Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by DBT, Jan 13, 2015.
Both, like OSU.
slow and small has worked for us all these years why change?
Big, fast bad ass mutherfokkers is what we need!
As posted above, either one would be an improvement.
A physical defense solves a lot of issues.
Which is easiest to implement with 2.5 star guys vs the 3.5 you saw last night?
times 46510 and counting...
Neither, but would like it to be both.
Ohio State is a decent model for CU. The thing that we can consistently get in-state is OLs. So we need CU to start the blueprint there. When CU has won, it's been because it was a physical running team. Whether it's the Anderson days or the Hagan days or the Salaam days or the Brown/Purify days. Whenever CU has shifted focus to being a passing team it has failed. McCartney failed that way. Neuheisel failed here that way. Barnett had his struggles when he focused on QB. Hawkins put the focus there and it was a disaster.
On this note, I actually believe that Embree had the right idea of creating an identity as a physical running team.
I've made no secret of the fact that I like Lindgren a lot as our OC, but I worry that the comment he made about his ideal offense being 60% runs is not something we'll ever see in practice.
Finding a niche in the Pac12 that gets us the best athletes might put us in the "power" category, along with the trees.
Buffaloes are both, though - they are obviously powerful, can run as fast as a horse, and have great endurance. Of course, they nearly became extinct, so, there's that.
unless someone starts playing football with rifles, I don't think you need to worry about the last part.
Yeah, OSU was fast, but for some reason is lumped in with teams like Wiscy or MSU. OSU is loaded with talent that is both fast and big.
Few teams can have both IMO, unless you are a blue blood program. I'd choose a run first, big and strong team. It has to start with the type of talent CO produces, and that's rarely legit speed guys. Can't depend on OOS guys to build a team around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nik has a good point. The state high schools are better at producing the big uglies than the skill guys.
Ohio is a state that produces a ton of good football players - Ohio ranks 5th in producing college football players. OSU over the past 4 years had classes ranked 11, 4, 2, 3 on rivals. I do not think you can compare OSU with Colorado on any level.
McCartney did not focus on the passing game but knew the triple option was going away for many reasons and needed to evolve so he converted to the pro set - McCartney always believed in a strong running game and the team was successful after we went to the pro set.
No matter what you chose to run as a formation you better recruit the talent to do it.
all the years of football and all these "new" innovative offenses - all the way back to the run and shoot (warren Moon - Oilers), the run and gun, the Quack warp speed, etc...
It always boils down to BIG physical OL/DL and running the football... the old tried and true comes out on top.
I guess if one had to choose, I would go with speed. Speed can hide a lot of your your problems.
On offense, ability to control the line of scrimmage to gain 5 to 7 yards per rush while having a solid pocket for your quarterback to stay composed and find the holes in the defense. On defense, break the pocket and force the opposing QB to move his feet and get uncomfortable, and clog the running lanes and make the running back try to think while being pursued.
I would say that Ohio St is an A- in speed and A- in strength, while Oregon is an A in speed and B in strength. Oregon may have overall more team speed but the ability for Ohio St to control the line of scrimmage won them the game. Very few teams have the ability to have speed and strength (FSU, Bama, USC in the mid 00's) but overall success is greater if your team can move the others off the ball.
The OSU comparison was the type of athlete available at home, not the quality and depth of it. I would hope you know that I wouldn't be someone who thinks that Ohio and Colorado produce similar amounts of football talent.
With McCartney, I was actually thinking more of how he struggled his first few years before scrapping the offensive staff and playbook in favor of an option attack. The later move away from that attack was the right thought (defenses had gotten too fast at places like Miami and Florida State to be a one dimensional option attack), but the timing was wrong. It's a shame that the Rich Rodriguez offense was only in the early stages of being developed (Glenville State, wherever that is - ref. wikipedia) in the early 1990s, because that's exactly what McCartney would have wanted. I digress (probably into hyperbole), but is there any question that Kordell was born to run that offense and that CU would have won at least 1 more national championship if he'd been running that system?
Anyway, my point:
1) CU is based in a state that consistently produces excellent offensive linemen, so that should be the foundation of the CU football formula.
2) As an extension of that, go find speed to supplement the commitment to being great in the trenches. This was what Wisconsin figured out and what Ohio State took to the next level under Urban.
So... CU's identity should be running the ball and stopping the run.
Both. But realistically I think we are best when we are mostly power with some skill/speed sprinkled in on offense. Defense needs to be power and speed.
Seems to me that the best way to beat the finesse teams is to punch 'em in the mouf. We need big, physical lineman and linebackers. Of course, the reason programs go with the lighter, quicker athletes is because the big, strong, fast guys are a rare bunch.
We were also best when we had a a) running/option QB (Hagan, Stewart, Ochs [before his 11teenth concussion) b) lights out receiver (Pritchard, Johnson, Westbrook, McCoy) and c) speed to burn (B. Anderson, Carruth, Kidd, Kelly, Hollowell)...along with badass tight ends and a brick wall of LBs.
So yeah, when we were good, we had some punishing RBs and awesome OL/DL. But there were a lot of other parts that were speed and finesse.
Ergo, I would go with speed to compete in our conference (and beat the losers in non-con). Once we can establish ourselves, we can go after speed AND strength.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It's always been that way for the most part. Blowhio St. looked just as fast, if not faster. The physicality was no question. I'd prefer the Blowhio St. model but ur right, not a ton of those big, fast guys.
Oregon was faster than Ohio State. It didn't look that way because people are faster when running forwards instead of backwards.
Overall, I'd probably go with that. Blowhio St. Has several guys that can run with them. I get what you are saying tho. Elliot gets downhill, not much doubt about that.
I used to have this impression, and I've backed away from it the last several years. I think Colorado produces more *highly rated* offensive lineman than any other position, but alot of these OLs fail to live up to expectations wherever they go. I just think it has to do with the quality of HS line play/competition in Colorado, that the premium OLs never face the type of DLs and DTs in CO HS that they face day one at a P5 school, and must develop a "mean streak" in college. That being said, this year's class was IMO the best in a while, and Lynott may be the best in-state OL prospect since Ryan Miller.
Accordingly, while CU must dominate in-state recruiting, I think speed is the way to go, especially where we are now. You can coach/S&C up just about anything but speed.
the ducks other problem was their "next man up" mantra ran out of steam with 8 starters out of the lineup and mm throwing to 5th string receivers
Separate names with a comma.