And without huge improvements in the OL we could have Andre Johnson and Megatron out there and still not be successful since our QB is running for his life the minute he takes the snap.
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!
Wide Receiver is our biggest hole right now
- Thread starter Buff_since76
- Start date
And without huge improvements in the OL we could have Andre Johnson and Megatron out there and still not be successful since our QB is running for his life the minute he takes the snap.
McCulloch a DCs nightmare. You can't be serious.
Nobody is saying McCulloch is why we suck or whatever. He's just not a very good WR. Yes, he's our 2nd best WR. So was Espy at one point. This is literally a thread about our WRs being the worst position on the worst team in football. Propping up our 2nd best player at the position really doesn't need to be done.
While "benching" McCulloch is not the right course of action, throwing bubble screens to him really isn't either. Those need to be going to Thomas. Or Canty.
Nobody is saying McCulloch is why we suck or whatever. He's just not a very good WR. Yes, he's our 2nd best WR. So was Espy at one point. This is literally a thread about our WRs being the worst position on the worst team in football. Propping up our 2nd best player at the position really doesn't need to be done.
While "benching" McCulloch is not the right course of action, throwing bubble screens to him really isn't either. Those need to be going to Thomas. Or Canty.
McCulloch has more upside that Scotty. And I love Scotty. But not as much as Hawt.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
The problem is does that upside ever come to fruition? He's the same player as last year. That's a major concern.
My point is that as a feature reciever he isn't a PAC quality guy. Multiple teams in the PAC have guys on their benches who will not see the field who have more speed and elusiveness than Tyler has. However, in the right situation he can make for a very difficult matchup. Put him on the field with a PRich or a TClem from the second half of last year who force teams to dedicate their best CB and who demand that the safeties lean towards them. In that situation you can get him in coverage situations where his height and long arms as well as his route running become a tough match-up. Do you cover him with your nickel DB who is much shorter and doesn't like the contact involved in the slot and the middle routes and who McC blows away if it's a running play or do you try to cover him with a LB who can't keep up with him and risk chasing him down the field hoping help arrives before the endzone.
Is it that you aren't seeing him improve or is it that he is getting better players covering him and help from the safeties.
Is it that you aren't seeing him improve or is it that he is getting better players covering him and help from the safeties.
He doesn't use his size or long arms. He catches the ball with his body, not his majestic long arms that you love so much. He's slower than can be, corners don't have issues keeping up with his epic route running.
He'd be a decent player as an upper classmen as a 4th or 5th WR in a spread set.
He's a good blocker.
You think he has the capability of scaring DCs. Obviously we live on two different planets.
He'd be a decent player as an upper classmen as a 4th or 5th WR in a spread set.
He's a good blocker.
You think he has the capability of scaring DCs. Obviously we live on two different planets.
Arguing over which position is our biggest hole is like arguing over which is the biggest hole in a piece of swiss cheese with......you know.......mulitiple large, comparably-sized holes......
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
buff4eva
New Member
point exactly so why is this tread about the WR cause i went to the game and re watched it 2 times and saw the WR open many of time but the oline is not holding up so change this tread to the biggest hole right now is the oline ......period.....
BuffaloChuck
Member
4EVA, I have no idea.
I still blame "play-calling". I see play-calling based on 'Force Our Will Upon Opponents' instead of 'Take What They Give Us', which were cushions for quick passes.
One effect that short-quick passing games have against defenses is that they tire out the Defense by frustrating their quick-bursts. Pretty soon, D-Line are no longer so quick with those first 2-3 steps, and the O-Linemen know that, too. This gives the QB (and play-calling) a far better success at deeper routes - all of those slow-developing plays.
Imposing Our Will Plays - slow-developing long passes, or deep I-back hand-offs - are useful when we dominate teams.
Can anyone argue that we dominated Sac State? EVEN Sac State? No. Even Embree said "We matched them." Matched Sac State. Good grief...
Is our play-calling an indication of Player Learning Levels? Are the coaches admitting, "We can't depend on playing calls to take advantage of Defenses, because our players aren't smart enough to recognize one Defense from another."
Huh? A hole in coverage? A receiver and a QB aren't smart enough for THAT?!! Since when? AGE 12? 15??
This is what really bothers me about this staff's decisions. They're either saying, "Our team isn't smart enough so we can only call plays we run in our practices against ourselves", or they're saying, "We the coaches aren't smart enough to recognize what's available."
Either way, it's not good. Coaches either can't or won't teach, or can't or won't adjust.
I still blame "play-calling". I see play-calling based on 'Force Our Will Upon Opponents' instead of 'Take What They Give Us', which were cushions for quick passes.
One effect that short-quick passing games have against defenses is that they tire out the Defense by frustrating their quick-bursts. Pretty soon, D-Line are no longer so quick with those first 2-3 steps, and the O-Linemen know that, too. This gives the QB (and play-calling) a far better success at deeper routes - all of those slow-developing plays.
Imposing Our Will Plays - slow-developing long passes, or deep I-back hand-offs - are useful when we dominate teams.
Can anyone argue that we dominated Sac State? EVEN Sac State? No. Even Embree said "We matched them." Matched Sac State. Good grief...
Is our play-calling an indication of Player Learning Levels? Are the coaches admitting, "We can't depend on playing calls to take advantage of Defenses, because our players aren't smart enough to recognize one Defense from another."
Huh? A hole in coverage? A receiver and a QB aren't smart enough for THAT?!! Since when? AGE 12? 15??
This is what really bothers me about this staff's decisions. They're either saying, "Our team isn't smart enough so we can only call plays we run in our practices against ourselves", or they're saying, "We the coaches aren't smart enough to recognize what's available."
Either way, it's not good. Coaches either can't or won't teach, or can't or won't adjust.
Rraalph 3000
Well-Known Member
You have to have a QB to even be able to utilize a WR, no matter how good or bad that WR is.....our QB play is worse than most Texas High School's
A team as horrible as the Buffs, can you really call out one area as the "biggest" problem?
ChemEBuff
Member
I feel the exact same way. Once we get P-Rich back and a QB who can actually sling the ball around our offense will look a lot better than it does this year. Spruce will be able to go back to playing a more natural slot position and we can utilize GT and McCulloch when we need to. I think the future is actually looking alright for this team as long as there is a QB to get these guys the ball.
And with Pow Pow developing the way he has this year we will have quite a bit of depth and skill at the running back position next year.
Not trying to look ahead too much but things seem like they should get better
Agree. There are 3-4 plays a game that are simply not being made by the skill guys. There are screens that go for 5-7 yards that should be going 15-20 yards or more.
ChemE, disagree completely about the RB position. Think that might be one of the weakest areas of the team.
BlackNGold
Club Member
The biggest problem is the QB position. Spruce and McCullough are both decent receivers but neither have the breakaway speed. Webb does not hit the receivers in stride so they are constantly having to slow down or stop to catch the ball that is why the YPA is so low. You saw Hirsch hit McCullough in stride with a pass and it went for a nice gain. Half the bubble screens Webb throws at the receivers feet. The Oline has been playing better - most of the sacks are now because of the QB being slow to release the ball. Spruce and TM are decent receivers but need to be complemented with a deep threat. Canty is not that fast. Spruce did not have many catches against Oregon because he got an early concussion and was out most of the game.