparable or worse to the bottom of the WAC, schools like Weber State, Wyoming, and Southern Miss in 2007, Idaho State, Bowling Green, and Southern Miss in 2008, Miami (OH), Bowling Green, and UC Davis in 2009, and Wyoming and Toledo in 2010. The result of this is that they can build their entire season around preparing for 3-5 games a year. The rest of them are bad enough that they can win just by showing up. The other aspect of this is that by blowing out pathetic opponents in most games of the year they don't have to deal with issues faced by teams in real conferences. Their starters are out of the game by midway though the third quarter in most games meaning that the risk of injury goes way down. At the same time they can afford to play backups significant time developing these players in live action giving them more depth.

The major conferences have some relatively weaker teams by a if a team like Boise were to line up against say a Kansas State or Iowa State and not mental show up it becomes a loss, some games are easier than others but there are no off weeks. At the same time even against the lesser teams games are much tighter meaning that starters play longer facing more injury risk and teams can't afford to build that depth that Boise does.

The ex-Boise coaches have all faced some embarassing losses. Their teams quickly lose that swagger when they get their teeth handed to them a few times by teams that are clearly athletically superior.

What Boise has done is impressive and shouldn't be diminished but also shouldn't be given credit for more than it is.

I think if nothing else in Embree we have a coach who understands what it means to have to be ready every week, to have to play a tough game and then drag yourself out there seven days later and get up and do it again. Hawkins never seemed to get that concept and in fact his "never get to high or to low" stuff was counter to the idea of maxing yourself out each week. It doesn't make sense but great teams manage to leave everything on the field one week and are able to come out the next week and do it again.
 
I look at teams like Auburn against Bama this year. Down 24-0 and you come back and win 28-27. The D played out of its mind as did that O. They also got a few lucky bounces (notably the fumble that went down the side of the field and didn't go oob), but that's how the game is played at the highest level. Luck plays a factor when going undefeated in a power conference.

Hawai'i also won a part of the WAC title this year. A team we soundly beat--as well as contained, given that they started off very strongly and should have beaten us within the first 5 minutes--and we definitely weren't world beaters.

I kind of feel that when the coaches have all year to gameplan around defenders and not just one week then it changes the game completely. They were analyzing VT 5 months before the game! Put them up against FSU, Miami, VT and then GT and they wouldn't have had that much time to gameplan. You should win when you have that much time to know your opponent.
 
Peterson can flat out coach, and he has outcoached the likes of Stoops, Beamer, Belotti, Chip Kelly, etc and has NEVER been outcoached himself. Boise has several players this season who could play anywhere (Keller, Pettis, Titus Young, #90 on DLine (Winn I think), plus 2 or 3 of their RBs - and all these guys were 2 or 3 star recruits that were coached up. They are for real with Peterson, our Boise experiences aside.
 
NMBuff said:
Good game planning accounts for a good 80% of the game, but I'd venture that the other 20% is the players.
Click to expand...

No way, coaches get way too much credit for "game planning." If we're putting percentages on who wins a football game, I'd put 75 percent on talent of the players, 10 percent to preparation/game planning, 5 percent to player motivation, 5 percent on in-game strategy/changes, and 5 percent on luck. At best coaches are responsible for 15-20 percent of which team wins or loses a game.
 
wsp4820 said:
No way, coaches get way too much credit for "game planning." If we're putting percentages on who wins a football game, I'd put 75 percent on talent of the players, 10 percent to preparation/game planning, 5 percent to player motivation, 5 percent on in-game strategy/changes, and 5 percent on luck. At best coaches are responsible for 15-20 percent of which team wins or loses a game.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. But when talent is comparable, as it so often is in BCS conference games, having an edge in 15% of the formula will win a lot of football games. And the more you win, the more you build confidence/motivation/winning culture. It snowballs.
 
