Don't encourage him to post more. Please.
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 Going Bowlin in 2012-That's the Goal!
- Thread starter boydbuff
- Start date
Don't encourage him to post more. Please.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
I really don't see how people (buff fans included) think it's not that realistic. We have a much easier OOC schedule than what we're used to here. All we have to do is improve our conference record by ONE GAME to get bowl eligible if we can take care of the first 3 games. And our conference schedule is a lot easier than last year. Hey you guys went from 5 to 7 wins.
Yes. Same guy. I think the concensus is that Wood felt like he was caught in a political numbers game at UT. Knowing what we all know of UT, is it too far out of the realm of possibility that there may have been some politics involved in keeping him off the field?
Now way. No politics at UT. Signed, Applewhite (being benched for Simms).
Leash, the issue is we do not have a two-deep at several positions. We are going to be very young all over the place. Young teams tend to be very inconsistent from week to week. I think you need to prepare yourself in seeing a team that will probably be more competitive, but also will make some maddening mistakes at the worst times.
A bowl game is a good goal, but you have it as our worst case scenario. That is not a realistic outlook.
I think a bowl game should be the goal for next year. It is attainable and it would be a disappointment if we did not get there. Another goal should be to be competitive in ALL games next year, but you can't really state that one publicly.
I think a bowl game is a good goal. Most importantly, I want to see improvement in several areas, including competitiveness like you mention. We really need to avoid the injury bug.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
i think a bowl game is a rational, reasonable goal....and a benchmark for further success recruiting and down the road. but, we need to show we can "win" games week in/week out. we got a nice effort against UA and UU, but that UCLA abomination is still there. still a lot of questions...no more behind by 3 scores before the kickoff beer is done. but, beating Utah is good on the road is a good place to start.
Cal84
Member
See, that's the sort of thing that can spiral away into bad territory.
Someone earlier posted that Cal had improved from 5 to 7 wins (with a game yet to play). And yes, that's an improvement. But to be honest, if Cal finished 6-6 and then won its bowl game, that too would be a meaningful improvement. But over on the Cal fan boards, people were ready to storm the castle at midseason when 6-6 seemed like the likely outcome. Posters were personally insulting players and coaches. Unrealistic expectations can lead to bad conclusions even if the actual results are decent.
Not to worry - I don't think coach Embree will have forgotten 2001.
I think that while you are subtracting because of the seniors graduating you aren't really adding due to the very very significant schedule upgrade from this year to next.
Just like you're avatar pic.
Seems completely reasonable. Easier schedule. Players more comfortable with the new systems. More cohesive team.
We should have one 5 this year (WSU and Cal) if the team psyche wasn't so F'ed up and I believe that is now fixed. We need the Oline to improve on run blocking and pass pertection, and we need a DLineman who can motor hard and pressure/disrupt our opponent (a back fill for Hartigan). If we do those two things I think we have all the other bases covered adequately enough with players already on the roster to win 7. (just two more wins than this year with an easier schedule)
We should have one 5 this year (WSU and Cal) if the team psyche wasn't so F'ed up and I believe that is now fixed. We need the Oline to improve on run blocking and pass pertection, and we need a DLineman who can motor hard and pressure/disrupt our opponent (a back fill for Hartigan). If we do those two things I think we have all the other bases covered adequately enough with players already on the roster to win 7. (just two more wins than this year with an easier schedule)
6-6 is an unrealistic expectation? Serious? I expect bowl games every year and usually 6-6 is not good enough but it will be for next year.
:rofl2:
Unpossible. 2013 would be the year in my mind. By then we would have 2 recruiting classes and a QB with a year of experience. But if we do that would be great.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Have you looked at our schedule?
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Deleted member 807
Guest
I wholeheartedly agree the schedule sets up better in 2012. The buffs needed FOUR more wins to qualify for post season. They weren't even in sniffing distance.
But when the Buffs did win, it was primarily on the playmaking abilities of Hansen, Stewart, Clemmons and Richardson (and Miller, Adkins, Perkins, Sandersfeild, ect)
The loss of experience is a big deal. The newbies have a steep learning curve. I fully expect CU's drive stalling penalties to drive us nuts next year. With all the new blood, the yellow flags are likely to be on par with this year, if not worse. Interceptions and fumbles are likely to be worse.
The two deep on both offense and defense is another risk. If Richardson gets banged up, like he did in 2011, there is not much experience on the bench to fill in. It took Clemmons until November of his senior year for the light to come on. These new guys have talent, but also much to learn about the playbook, running routes, downfield blocking, and playing for four complete quarters.
The CU defense was banged up most of this last season, resulting in some very lopsided and embarrassing losses. That same injury threat extends into next year. The two deep at any DB position could be better.
The bottom line is that next year's team is a big mystery. I say 5-7 for now exactly because of the schedule. If the 2012 schedule looked anything like the 2011 schedule, I'd be thinking 2-10.
... That's where I'm at until there is more concrete evidence that team Embree 2.0 is actually seen on the field in person, playing as a unit. It's dangerous to imagine that the 2011 team will be an extension of the Utah and Arizona games.
I am confident that the goal of playing in a bowl in 2013 will be easily within reach. For 2012, it's possible, but it's a stretch.
Last edited by a moderator:
I skimmed the thread, but did anyone else notice this? Were you fishing last weekend? Wait, as I type this, I realize you meant that our road monkey is already off of our backs, not that it will be after the Fresno game...gotcha.. :thumbsup:
I feel like sharing my negrep comment with the rest of the board, but I don't quite remember what I said because I have been drinking a lot...either way, it was something like this: "you're a ****ing cocksucker, and if that means LB has a dick, so be it. eat**** -- Rugged"
You're a troll. Drown scubadiving.
:stupid: I think 2014 is a good target for competing for Pac 12 Championship-but we should be going for 6 wins this year
| Sat, Sep 01 | Colorado State | at Denver, Colo.  | TBA | ||
| Sat, Sep 08 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||
| Sat, Sep 15 | Fresno State | at Fresno, Calif. | TBA |
We could 3-0. Sorry about that.
That because you drink the Koolaid. You can polish a turd but in the end its still a turd.