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!

More impact on offense: RB or WR?

More Impact for College Offense

  • Running Back

    Votes: 36 67.9%

  • Wide Receiver

    Votes: 17 32.1%
  • Total voters
    53
Wrt the OP:
I would say a stallion at RB is more important. First, it's one guy with the ball who can make things happen. A stud receiver requires a second party (QB) to be successful. In general, I think you need competent QB/WR combo to make you back successful, but a competent back isn't going to help a stud WR. Using CU as one case study - 2001, we had a stable of studs with competent receiving that could mask inadequacies. (However, that was exposed in the Fiesta Bowl)
2013 - we had a superstar at WR, but a total abortion in the back field which negated Richardson's big play making ability (the defense just locked down in him bc they weren't scared of our run).
Oregon State, any team coached by the Pirate, etc are examples.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I guess I come down on the RB side even though it is less true today. A quality RB can help to establish dominance over the other team thru imposing will and controlling the clock. It is also critical to have a dependable running back to close out games where you have the lead. Keep the clock runnign and churn yards and first downs without having to throw it.

I also think a strong running game will help the passing game tremendously. Force teams to load the box to stop the run and average to slightly better than average WR/TE/QB can become better than average. It also opens play action and screens.

You can argue the opposite I guess, but to me it all starts and stops with decent running attacks. I guess I am a bit old school here but the offense should start with the run game. So much can be opened with a decent running game.

As an aside, I am going to make the assumption that you have a decent line because either attack is going to require that guys block and handle their assingments.
 
One side of the argument that hasn't been discussed.

The dominant RB is much more help to your defense. A top WR can make big plays that flip the field but relying on a WR is also a ticket to 3 and outs.

If you have an effective RB you are much more likely to have longer time stretches with the ball. Even if you don't score if you can pick up a couple of first downs and keep the defense on the sideline for 5-15 minutes of real time (not game clock time) they will consistently have better field position to work with and the chance to catch their breath.

For teams that lack defensive depth like CU this can make a bigger difference still.
 
The thing that CU missed most about not having a great RB last year was in the red zone. Richardson, Spruce and Goodson did a good job of allowing us to get the ball down the field. We didn't need much help from the running backs when it came to getting down field but it sure would have helped our red zone efficiency. A lot of the blame falls on the OL and TE abilities, but a good running back could have forced the opposition to fill the box and not completely lock down our receivers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Mtn: your argument ignores what a dangerous WR can do without even a touch! He has the safeties cheating, he has even LBs worried about quick hitches and such and how to help. I think the mere presence of that WR on the field widens the field and opens things.

The Buffs really suffered across the entire offense and frankly burned Hansen's RS in hopes of finding space. We got better when Clemons and PRich were available. When They were both gone in 2012 it was ugly. We could have had a pro ball RB to no avail.
 
buffaholic said:
Mtn: your argument ignores what a dangerous WR can do without even a touch! He has the safeties cheating, he has even LBs worried about quick hitches and such and how to help. I think the mere presence of that WR on the field widens the field and opens things.

The Buffs really suffered across the entire offense and frankly burned Hansen's RS in hopes of finding space. We got better when Clemons and PRich were available. When They were both gone in 2012 it was ugly. We could have had a pro ball RB to no avail.
Click to expand...

I had thought that I had mentioned that much earlier in this thread. If not it is a good point, part of the problem that Rodney Stewart had was that teams didn't respect Cody's ability to burn them deep. Hawkins was predictable enough that teams regularly cheated up against the run. Speedy would make a great move to beat the first level of the defense only to have the second line already there waiting.

This is an area where Duff's comment earlier about lack of production from the RBs is on target. Much of the season defenses were cheating back out of concern for PRich's big play capability and our backs rarely were able to take advantage of the space he created.
 
A good defense plus a good running game and you can accomplish a lot in college football. That is the Stanford formula. When I look at Alabama, I think of their punishing running game that just wears teams down. I do not think in terms of individual players, look at PRich - great player but did not make CU a winner. I think CU would of been better served with a good running game, but that takes more than just a running back. Auburn led the nation in rushing last year and was a big turn around story.
 
