Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by sackman, Apr 12, 2010.
IMO, this is a myth.
The Pats do this too in the NFL.
TT has had success in the Big 12 doing this (I'd count WR/RB screens as part of the running game). UT had good success last year without a good RB. Reesing and Daniels did well at KU and MU.
The Colts/Pats and even TT to some extent, however, are the only teams off of the top of my head to do this well without a mobile QB. That's why I think TH is a better fit than CH. The zone read options they ran at the scrimmage (and even the few QB draws they had) were done well when mixed in. We have the WRs now (remember Simas was out too) to make this type of offense work.
Short yardage situations is what frightens me. I didn't see a single use of the I-formation in the scrimmage. There's going to be at least two or three situations where that'll kill us, especially since Hawk likes to go for it on 4th down. We need a bruiser bad and I don't want Hirschman to be that FB (although he can carry the pile).
What's killed us is our lack of identity. We are going to be a spread team with Cody?! We are going to be a smash mouth team that gives up running the ball down by a TD or 2?! That's why the TTs and Pats of the world can plug guys in at QB and wreak havoc.
I agree....be who you are and be the best at it you can be....if you are gonna chuck it all over the place...do it better than anyone else
Lots of teams pass to set up the run these days.
If you look at the NFL, teams that have been playing in the Superbowl generally follow that strategy: Patriots, Steelers (for their 2nd SB team), Cardinals, Saints, Eagles, and Colts.
In college, pass-first teams have dominated the Big 12 and had a ton of success in general.
As a personal preference, I like more of the power football approach. But I think you can do both. I've brought it up before, but the Gibbs/Coryell offense that eliminates the fullback and uses either 3-wide plus an H-back (or 2-wide plus 2 H-backs) is my favorite offense. And we have the personnel to run that. I'd love to see some counter trey in Boulder.
Uh, 49ers of the 80's and 90's and Packers of the 90's weren't successful doing this?
It is doable, not my cup of tea but it can work. However, all of those teams mentioned above have a few things CU is lacking. First of all, everyone of them have stability at the qb position with most of those teams having great qbs. Second, they all have very good oline play even if its isnt the prototypical smack you in the mouth type. Third, every one of those teams had that approach as their Identity. If thats what CU is gonna do, fine, just stay with it and make it work.
It is the only reasonable way for us to move the ball this season, so let's do it and do it right.
Stylistically I don't care anymore what type of offense we run, just execute it.
Im fine with it as long as we dont change it every year. Put in a system, recruit to fit it, and stay with the ****.
I guess this is my point. In order to get it done, you need outstanding quarterback play. If you're going to use the pass to set up the run, you damn well better have a fantastic quarterback running the show. We don't.
Except that at the college level area I don't think you need a great QB. There have been many, many system guys from the TT-style to the Fun 'N Gun of UF in the 90s.
Most teams that air it out have incredible defenses. Collins hasn't helped getting us in good field position in most of the time he has been here, except for '06.
Texas Tech never has an incredible defense but you are right about not having to have a great qb, system guys will work. However, that is the keyword, system. Whenever CU actually has one, somebody let me know.
in a pass first O, one thing you need is a sackful of good play designs for 3rd and 10, 3rd and 7 etc....and the ability to execute them.
pick one thing. be very good at it. when the D has to play to that strength because it is effective, the other opens up. what one it is - is not important. i would perfer the run opening up the pass because i belive its a better method of controlling the flow of the game.
Mick is correct, you need a lot of plays, not the simplified offense Kiesau has installed. That type of offense stresses a great QB who can read correctly and call the correct play (variation on what he sees). We just don't seem to have an offense line that is able to support this type of offense. It's no wonder we have attrition at RB.
Has CU run the same offense in consecutive years ever under Dan Hawkins? Seems like it changes every year.
Hawkins wants this pass happy offense (He did it at Boise State) it just hasn't worked for him in the Big 12 so he has to try other things that I just don't think he can do. I fully expect us to run the ball a total of 10 times this season. :smile2:
Hawkins problem has been that he hasn't stuck to anything...he throws things at a dart board and hopes they stick, but he won't commit to anything on a consistant basis
Well, with the current state of the Buffs RB situation, they may have to run this type of offense until they can find a RB & FB to compliment the passing game.
You don't like Rodney Stewart at RB?
We have a nice team with some talent. A couple spots can use some big time players i think like the WR spot. Some one who can change the game. A couple Nice corners and we will see a bowl game within the next two years.
Love RS, but he's not an everydown back. They need somebody (Big FB) to get those 3rd & 1s 4th & 1s, and someone that can dish out the hits as well as take them.
one of the first things i noticed at the scrimmage was on Black team's first possession, they threw on 3rd and a short 2.
2005 - Boise #19 rushing offense
2004 - Boise #14 rushing offense
2003 - Boise #62 rushing offense
2002 - Boise #22 rushing offense
Not bad for a pass happy offense :smile2:
A bowl game?!?! You don't say?
Maybe one day we can actually finish above .500. Wouldn't that be a sight to behold.
"Making a bowl game" is not a goal. "Making a bowl game" is something that can happen in the same year as "another losing season."
I wish we would stop holding it up as some sort of high-water mark for the team. These people were talking about "national championship within 3 years" when Hawkins was hired!
After 4 years of this crap, a bowl game is a "realistic" goal. Now, the fact that there are 500 bowls and most teams go to a bowl is another thing...
Speaking of running backs, anybody notice what type of backs we are recruiting? Seems they are all the type to run in the spread, all smallish. I guess Clark and Torres arent but who knows if thats the position they will end up at? Nothing wrong with it, just saying, maybe they are gonna stick with this type of O. I hope so, at this point I really dont care what we run as long as we stick with it.
I hate to be cynical but it seems to me that we are recruiting the "decent prospect who is willing to play here" type of running back at the moment.
You hate to be cynical? :wink2:
Very true but besides Ameen Moore and Brown, none that I have seen have much size. They all seem to be scat backs and would fit the spread. Im trying my ass off to be positive lol, not easy to do these days.
Separate names with a comma.