So this worries me because it seems like we define our team only in terms of O. "We're a running team" (which we are not, but you know what I mean?)
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!
Explain something to me...
- Thread starter You Assholes
- Start date
You drunk?
Trent Richardson benches 475 and says he can easily do more but they wont let him :wow:
No. I was hurting from last night. You?
And squats almost 700.
had 2 beers, called it. it was enough.
To further add to your confusion BP
Bama had 295 yards of offense to LSUs 239
Bama makes 1 of the 4 field goals that were missed or blocked,Bama wins
In conclusion: Defense wins championships,Offense scores points and (***tty)Special Teams loses games
Bama had 295 yards of offense to LSUs 239
Bama makes 1 of the 4 field goals that were missed or blocked,Bama wins
In conclusion: Defense wins championships,Offense scores points and (***tty)Special Teams loses games
Last edited:
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Bama hasn't allowed more than 14 points in a game all year.
LSU hasn't allowed more than 21 since Oregon
Each team hasn't allowed more than 11 in each of their last 5 games
LSU hasn't allowed more than 21 since Oregon
Each team hasn't allowed more than 11 in each of their last 5 games
The Guest
Guest
Based on this thread, you're at least 30% less defensive than 'tini. Also, I don't see 'tini winning anything soon, so as far as I can tell, being defensive doesn't get you jack ****.
Yeah, when lsus O kept going 3 and out I noticed that the DL were ok. Freaking nuts! Those DBS are unreal and to think lsu lost Patrick Peterson to the nfl last year.
The other thing is that both teams have crazy depth. One guy gets hurt and the next guy in is just as big, strong, fast and knows how to play his role. Those DBS would start at lb and their lbs would be on our DL.
ThndringHerd
Well-Known Member
Maybe they're just opposed to letting people stick it in their end zone. I concur.
Defensive coaching is becoming a lost art. There are a few teams left in the SEC who ask their DB's and linebackers to do more than act like glorified traffic cones when the other team has the ball. I'm a fan.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
We used to get studs on D
But he's also roughly 35% more offensive than Tini. I'm not sure how that fits into your equation...
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
ahhh people that don't appreciate good classic football!
Saying it wasn't the game of the century is not the same as calling it bad football.
It wasn't the game of the century by any stretch of the imagination. By January there's a good chance it won't even be the game of the season...
Last week's Stanford-USC game was up there with any other game this season. An exciting 3 OT thriller...
One thing that really stood out to me on both sides of the football is how instinctual both teams play on defense. Yes, the players are talented and they get superior coaching, but there were also several plays made last night based off a player relying on instinct.
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Well I have a different view. I was very entertained the whole game. In awe of both teams, well except for Bamas FG kicker.
ahhh people that don't appreciate good classic football!
It was good classic football, for the 1920's. I played defense and I love good hard nosed football more than the average fan. I enjoyed the game and I am terrified that we may have to play against that defense some day and I am relatively certian that either one of those defenses will beat up on stanford. But, you cannot call it the game of the century because it was not exciting enough. It needed some more scoring to be that exhilirating everyone remembers watching the game kinda feel. I was jonesing for a kick return.
And CBS cannot call it the game of the century not before the game, not ever. It is up to the fans and to history to declare a game of the century. Calling the game that you are broadcasting the "game of the century" before it is even played is the definition of douchebaggery.
Last edited:
So because you were entertained, it was the game of the century? OK....
Unleash Hell
Well-Known Member
Probably the most entertained I have been watching a game in a long time. I am different in all areas though.
:nod:
If we want to be good and sustain it, the way to do it is with defense and a running game. You can't be sure that you'll have a great QB every year or that you'll be able to keep playmakers healthy on offense. But if you can hold teams under 20 ppg and control the line of scrimmage on offense, you'll always win more than you lose.