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!
Arizona at UTSA
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Yes
That would be me.
Groundhog Day. But if Bill Murray can get through it and win the beautiful girl in the end, we can.
Last edited:
A decent Zona team wins by a fingernail on the road against what is admittedly a decent UTSA team. A bad Colorado team has to travel a lot farther to take on what is admittedly a bad UMass team. Hope the Buffs don't cut their fingernails before the game...
Me too. I don't get the hate. Especially from guys who'd hit anything that walked.
Well. It coudn't be the acting.
[video=youtube;YqYUpXjpx5Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqYUpXjpx5Q[/video]
Inexplicably she's the love interest in two of my favorite movies: Groundhog Day and Four Weddings (the only romantic comedy I like).
Nancccyyyyyy? Nancy Taylorrrrrrrrrr?
Yeah, she was alright. Also, she made sounds like a chipmunk when she was excited.
I assure you, the laughter and tears are real.
I prefer good acting during sex, but I'm not picky.
RalphieT
Member
Sure, in general. However, that's really not relevant when you're stealing wins against Central Arkansas. Just different levels of "not going to happen."
If you had to choose between good acting or non-ambulatory, which would be your preference?
For those of you who watched the game, why was UTSA so successful. I get they're a veteran team, but it's not like they're loaded with blue chip athletes. Were their schemes just a matchup problem for Arizona, did the Wildcats just have a lackluster game, what gives?
Really well coached veteran team with a mobile QB that stretched Zona's D in all sorts of ways and made them pay for every mistake. Also, Zona's offense sputtered in the red zone for a variety of reasons, including mediocre play calling and QB play.
And it was a richrod D.
Zona pulled it out when the UTSA QB finally made a bad mistake on a scramble.
I think having a bunch of returning starters really helped, they also looked very well coached. They had some attitude as well, which is something we don't have yet.
Not just a veteran team. I think it was 21 returning starters. Only the QB was new and he's an upperclassman, I believe.
It wasn't scheme. UTSA had obvious and huge disadvantages with team speed, athleticism and the ability to make explosive plays. But they were playing guys in their 20s with a lot of college snaps under their belts against teenagers. Other than the UA offensive line and WRs (which carried the team), Zona was going up against that with a freshman QB making his first road start and the best players on defense being sophomores and freshmen.
So, assuming that CU's coaching is on par with UTSA... assuming that our training/player development is at least as good considering our much better resources... and knowing that our recruiting has been much better than UTSA's... then you got a peek into what some of us have been saying is what CU will be growing into the next couple years as a foundation of Pac-12 mediocrity that will allow us to start bringing our advantages to bear and recruit over the guys in the CU program with progressively better prospects.
P.S. In before the "I've been hearing that we're a young team for the past 10 years" posts. Truth is, Hawkins failed in 2010 with his veteran team and was fired for it. That was supposed to be a bowl year. In 2011, Embree inherited 10 returning starters on offense but went with a youth movement (in many cases due to injuries). Due to poor Hawkins recruiting his last 2 classes compounded with a lot of attrition from 3 coaching staffs in 4 years (4 head coaches in that period if you count Cabral), we were forced into being young again in 2014. That changes in 2015 and should never be a valid excuse again so long as HCMM is our coach.
As others have said Zona was the much more talented team. They had big advantages in speed, in skill, in depth.
What UTSA did though was take a simple game plan that was a bad match up for Arizona nad execute it very well.
Zona's defense is build to deal with the high power, wide open offenses that many PAC teams present. UTSA didn't even bother with this and simply lined up and played smash mouth offense. Hit em in the nose, get up and do it again. Zona wore down and it looked like some of their players didn't have a lot of interest in sticking their noses into the pile over and over again.
They should consider themselves lucky not to have Stanford on the schedule because based on last night Stanford's running game would bury a bunch of them.
I think our defense had a lot of the same issues against CSU. By design, it's a nickel most of the time and most of our DL depth is undersized and supposed to chase versus be stout at the point of attack. Instead, we played a team that kept us in the 4-3 as the base and then ran right at us.
Arizona may have had the better scheme for that by playing a high risk/reward 3-3-5 scheme. At least with that, you may get some more TFLs and sacks that will screw up the schedule for a ball control offense. I think we should have blitzed more last Friday and trusted our corners in one-on-one coverage.
Agree with you.
Our defense is undersized and designed to try to defend spread passing offenses. CSU went to a power scheme and ran right over a lot of our guys.
It doesn't help that we are not only small but also not overly quick up front but I think that a lot of teams these days are vulnerable to a solid, physical running game. CSU wasn't beating us with the pass but we let them run downhill from the middle of the second quarter on.
Your suggestion of some more blitzing, expecially some run blitzing may have disrupted them enough to break up some of those long drives. We were not putting thim into second and third and long situations enough to make them uncomfortable.
These days, I think you would be depressed over the issues on special teams if CU beats UMass 41-0 with a missed XP. :smile2:
Missing an XP is inexcusable!