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!

Takeaways from the Rocky Mountain Beatdown

DBT said:
I thought Sefo did a better job going through his checks. At least thats my perception based on a couple of times I noticed him do that. Maybe not having Spruce makes him less dependent on one guy. Or something. Have any of you gone back and analyzed Sefo in that regard?
Click to expand...

I saw him on multiple plays looking one direction come around read and deliver the ball to the other side, something he has done very little of in the past.

@Buffnik has a good point, the TE was used at SJSU. Might just be that they haven't had confidence enough in the TE to make him a significant part of the offense. Could also be that Sefo doesn't look there. Be interesting to see if Montez looks TE more often than Sefo when he gets his chance to play.
 
I'd like to think that they're sandbagging the TE position until the Michigan game. Let them think they need a defender to follow Sefo around all game and then gouge them in the middle of the field with TE seams.
 
I don't think it inspires much confidence in a position group when they get the offensive coach who was just given a big demotion.
 
Duff Man said:
I don't think it inspires much confidence in a position group when they get the offensive coach who was just given a big demotion.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't think you believe that's the problem either! I think it's a blocking position in our offense, as it is currently setup.
 
buffaholic said:
Well, I don't think you believe that's the problem either! I think it's a blocking position in our offense, as it is currently setup.
Click to expand...

Is it? The coaches seem to be scared of putting any weight on Keeney. But taking a guy like Bounds (and Jones before him) would seem to bolster your point. Would honestly not care much either way, but it definitely has an effect (or lack thereof) in the red zone.
 
First time poster here. I've been lingering (stalking) the site for about 2 years.... I'm curious why everyone is so concerned about TE? Could it possibly be that TE is not considered one of the top 5 most productive rolls ( considering the players) in this offense?
 
BuffNas said:
First time poster here. I've been lingering (stalking) the site for about 2 years.... I'm curious why everyone is so concerned about TE? Could it possibly be that TE is not considered one of the top 5 most productive rolls ( considering the players) in this offense?
Click to expand...

I think it's that we've got such a great history at TE in this program with Graham, Embree, Fauria, Klopfenstein, etc. So there's that foundation with the fans of knowing what a weapon the TE can be in the pass game to move the chains and exploit the deep middle seams -- which is an opportunity CU hasn't been exploiting much.

Throw in that we kind of expected more TE usage with MacIntyre/Lindgren due to what they did at San Jose State and it's kind of confusing.
 
buffaholic said:
Not seeing that SJSU offense that relevant to CU in 2016.
Click to expand...

How about the TTU offense and the numbers that Jace Amaro put up? For some reason, we're missing an opportunity to make the sort of plays we know that the guys in charge of the offense believe in. Hell, Chev was a WR but he made his living at CU running those short crossing and seam routes that TEs now run out of these modern offenses.
wpid-wp-1414198682837.png
 
Well the TE position makes you cover the whole field. It doesnt have to be a staple of the O but gives us another option. Keeney would fit the role nicely but he might have to block some so keeping weight off him, doesnt make much sense to me.
 
Buffnik said:
I think it's that we've got such a great history at TE in this program with Graham, Embree, Fauria, Klopfenstein, etc. So there's that foundation with the fans of knowing what a weapon the TE can be in the pass game to move the chains and exploit the deep middle seams -- which is an opportunity CU hasn't been exploiting much.

Throw in that we kind of expected more TE usage with MacIntyre/Lindgren due to what they did at San Jose State and it's kind of confusing.
Click to expand...
Maybe we just don't have the personnel in place? Maybe our inability to protect Sefo has kind of forced us to use the TE as a blocker? I don't analyze the games enough to know.
 
Well if we use the TE like Tech does. The TE doesnt always have his hand in the dirt, he flexes out to spread the D getting a LB on him in most cases, we run wide, he can still block outside. Our WRs did a great job of blocking on Friday, makes a big difference.
 
So, because we have had a great tradition (in a completely different offense), or because Texas Tech had a great split TE two years ago, means we should use the tight end now? From what I have seen so far, the coaches are using the weapons they have to the best of their abilities. This is a first in a long time. If the tight end is last on the list of best offensive weapons the Buffs have then so be it, use your weapons as best as possible.
 
Buffnik said:
How about the TTU offense and the numbers that Jace Amaro put up? For some reason, we're missing an opportunity to make the sort of plays we know that the guys in charge of the offense believe in. Hell, Chev was a WR but he made his living at CU running those short crossing and seam routes that TEs now run out of these modern offenses.
wpid-wp-1414198682837.png
Click to expand...
Quite possible the type of TE for this offense just isn't on the roster..
 
Sean Irwin is plenty serviceable as a pass catching and blocking TE. It's obvious Chev greatly prefers another WR instead of a TE on the field
 
I'm not going to complain about what I saw, I think the TE is going to be more of a third option safety valve. We will see how it pans out but I don't think Sefo got past his first option the other night. I did see the TE open a few times but so were the other guys.
 
Buffnik said:
How about the TTU offense and the numbers that Jace Amaro put up? For some reason, we're missing an opportunity to make the sort of plays we know that the guys in charge of the offense believe in. Hell, Chev was a WR but he made his living at CU running those short crossing and seam routes that TEs now run out of these modern offenses.
wpid-wp-1414198682837.png
Click to expand...
I think you're kind of proving my earlier point. I don't think it's necessarily that the staff doesn't want to use a TE, but rather that they don't have one that they feel makes more of an impact than one of our other WRs. A guy like Falo would change that.
 
sliderNcider said:
Sean Irwin is plenty serviceable as a pass catching and blocking TE. It's obvious Chev greatly prefers another WR instead of a TE on the field
Click to expand...
Serviceable in a pro style offense but maybe not as serviceable as a 4th or 5th WR in this offense!
 
SerenityBuff said:
We rushed for 260 yards.
Click to expand...
Even taking out Sefo's rushing attempts and yards, we still had 42 attempts for 194 yrds (4.6/att). With Sefo's we had 56 rushing attempts to 33 passing attempts. Granted, many of those came in the 2nd half when the game was over, but there was a definite commitment to the run from the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top