Duff Man said:
Which matchup do you like more: a RB against a DE/OLB in space or a WR against a CB in space?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the hash mark example was being applied to just RBs. In your scenario...I think I'd go RB.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I said RB. Since we lost Speedy, we have been so one-dimensional that it is comical. I think that a stud RB has so much impact on the college game by giving the offense a chance to be more physical, takes time off the clock, making the defense play more honestly (makes way for a decent passing game), and lets the offense get into a better rhythm.
 
Buffskier said:
I said RB. Since we lost Speedy, we have been so one-dimensional that it is comical. I think that a stud RB has so much impact on the college game by giving the offense a chance to be more physical, takes time off the clock, making the defense play more honestly (makes way for a decent passing game), and lets the offense get into a better rhythm.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is a lack of a RB. However, I think that in our instance, the lack of a functional OL is the bigger issue. When you have an atrocious OL, that pretty much limits you to dink and dunk passes.
 
Last edited:
Duff Man said:
Worth noting even an average TE can have an effect on the defense too.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that having a top flight TE in college can turn a very average team into a very good team. Most college football programs don't utilize the TE in their offense very much. The ones that do are very hard to defend. They disrupt linemen, linebackers and safeties.
 
sackman said:
I'm of the opinion that having a top flight TE in college can turn a very average team into a very good team. Most college football programs don't utilize the TE in their offense very much. The ones that do are very hard to defend. They disrupt linemen, linebackers and safeties.
Click to expand...

Top flight TE can certainly make an average QB look much better.
 
As I think has been noted, there is no one correct answer that fits all situations. If a team is grossly deficient at one area, that deficiency will likely be exploited by their opponents regardless of strengths elsewhere.

I think that a superstar RB still has the ability to improve a team more so than a superstar WR, in the general case. Mostly for points brought up around clock control and confidence in short yardage situations.
 
Having someone attack the middle of the field, opens up everything. We need someone to seize that role.
 
We all saw what a great talent like PRich did for our offense... but wouldn't an elite running back have had an even bigger impact? Chewing up the clock, keeping the defense off the field, tiring out the other team until they made a mistake? I feel like a great rushing attack can do more for a college team than an elite WR.
 
An elite rb will touch the ball far more often than an elite wr. This alone will open up much more opportunities for the rest of the offense.
 
I sometimes forget how special Speedy was. One of my favorite all time buffs! So for reminiscing
[video=youtube;ll2657b_iNc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ll2657b_iNc[/video]
 
I picked RB because a good one will touch the ball 20+ times per game, including catches in screen plays or as an outlet pass. You want a great player to handle the ball as much as possible. When he doesn't get the ball he's still integral to pass protection or blocking for someone else to run. The best WR on a team will occasionally touch the ball 10+ times / game. When the play isn't going to him, they sometime offer blocking or decoy advantages, but that doesn't have the same consistent impact.
 
Elite WR - Richardson. Not great team results.

Elite RB - Chris Brown (and we'll even go with 2002 after our all-world OL line got drafted). Much better results.

Elite RB + Elite WR - Salaam and Westbrook. Even better results.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
CUAviator said:
Elite WR - Richardson. Not great team results.

Elite RB - Chris Brown (and we'll even go with 2002 after our all-world OL line got drafted). Much better results.

Elite RB + Elite WR - Salaam and Westbrook. Even better results.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We also had Derek McCoy in 2001 and a guy named Daniel Graham playing TE. Graham is who made that offense sick. But the point is a good one. It's not like Bobby Pesavento was going to set the world on fire. 2001 was a great example of a team that had some fantastic players with an incredibly average quarterback.
 
sackman said:
I'm of the opinion that having a top flight TE in college can turn a very average team into a very good team. Most college football programs don't utilize the TE in their offense very much. The ones that do are very hard to defend. They disrupt linemen, linebackers and safeties.
Click to expand...
Yep. It made me sick to see all the Austin Seferian-Jenkins highlights during the NFL Draft, because most of them were against us. There were several points in those games where I think UW got in the huddle and said, "I'm just throwing it to ASF, they can't stop him. Break."
 
sackman said:
We also had Derek McCoy in 2001 and a guy named Daniel Graham playing TE. Graham is who made that offense sick. But the point is a good one. It's not like Bobby Pesavento was going to set the world on fire. 2001 was a great example of a team that had some fantastic players with an incredibly average quarterback.
Click to expand...

1000% agree...which is why I had to go with 2002 to make my point about the RB ;-).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top