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!

Official Buffs vs. USC Game Thread --- 8:45 PM on FS1

Not Sure said:
How about on a three year view? 20-12. Not a success?

Wouldn’t you agree that the first three years were spent cleaning up a colossal mess? You give him zero credit for a winning record since then?

Bill McCartneys record his first three years was 7-25-1. He made a bowl game his fourth year. Then failed to make a Bowl his fifth year. In year six, he made a Bowl again. (Sounds familiar?)

By your definition of success, he was a failure.

Frankly, your incessant blathering comes across as having an axe to grind rather than objective criticism.
Click to expand...

You are what your record says you are. Truncating years to enhance observations is not for me.
 
cu62nu36 said:
Do not feed this ****ING TROLL. He is not a fan of CU football. He has stated just that on several occasions.

Just why should he care about "fundamental leadership" or "program issues" within a program that he is not a fan of? Answer: he doesn't, he's just here to Troll. Ask yourself would any of you log on to say Washington's football blog to offer meaningful constructive criticism regarding their athletic department? Hell no. You'd troll them a bit if you even bothered to do this.

Has anyone ever seen this TROLL spontaneously praise this program, coaching staff, athletic department etc. etc. ? He may offer some faint praise here and there but only when cornered. His whole behavior with the Morretti situation was atrocious. DOCTOR HAWG appeared glad that Morretti had serious nerve issues. Why? Because a healthy Morretti made us hopeful that the OL would get better. This troll wanted to poison our hope.

Did any of you notice that he was conspicuously absent from this board from late August through late September? While we were winning? Against opponents that we were likely to beat? He hasn't resurfaced until the schedule got substantially tougher with some likely losses so that he can spread his cancer.

Now there are plenty of valid criticisms of MM and there are plenty of MM haters on here speak their voice. The difference is they are Buff fans. This guy has a deeper agenda than just trolling us. I think it is personal between he and MM.

Do not feed the troll.
Click to expand...

I have been here all year. I offer praise when deserved. And have don’t so repeatedly.

You are, sir, wrong.
 
TSchekler said:
How are they not on track for either? They've played 6/12 games and are 5-1. They are literally "on track" to be 10-2, actually.
Click to expand...
That’s a simple math approach. I’m looking potential wins based on FPI, S/P and other services. They have a chance at 9. Gonna keep from laying an egg on the road against AZ or Cal.

6-3 in conference would be a nice season, I don’t see them finishing in Top 25 recruiting.
 
cu62nu36 said:
He is a troll. Just because he likes to bash MM doesn't make him any less a troll.

You critique MM but you are a Buff fan. Your criticism comes from a very different place than this toxic cancer.
Click to expand...
I have no ax to grind as friend or foe. These are football observations. You do t like them. That’s OK. That does not make me a troll.
 
cu62nu36 said:
He is a troll. Just because he likes to bash MM doesn't make him any less a troll.

You critique MM but you are a Buff fan. Your criticism comes from a very different place than this toxic cancer.
Click to expand...
O have no ax to grind as friend or foe. These are football observations. You don’t like them. That’s OK. That does not make me a troll.
 
hawg1 said:
That’s a simple math approach. I’m looking potential wins based on FPI, S/P and other services. They have a chance at 9. Gonna keep from laying an egg on the road against AZ or Cal.

6-3 in conference would be a nice season, I don’t see them finishing in Top 25 recruiting.
Click to expand...
I said Top 35 in the original post (currently 34 in 247), but let's focus on the season at hand. S+P projects 8 wins as the most likely scenario, with 9 as the second most likely. FPI has Buffs at 8 wins rounding up. What is your W/L projection for the Buffs this year?
 
hawg1 said:
Yes he did. He was wrong.

This part of the thread is about observations about MM, his decision making and leadership
Click to expand...
Right, but Rooney being that far off the mark makes me question his credibility on any part of the subject. He either didn’t know what he was watching, didn’t know enough about teams on our schedule, or had a preconceived notion about MM like you clearly do.

Either way, I don’t care what Rooney thinks about MM. You’ll have to be more specific on your thoughts, I’m willing to listen.
 
Hunchback Quaker said:
I said Top 35 in the original post (currently 34 in 247), but let's focus on the season at hand. S+P projects 8 wins as the most likely scenario, with 9 as the second most likely. FPI has Buffs at 8 wins rounding up. What is your W/L projection for the Buffs this year?
Click to expand...
Sorry, missed the 35 part. That seems possible.

I predicted 6-6. I was wrong. I updated to 7-5 after fall camp and Nebraska.

I had a strong inclination to go to 8-4 after ASU but wanted to wait and see how they came through SC and UDub on the health front. I will still wait, although 8 looks likely and 9 is not out if the question.

I like watching this team, especially the skill players. On that front, I’m ready to see Jackson get some meaningful snaps. And I’d like to see more of Filipi and less of Kaiser.
 
TDforTD said:
Right, but Rooney being that far off the mark makes me question his credibility on any part of the subject. He either didn’t know what he was watching, didn’t know enough about teams on our schedule, or had a preconceived notion about MM like you clearly do.

Either way, I don’t care what Rooney thinks about MM. You’ll have to be more specific on your thoughts, I’m willing to listen.
Click to expand...
I’ve dealt with Pat. He’s a straight shooter.

I’m not sure what more I can say about MM’s leadership, charisma, staff assembly/development, game day decisions, roster decisions, program trajectory, recruiting and abilty to reach the goals set for football for RG. These are well documented. No need to repeat them.
 
onealcd said:
I was surprised it wasn't called but Viska lowered his head and just as responsible for the helmet to helmet contact as the defender. That guy was out though.
Click to expand...

I disagree that LS was as responsible for the helmet to helmet hit. The hit came to the side of LS helmet, not head on. Viska was turtling to brace for impact while defender lowered his helmet to initiate contact....not the same from where i sit.
 
BuffNut said:
I disagree that LS was as responsible for the helmet to helmet hit. The hit came to the side of LS helmet, not head on. Viska was turtling to brace for impact while defender lowered his helmet to initiate contact....not the same from where i sit.
Click to expand...
Viska put his head down and the crown of his helmet hit the guy in the ear hole.
 
hawg1 said:
That’s a simple math approach. I’m looking potential wins based on FPI, S/P and other services. They have a chance at 9. Gonna keep from laying an egg on the road against AZ or Cal.

6-3 in conference would be a nice season, I don’t see them finishing in Top 25 recruiting.
Click to expand...
The problem with FPI, S&P, and other services doing the thinking for you is that none of them have even been close to reality when it comes to this CU team. Going 4-2 in the second half should not be viewed as improbable.
 
BuffNut said:
I disagree that LS was as responsible for the helmet to helmet hit. The hit came to the side of LS helmet, not head on. Viska was turtling to brace for impact while defender lowered his helmet to initiate contact....not the same from where i sit.
Click to expand...
Viska make a football move (one step, lowered head). This he was a runner, not a defenseless player.
 
For the most part, at least per my recent memory, hawg has provided a fair, and independent view of the Buffs. While I don't agree with many of his takes, they aren't without some merit. Hawg isn't a troll, he's just not emotionally invested like the rest of us. That's the rub.
 
hawg1 said:
Wait a second. Does targeting require a defenseless player?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sb...9482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football
Click to expand...
There are two parts to it. The first:
No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul.
Click to expand...

The second:
No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI)
Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to:
  • Launch—a player leaving his feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area
  • A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground
  • Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area
  • Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet
Click to expand...
So, IMO, the first part doesn't say anything about defenseless player, and the bolded that describes Targeting sums up why that hit on Viska definitely should have been targeting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top