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!

cubuffs Brooks: Tailback-By-Committee Concept Hinges On Unselfish Backs

RSSBot

RSSBot

News Junkie
Category: Football

Not that any offensive coaches or backs are hung up on this, but CU doesn't have a rich recent history of pumping out 1,000-yard rushers.

Originally posted by CUBuffs.com
Click here to view the article.

JGEMYPLKDUNJKAM.20150814030529.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't get the feeling there is a strong commitment to the running game after reading that article.
 
Duff Man said:
I don't get the feeling there is a strong commitment to the running game after reading that article.
Click to expand...

I don't know. To me it felt more like them justifying why we won't have any 1000 yd rushers which is typically a bench mark for a successful rushing team.
 
More of a running game to compliment the passing game. I hope the mentions from MacIntyre come true about trying to rely on 2 main backs instead of the random rotation we've had.

And on the mention of 12-14 play drives in that article, that was kind of a problem last year, we need less of those type of drives. They just give the offense more opportunities to stall or shoot itself in the foot.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
I don't know. To me it felt more like them justifying why we won't have any 1000 yd rushers which is typically a bench mark for a successful rushing team.
Click to expand...

Or justifying a dumb running back rotation. None of the guys are conditioned to carry it 100+ times in a season?
 
Duff Man said:
Or justifying a dumb running back rotation. None of the guys are conditioned to carry it 100+ times in a season?
Click to expand...

Well that is a different issue. I think rotating 4 backs is incredibly annoying. Saw it so much last season where I feel like the coaches got confused in their rotation and would call plays for RB's that made no sense. IMO the best thing to happen would be for adkins/carr/lindsay to stand out and be the every down back, then pow pow would be the short yardage, end of game, goal line back.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Well that is a different issue. I think rotating 4 backs is incredibly annoying. Saw it so much last season where I feel like the coaches got confused in their rotation and would call plays for RB's that made no sense. IMO the best thing to happen would be for adkins/carr/lindsay to stand out and be the every down back, then pow pow would be the short yardage, end of game, goal line back.
Click to expand...

Well, Adams seems to think they are interconnected by talking about guys needing breathers on long drives. Just between the quotes of several coaches over the last couple seasons, I see a lot of contradictions when it comes to the running game.
 
the coaches intellectually see the need for a running game, but don't believe in it. That's why they abandon it so easily.
 
Darth Snow said:
the coaches intellectually see the need for a running game, but don't believe in it. That's why they abandon it so easily.
Click to expand...

Probably has something to do with the sieve like nature of the defense the past two years, which has put us in positions where the running game is futile. The staff doesn't have much experience controlling a game with the run game here.
 
Darth Snow said:
the coaches intellectually see the need for a running game, but don't believe in it. That's why they abandon it so easily.
Click to expand...
I don't think a 40 yds per game increase in 2 years shows they abandon it easily. I'm guessing injuries, lack of depth and game day issues like our defense sucking and needing to catch up are more the issues.
 
TDbuff said:
More of a running game to compliment the passing game. I hope the mentions from MacIntyre come true about trying to rely on 2 main backs instead of the random rotation we've had.

And on the mention of 12-14 play drives in that article, that was kind of a problem last year, we need less of those type of drives. They just give the offense more opportunities to stall or shoot itself in the foot.
Click to expand...

I agree with this to an extent. If you have an attacking defense that can stop the run and consistently generate pressure on the QB, then I think having a boom or bust offense can be great. You still run the risk of going 3 and out or even 4, 5 or 6 and out, and I think that's just as detrimental as the longer drives that stall. When you have a defense that is awful against the run and has a pedestrian pass rush (CU), you need an offense that is able to efficiently grind out yards, chew up clock and shorten the game, IMO. Efficiency is obviously the key, though, as you can't do all of this and then not score, or turn the ball over or get drive killing penalties, etc.
 
I think the weakness of the O-line last year was run blocking. Not enough push and not physical enough, not to mention the defenses in the Pac-12 were good last year and lost a lot of good players to the NFL.
 
Duff Man said:
77th in YPG, 82nd in YPC, 104th in TDs scored.
Click to expand...

We were still better than Cal, Oregon St., and Wash st; obviously this is not the goal but the improvement over past seasons was noticeable. I thought we may have done better than the stats you showed but I guess we have further to go than I thought.
 
Hkylw21 said:
We were still better than Cal, Oregon St., and Wash st; obviously this is not the goal but the improvement over past seasons was noticeable. I thought we may have done better than the stats you showed but I guess we have further to go than I thought.
Click to expand...
Did you really just use a leach team as a comparison? :wink2:
 
Hkylw21 said:
We were still better than Cal, Oregon St., and Wash st; obviously this is not the goal but the improvement over past seasons was noticeable. I thought we may have done better than the stats you showed but I guess we have further to go than I thought.
Click to expand...
From where Mac started, CU has a 40 YPG increase.

The improvement is good, but still a ways to go. To me the total yards have some importance, but what's more important is how effective the running game is when they need to be in the scope of the game plan as Mac/BL's system may be okay with ~150 YPG if they convert 3rd downs effectively.
 
Bufffan68 said:
From where Mac started, CU has a 40 YPG increase.

The improvement is good, but still a ways to go. To me the total yards have some importance, but what's more important is how effective the running game is when they need to be in the scope of the game plan as Mac/BL's system may be okay with ~150 YPG if they convert 3rd downs effectively.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like when we have a 1st and goal from CSU's 3 yard line????

:bang: -Instant replay in case you forgot.
 
Hkylw21 said:
Oh, you mean like when we have a 1st and goal from CSU's 3 yard line????

:bang: -Instant replay in case you forgot.
Click to expand...
I don't get it. I'm not saying the running game is where it needs to be at all...last year was a great example of improving in YPG but not being effective when needed. I think that's what Mac is talking about...needing to improve on short yardage and converting 3rd downs to take pressure of Sefo.
 
Bufffan68 said:
I don't get it. I'm not saying the running game is where it needs to be at all...last year was a great example of improving in YPG but not being effective when needed. I think that's what Mac is talking about...needing to improve on short yardage and converting 3rd downs to take pressure of Sefo.
Click to expand...

He was agreeing with you
 
This is definitely more of a passing offense. But as that puts the Buffs in position to win games, that run game better be there to punch it in from the red zone and to run out the clock in the 4th quarter. It will make the difference between "close" and "LET'S GO BURN A ****ING COUCH!".
 
J.R. Ewing said:
I'd like to see more of Lindsay in short yardage situations.
Click to expand...
Seems weird because of his small size, but I agree with you. He sought out contact when he shouldn't (open field with 1 guy to beat) but it seemed like he fell forward a lot, and he was pretty good at finding small creases in the line. During the RB Preview video he claims that he's going to be a more patient runner this year. Not sure if that's good for someone of his quickness or not.
 
I hope at some point that Patrick Carr forces the coaches to run the ball more than they'd like too.
 
I can see going with a small group rotation and see who has the hot hand. Then feed that back the ball until proven different. Different defenses are designed to stop different running styles. Find the weakness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top