What's new
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!

Taking advantage of what we've got

Anyone watch the Georgia Tech/Clemson game last night?

I caught the highlights and something about Georgia Tech's offense seemed appealing to me...

Why don't we run the triple option with Hansen, Scott and Speedy? I know it's not Talkins' style of O, but considering our strengths & weaknesses, it would probably be best suited for what we've got. It will take advantage of our strength at RB and allow our young WRs to get acclimated to D1 Big XII game speed without so much pressure on them. Plus, it takes the ball out of Cody's hands, who I'm sure everyone would agree is a good thing. If Hansen's primary responsibility is to roll out and pitch to Scott and/or Speedy with the occasional deep pass to keep defenses honest, I think we put ourselves in a much better position to win than having Cody (all due respect to him, I really do respect his leadership but not his game) throw the ball 40 times!

What do you guys (and ladies) think? Would we be successful with the triple option?
 
Anyone watch the Georgia Tech/Clemson game last night?

I caught the highlights and something about Georgia Tech's offense seemed appealing to me...

Why don't we run the triple option with Hansen, Scott and Speedy? I know it's not Talkins' style of O, but considering our strengths & weaknesses, it would probably be best suited for what we've got. It will take advantage of our strength at RB and allow our young WRs to get acclimated to D1 Big XII game speed without so much pressure on them. Plus, it takes the ball out of Cody's hands, who I'm sure everyone would agree is a good thing. If Hansen's primary responsibility is to roll out and pitch to Scott and/or Speedy with the occasional deep pass to keep defenses honest, I think we put ourselves in a much better position to win than having Cody (all due respect to him, I really do respect his leadership but not his game) throw the ball 40 times!

What do you guys (and ladies) think? Would we be successful with the triple option?

Yes, but for hawk it would be admitting defeat. I think he'll keep trying to make 'his' offense work.
2zxr0k2.jpg
 
Too one dimensional...did you see the adjustments Clemson made in the second half? Without that early big lead, Clemson wins that game...and trick plays no less. It would be a good wrinkle to fit into the system, like how texass works it in to their offense. If you can run the option well, it is a great play...but not a good complete offense in todays football.
 
I watched the game and it was a joy. Clemson runs a version fo the dipsy doodle we ran last year. Except their QB can zip it downfield. GT runs the triple option, an offense I believe can be as effective today as it has ever been, with a team pretty much NOT recruited to run it. Coaching can make a difference. GT knows what they want to do, they don't deviate and they get after it.

Could CU run the option? Yeah, they could. Would it work better than the flavor of the week? Ask the guy making a million a year, I'm sure he could give you a "mojo" or "release the funk" type answer.

IMO, CU has the personnel to run the option. But it is not something you just switch to. You are either all in or not. It is a philosophy, not a gimmick play.
 
Sadly, except a very few number of teams, the triple option is dead in college football.
 
yeah that was one hell of a game.....I like the triple option idea, but as Royal90 said Hawk wont admit that hes system is not working, could you just imagine little hawk running that
 
yeah that was one hell of a game.....I like the triple option idea, but as Royal90 said Hawk wont admit that hes system is not working, could you just imagine little hawk running that

I try very hard not to imagine little Hawk running....
 
I would LOVE IT if CU ran the option. GA Tech runs the Flex Option (even though Jesse Palmer kept calling it the Spread Option last night - duh), and I think they struggled in the 2nd half last night because they couldn't throw the ball. Their QB was 3-19 or something with 2 INTs. But GA Tech similarly is 4+ deep in the RB department.
 
GT does it with a lot of zone blocking with the exception of 1 or 2 guys.

Really? I didn't watch their OL that closely. My recollection was that base plays, like the veer, had rules. C was head up to play side, playside guard was head up to play side, playside tackle was inside to backer and TE (if applicable) was downfield to safety. Backside guard was head up to palyside, backside tackle was downfield to safety. Maybe that is called zone now, I don't know.
 
I was at the game and on the Clemson sideline...it WAS a hell of a game. The triple O can work...but only against defenses that are not patient and undisciplined. Clemson's D for the most part was pretty consistent.

We do have the RBs today to run the triple O if you put Hansen back there, and it definitely opens up the pass. The Clemson coaches NEVER gave up for a second and were constantly adjusting....we don't do that. We stick with the same game plan for 4 years.

That fake punt and throw for TD was crazy...the entire crowd and sideline could see the guy standing there...everyone except the Clemson players on the field...refs didn't see the coaches trying to call a time out. Props to the GT fans...they finally came out in force for once in their geeky lives.
 
Umm... Did you see that GT QB? He didn't exactly look like Hansen:

Dude...Hansen throws a crisper ball and is just as fast as this guy....but he's not as big and might not be able to take the punishment required to run that thing.
 
So, you are proposing to install the fifth offense in four years. What this team needs is to run the same offense for more than one season. Sure, the backs may be able to pick this up quickly but the line is enough of a mess as it is. Give them a completely different blocking scheme.

Maybe a nice idea in a dream world but it's realistic in any way.
 
I'm not necessarily advocating it. Just spit ballin'. Given the emphasis on bringing in WR's I'm not sure it would be a great idea at this point. Hawk has to dance with who brung him at this point...and it sure as hell wasn't Emory Ballard.
 
So, you are proposing to install the fifth offense in four years. What this team needs is to run the same offense for more than one season. Sure, the backs may be able to pick this up quickly but the line is enough of a mess as it is. Give them a completely different blocking scheme.

Maybe a nice idea in a dream world but it's realistic in any way.

I absolutely don't think they should run the triple o...look what happened last year with the spread...I say come up with a game plan and stick to it. The one thing that struck me about Clemson was, even when they were down by 24, they didn't give up on the run and that opened up the long passes. STICK TO YOUR GAME PLAN...
 
GT runs the option very well because their HC is a mastermind at running it. That's why I thought he would have been a good fit for the nubs. I would like to see something thrown into our offense similar to the option every now and then (this was especially the case with BJax), but we don't have the schemes or time to learn a new offense or the HC experience with it. Look at last year and the spread.....ugh.
 
I absolutely don't think they should run the triple o...look what happened last year with the spread...I say come up with a game plan and stick to it. The one thing that struck me about Clemson was, even when they were down by 24, they didn't give up on the run and that opened up the long passes. STICK TO YOUR GAME PLAN...

Sticking to our game plan against CSU would have involved much more running and many many fewer than 40 pass attempts for Cody...so much for that...
 
I don't think this is an offense that can be installed in the middle of the season, particularly by a guy who has no experience running it.

Coaches in college football that run non-pro-style offenses tend to have a specific system they carry with them from school to school.

Paul Johnson runs the option. He brought it to GT. Rich Rod. runs the spread. He brought it to Michigan. Leach runs the spread.

I am not sure what Hawkins 'specialty' is, but it isn't the option and it isn't the spread.
 
I don't think this is an offense that can be installed in the middle of the season, particularly by a guy who has no experience running it.

Coaches in college football that run non-pro-style offenses tend to have a specific system they carry with them from school to school.

Paul Johnson runs the option. He brought it to GT. Rich Rod. runs the spread. He brought it to Michigan. Leach runs the spread.

I am not sure what Hawkins 'specialty' is, but it isn't the option and it isn't the spread.

No..no. Too easy. I think I'll let someone else have a crack at that one.
 
Back
Top