Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by TSchekler, Jun 12, 2015.
What are your expectations for this offense in it's 3rd year under HCMM and Lindgren?
agreed with Duff, relatively the same points per game, but we increase in efficiency and the offense actually shows moderate improvement because it doesn't have to score as much/takes care of the ball a lot better.
That was my vote too. Yes, Sefo will have another year under his belt, but the OL is still, well, somewhat suspect, and minus two starters. No real TE threat, and SPruce is the only proven commodity at WR. Fileds Bobo Lee etc. all have shown flashes, but I have a hard time thinking the O will take any great leap. And 28 pts. per game isn't too shabby. The D neesd to step up and stop somebody not named Hawaii.
Problem is we were a top 30 offense in yards but 67th in scoring, which can be attributed to IMO the lack of a short running game and the need to continue scoring as our defense was atrocious.
I expect the running game and the D to improve, so I am guessing we will see a jump in scoring.
I'm at #2. A jump to around 32 pts/game would represent about a 22 spot jump, similar to what we experienced from '13-'14, and put us right around 45th in the country. I think Fields emerges as a legit #2 threat, leaving defenses unable to double Spruce. Reaching the conference's scoring average shouldn't be too much of a stretch, IMO (P12's average was 33.5/game last year).
We could be a much better offense and still not score significantly more points.
Cut down on the turnovers, especially the INTs that result in TDs or set up easy scores. Be more effective on first downs and maintain control of the ball. Generate more first downs and move field position helping the D.
Hopefully with a couple of more physical guards and the new RBs we will be more effective running the ball and this can happen.
Time of possession has been shown not to be a big factor in winning and losing but turnovers and field position do have a strong correlation. The offense can help with both of those making us better.
Vote #3 but hope for the improvements listed here.
Expect the OL to improve with more familiarity with the system and each other, as well as improved strength and maturity. Won't be able to gauge RBs until the new ones are on campus in August drills. Carr could be BIG! Don't worry too much about TEs; the new guys have been in the system a year and should be fully recovered. Only question is can they catch passes in coverage and get YAC.
Each turnover is worth about 5 points. We were at 29 ppg last year, it's really not far out to expect a 4-5 ppg jump this season. We lost two guards, but their backups saw a lot of time last year. We don't really lose much at WR or TE and didn't lose anything at RB.
In addition to turning the ball over in bad spots we were poor at forcing turnovers last year. If the defense can be more effective at forcing turnovers or at least forcing some 3 and outs it could mean the offense isn't spending so much time in the shadow of our own goalpost.
Would also be nice to get some better performance out of the special teams. Give up fewer long KO returns and get a few of our own.
I think the combination of our offense being more veteran (specifically our QB) and our defense forcing more turnovers (basically by default), is what gives us the boost to around league average this year. If this team can score 32-33 points/game, we should be right there in bowl contention come Utah week.
Math is hard.
2 - As I mentioned in the other thread, but I don't see much of an increase. With hopefully a better running game that produces scores and better overall defense, this team could be exceptionally better.
Think we have about the same as last year unless something happens at TE or RB to improve short distance/red zone stuff.
No reason the short yardage shouldn't improve a bit. New OG'S are much bigger and more powerful than Crabb and Munyer, plus Kelley being back and Nembot being a 5th year senior where the light came on. Later in the year the OL was pushing DL's out of the way, especially Utah.
And really, the red zone offense wasn't bad, just some issues with timing. Overall though it was above average by a good amount if I remember correctly.
I'll go with Phil Steele's pick of 33 PPG. 305 Pass 150 Rush
We would've averaged at least 30 if not for CSU and Oregon games last year. And if it stays the same, we'll win maybe 2 games. Too many good offenses for our defense to make that much of a difference, you have to score 30+ to win games nowadays.
I really like the potential of our Oline this year. Could be the best Oline we've had in a long time. That gives me hope in the short yardage game as well as hopefully getting some more scores out of our RB's.
116 yards on 32 carries? Hmmmm, unusual conclusion.
S&P+ Offensive Ratings:
Was talking about in the red zone. Powell had 3 TD's, two were from the 2 yard line or closer.
See lefty's post wrt the Utah game.
There may be no reason to think it shouldn't improve but I don't really see a reason to think it should either. Hope I am wrong but I just don't see a reason to believe the Offense will significantly improve next year. Perfectly happy to eat crow they do.
Returning yards is a good indicator for improvement on both sides of the ball. We return a ton of yards.
And imma fire back. In my nature.
I voted #2 like the vast majority so far. I see the difference coming from reduced interceptions thrown, and a modestly improved defense that gives our offense at least one additional possession per game, perhaps by increasing from just 3 defensive interceptions last year.
I'm not sure what to say. Any team that returns the vast majority of their yards should be expected to improve. Any team that loses the vast majority of their yards should expect to regress. These are the same lines of reasoning that Phil Steele projects us to be a much better team, jumping to #45.
It's not just us "sunshine pumpers" saying the offense should be much improved; respected college football media/analysts seem to believe this as well.
Trying to make this into a "sunshine pumpers v doomsayers" thing is silly. There are valid reasons to vote #3 or worse and still think the offense will improve to some degree or that staying the same will not be a big issue. The new guards are definitely a concern until proven otherwise though.
He never said he agreed with Phil Steele, just sayin.
Is it just me or is harder than ever to be a realist?
I didn't say he did. Steele was used as a reference
Separate names with a comma.