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!

Buffs fought hard

Mighty Buff said:
You must have missed all the "you"

He be talking about the players
Click to expand...
Do you really not understand the basics of English or are you that blinded by your own agenda? For him to use 'you' in that situation and be talking about the players, he'd have to be talking to the players, which he isn't. Instead he's using 'you' as a placeholder for anyone in the scenario he presents.

Just look at the definitions of 'You':

1.used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing.
"are you listening?"
2.used to refer to any person in general.
"after a while, you get used to it"

He's clearly using the 2nd case, since he isn't addressing anyone but the media.

He clarifies who he's talking about in the next sentence with 'we'. I really have trouble believing anyone is this dense.
 
Last edited:
Mighty Buff posts are like being in the politics forum and one of the partisans is looking for any angle from every statement & situation to rip on the other party. He's our Minority Whip.
 
Got this from a bud.

Truth

There seems to be a large number of folks in the media who keep saying that USC’s DL was dominant and getting to the QB. The reason that SC was getting to Montez is because the Trojans were stacking the box with SEVEN guys within a yard of the line of scrimmage. USC made a gamble to stop Colorado’s run game and pressure Montez. It worked, and CU did not compensate until the 4th quarter. The Buffs wasted 16 plays running up the middle in the first half against that stacked box for a total of about 32 yards.

The way to beat a stacked front is to roll the QB and hit a tight end, who releases as the linebackers come across the line of scrimmage. You hit two or three of those for first downs and the defense has to pull back their linebackers, which allows the running game to get going and gives the QB more time to look for wide receivers.

CU has had years of being predictable, and they are not out of the woods yet. This year, they rarely if ever use the tight ends. USC saw that on film, and gambled that Colorado would not be able to adjust. The Trojans were right and it cost the Buffs the game.

The Buffs coaches have been saying this week that the Buffs “didn’t play Colorado football” at the Coliseum. That’s their fault. And refusing to use the tight end IS Colorado football this year, so I don’t know what they are talking about.
 
BuffLuKe said:
I don't disagree there at all. I'm wondering why we don't use the one TE we do have.
Click to expand...

according to the Depth Chart formatting, sean irwin and george frazier left the previous game with some kind of injury. Would probably explain why we didn't use our TE's...
 
Mighty Buff said:
Got this from a bud.

Truth

There seems to be a large number of folks in the media who keep saying that USC’s DL was dominant and getting to the QB. The reason that SC was getting to Montez is because the Trojans were stacking the box with SEVEN guys within a yard of the line of scrimmage. USC made a gamble to stop Colorado’s run game and pressure Montez. It worked, and CU did not compensate until the 4th quarter. The Buffs wasted 16 plays running up the middle in the first half against that stacked box for a total of about 32 yards.

The way to beat a stacked front is to roll the QB and hit a tight end, who releases as the linebackers come across the line of scrimmage. You hit two or three of those for first downs and the defense has to pull back their linebackers, which allows the running game to get going and gives the QB more time to look for wide receivers.

CU has had years of being predictable, and they are not out of the woods yet. This year, they rarely if ever use the tight ends. USC saw that on film, and gambled that Colorado would not be able to adjust. The Trojans were right and it cost the Buffs the game.

The Buffs coaches have been saying this week that the Buffs “didn’t play Colorado football” at the Coliseum. That’s their fault. And refusing to use the tight end IS Colorado football this year, so I don’t know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting somewhere.
This offense analysis is insightful. Best thing you've posted in this thread.

Coaches speak best with the actions taken by their players on the field. You'll find no argument about whether or not fans would like to see more use of a receiving TE.

It's a fair discussion whether the coaches are lacking the playcalling or the personnel to execute passes to TEs. I recall Foreman failing to catch a Montez pass at Michigan. Chris Hill grabbed a catch against OSU. Otherwise the TE production has been rare. Is that primarily due to play calling, offensive design, or personnel?
 
Skidmark said:
Is that primarily due to play calling, offensive design, or personnel?
Click to expand...
I think it's play calling. We may not have elite TEs, but it's not like catching a football is rocket science.

What have we had 3 TE targets all season? This is my beef with our O...which I really like BTW...why not give the D yet another target to account for? TE passing involvement would open up the running game a bit if LBs had to account for the TE.
 