BuffNut99 said:
Peterson can flat out coach, and he has outcoached the likes of Stoops, Beamer, Belotti, Chip Kelly, etc and has NEVER been outcoached himself. Boise has several players this season who could play anywhere (Keller, Pettis, Titus Young, #90 on DLine (Winn I think), plus 2 or 3 of their RBs - and all these guys were 2 or 3 star recruits that were coached up. They are for real with Peterson, our Boise experiences aside.
Click to expand...
If Boise is so freakin good why don't they have more players in the NFL?
Back when Mac had his great teams we sent alot of players to the pros.
Right now Boise has 10 active NFL players. That's nothing compared to teams from major conferences.
Louisiana Lafayette has 8, go and check it out for yourself. LSU has something like 43.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/college/_/letter/
 
Last edited:
77buff said:
If Boise is so freakin good why don't they have more players in the NFL?
Back when Mac had his great teams we sent alot of players to the pros.
Right now Boise has 10 active NFL players. That's nothing compared to teams from major conferences.
Louisiana Lafayette has 8, go and check it out for yourself. LSU has something like 43.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/college/_/letter/
Click to expand...
They're so good because they get the most out of their talent. # of players in the NFL doesn't equate into college football wins, otherwise CU's 1991-1993 teams would have all won 11 games.
 
BuffNut99 said:
Talent didn't decide that game, although Nevada has some talented players in the right spots. The kicking game decided that game.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that Boise was a better team than Nevada and were outplayed, regardless of what the final score ended up. Most of that seemed to be due to halftime adjustments made by the Nevada staff.
 
Boise would finish in the middle of any BCS conference not named the Big East. And Petersen is not that great, and I bet Cody Hawkins would have done similar numbers as Kellen Moore there.
 
Unleash Hell said:
Boise would finish in the middle of any BCS conference not named the Big East. And Petersen is not that great, and I bet Cody Hawkins would have done similar numbers as Kellen Moore there.
Click to expand...

Boise would have finished last in the SEC West. Last in the Big 12 South.

Someone want to argue that they're more talented than Ole Miss or Texas?
 
Unleash Hell said:
Boise would finish in the middle of any BCS conference not named the Big East. And Petersen is not that great, and I bet Cody Hawkins would have done similar numbers as Kellen Moore there.
Click to expand...

C'mon now. The middle? The top third of any Conference not named the SEC.
 
The Walrus said:
C'mon now. The middle? The top third of any Conference not named the SEC.
Click to expand...

Top 3 of the Big 10 was an 11-1 Wisconsin, an 11-1 Ohio State and an 11-1 Michigan State. #4 was the Iowa team that took out a 10-win Missouri last night. I agree that they could have competed with Purdue, Minnesota and Indiana so there's a chance they wouldn't have finished last.
 
Buffnik said:
Top 3 of the Big 10 was an 11-1 Wisconsin, an 11-1 Ohio State and an 11-1 Michigan State. #4 was the Iowa team that took out a 10-win Missouri last night. I agree that they could have competed with Purdue, Minnesota and Indiana so there's a chance they wouldn't have finished last.
Click to expand...

I suspect that Boise State would crush Michigan State.
 
The Walrus said:
I suspect that Boise State would crush Michigan State.
Click to expand...

Maybe if they played each other in a bowl game. Impossible to know.

What Boise never has to do is play Wisconsin one Saturday and then travel to Michigan the next. Michigan State did that and beat them both.

Why I don't think much of Boise other than as a great small conference program is that they only play a couple quality teams a year. Many of the small conference programs get over-rated because of their records. Hawaii, who we beat easily, was ranked in the top 25 until Tulsa destroyed them in their bowl game. A good small conference team that is used to winning and gets fired up for taking on the big boys has a good shot to win the game when they match up with a BCS team. But try to do it week in and week out against BCS talented teams that are familiar with your team and what you do. It's a completely different animal.
 
Buffnik said:
Maybe if they played each other in a bowl game. Impossible to know.

What Boise never has to do is play Wisconsin one Saturday and then travel to Michigan the next. Michigan State did that and beat them both.

Why I don't think much of Boise other than as a great small conference program is that they only play a couple quality teams a year. Many of the small conference programs get over-rated because of their records. Hawaii, who we beat easily, was ranked in the top 25 until Tulsa destroyed them in their bowl game. A good small conference team that is used to winning and gets fired up for taking on the big boys has a good shot to win the game when they match up with a BCS team. But try to do it week in and week out against BCS talented teams that are familiar with your team and what you do. It's a completely different animal.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that, and understand the "conference grind" that BSU has been able to avoid. But I think they're a better than mid-grade BCS conference team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top