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

BuffUp said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this, except that's not what they seem to be doing - they seem committed to rotating the backs, full stop. In the last couple seasons, it appeared that as soon as a back seemed to hit their stride, he'd get pulled and they'd put in a different back. And not a down or two, which is understandable, but you wouldn't see him 3-4 series, while the other backs got their rotations.
 
skibum said:
I would agree with this, except that's not what they seem to be doing - they seem committed to rotating the backs, full stop. In the last couple seasons, it appeared that as soon as a back seemed to hit their stride, he'd get pulled and they'd put in a different back. And not a down or two, which is understandable, but you wouldn't see him 3-4 series, while the other backs got their rotations.
Click to expand...
Keep it with the hot hand.
 
Like to see one main back and a few guys getting some carries when he needs a breather. One feature back in other words.
 
Can someone explain why the rotation is bad assuming we don't have a dominate back?

Seems each brings something different to the table and different skill sets.
 
Do you think the running game was effective last season? Do you think players were given a chance to get in rhythm? There may not be a great or even good back in the group, but just cycling four guys (or even five if Carr plays) accomplishes little. One or two guys need to sit.
 
Duff Man said:
Do you think the running game was effective last season? Do you think players were given a chance to get in rhythm? There may not be a great or even good back in the group, but just cycling four guys (or even five if Carr plays) accomplishes little. One or two guys need to sit.
Click to expand...
No I don't think it was effective, but we also had injuries to Powell and Adkins.
 
'Tini said:
No I don't think it was effective, but we also had injuries to Powell and Adkins.
Click to expand...

And yet Adkins kept getting carries when healthy, even though he was average at best. Why? That is the problem people are seeing. Forcing a rotation because apparently every guy needs to play.
 
Duff Man said:
And yet Adkins kept getting carries when healthy, even though he was average at best. Why? That is the problem people are seeing. Forcing a rotation because apparently every guy needs to play.
Click to expand...
I don't think he was healthy at any point in the season. If I remember correctly he had a sprained ankle in camp then shortly after that was good to go, he hurt his knee.
 
'Tini said:
I don't think he was healthy at any point in the season. If I remember correctly he had a sprained ankle in camp then shortly after that was good to go, he hurt his knee.
Click to expand...

Even if I buy that, it just furthers the point of a bad rotation. Forcing carries to an ineffective, grimly RB just seems weird.
 
Duff Man said:
Even if I buy that, it just furthers the point of a bad rotation. Forcing carries to an ineffective, grimly RB just seems weird.
Click to expand...
Forcing? When he was healthy he produced.

Against OSU he had 6.3 yards per carry on 13 carries
Against UCLA he had 6.3 yards per carry on 17 carries
Against Washington he had 8.4 yards per carry on 13 carries

Doesn't seem too forced to me when he was healthy, or relatively healthy.
 
So what about the other half of his carries? Either way, just will disagree and move on.
 
All last season we'd see guys go 2 series or so, and one of them would start to show something. Then they'd sit while the other backs rotated through, and 6 series later (usually the next quarter or half) and we'd finally see them again. They'd start producing (again), and wham! - back to the bench so someone else, who's not performing as well today, can rotate in. Drove me absolutely bonkers.

I don't think anyone disagrees with a "rotate them until you find the guy that's working well this week." Especially if there isn't one back that is clearly better than the rest. If that's what we were getting, I don't think you'd see many complaints (well, maybe you would, but they're be different complaints).
 
This is not a new thing. Seems to me that this has been going on since the Slick Rick coaching staff. Kid has a few good runs, rips off a nice 25 yard gain and he is not to be seen again for at least 3 more possessions. I never understood that and it drives me nuts too.

The only exception that I can think of was with GB and Chris Brown.
 
4DemBuffs said:
This is not a new thing. Seems to me that this has been going on since the Slick Rick coaching staff. Kid has a few good runs, rips off a nice 25 yard gain and he is not to be seen again for at least 3 more possessions. I never understood that and it drives me nuts too.

The only exception that I can think of was with GB and Chris Brown.
Click to expand...
o_O
Speedy?
 
Best of my memory, speedy was treated the same way until his senior year but your point stands. Good call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top