Mighty Buff said:
It worked, and CU did not compensate until the 4th quarter.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That's on BL. He has not shown much consistency in making good adjustments. I'm off the fire BL line and think he is doing a good job w the O but he does have a few blind spots that get maddening at times.
 
Skidmark said:
Now we are getting somewhere.
This offense analysis is insightful. Best thing you've posted in this thread.

Coaches speak best with the actions taken by their players on the field. You'll find no argument about whether or not fans would like to see more use of a receiving TE.

It's a fair discussion whether the coaches are lacking the playcalling or the personnel to execute passes to TEs. I recall Foreman failing to catch a Montez pass at Michigan. Chris Hill grabbed a catch against OSU. Otherwise the TE production has been rare. Is that primarily due to play calling, offensive design, or personnel?
Click to expand...
Did you notice he had to cut and paste comments from a friend to get to insightful analysis?
 
Skidmark said:
Now we are getting somewhere.
This offense analysis is insightful. Best thing you've posted in this thread.
Click to expand...

And, it's mostly accurate. I only watched the first half (had to listen the second on radio), but I observed that they usually brought 6 or 7 on most plays. There are more options to remedy this than throwing to the tight end, but CU seemed unable to choose them regularly. The bubble screen is one they did use. USC also relied on a secondary that could cover better than anyone else we've played (including Michigan). I really think it was their ability to go man to man on coverage and bring the linebackers on the pass rush / run defense that made Montez's day long. CU's tight ends almost always stayed in to block.

As much praise as we've been giving the WR this year, they met their match with USC's secondary.
 
Highlander said:
Did you notice he had to cut and paste comments from a friend to get to insightful analysis?
Click to expand...

Did you never hear the expression "I am asking for a friend?" Is that a "Wrap" around your neck.

Pendergast ate Lindgren and chev alive. But Leavitt recipricated.
To say the defense had to win the game at the end is ludicrous. The offense needed to win it in the first half.
 
Last edited:
Mighty Buff said:
Did you never hear the expression "I am asking for a friend?" Is that a "Wrap" around your neck.

Pendergast ate Lindgren and chev alive. But Lindgren recipricated.
To say the defense had to win the game at the end is ludicrous. The offense needed to win it in the first half.
Click to expand...
No one said the defense had to win it. It is obvious the coach trusted his defense to make a stop to give his offense a chance to win. They didn't and we lost. It happens. Move on.
 
Jesus I'm getting heartburn, this is getting retarded. We lost, give me a ****ing break as to why. It's never one thing, it's a variety of things. Gotta move on smfh.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
No one said the defense had to win it. It is obvious the coach trusted his defense to make a stop to give his offense a chance to win. They didn't and we lost. It happens. Move on.
Click to expand...
You're right, they got asked to step up in a situation is my guess. They didn't but it doesn't mean the end is coming, come on y'all.
 
Bufffan68 said:
I think it's play calling. We may not have elite TEs, but it's not like catching a football is rocket science.

What have we had 3 TE targets all season? This is my beef with our O...which I really like BTW...why not give the D yet another target to account for? TE passing involvement would open up the running game a bit if LBs had to account for the TE.
Click to expand...
I had hoped that he figured that out toward the end of the last season when TE usage started to increase a bit. Unfortunately, those hopes have been dashed this season.
 
WasianCU said:
I had hoped that he figured that out toward the end of the last season when TE usage started to increase a bit. Unfortunately, those hopes have been dashed this season.
Click to expand...
Dashed to pieces. It's frustrating cuz we have so many weapons (Inc running QB)...having more TE calls would make this O nearly unstoppable IMHO.
 
Gary Bernardi is the dedicated TE and fullbacks coach. With a dedicated position coach like that, you'd think the TE position would stand a cut above special teams. What has Bernardi done to distinguish himself? Is Big George Frazier developing or regressing?
 
Skidmark said:
Gary Bernardi is the dedicated TE and fullbacks coach. With a dedicated position coach like that, you'd think the TE position would stand a cut above special teams. What has Bernardi done to distinguish himself? Is Big George Frazier developing or regressing?
Click to expand...
Mac always seems to let coaches go about two years after he should have. I take that to mean Bernardi will be gone this off season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top