Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by JimmyBuff, Dec 26, 2011.
I don't necessarily disagree with their analysis. However, there is so much more to the job than the W-L record (not that it isn't important, or justified to judge). Outside reviewers can't really know much of the background stuff that goes on, so all they have is record and statistics. Again, those are valid things to judge, just think there is so much more that they don't see that doesn't get factored into these rankings.
From the perspective of a national writer, I would also give a "D" grade.
Yep. Without the win at Utah, I'd have given him an "F". I didn't really see any improvement from last year to this, other than that very last game.
Hard to argue, but I do see some signs of life....it is gonna take a while to right the ship.
I don't really care what the grade is after year 1. Let's talk after year 3 when we have some seasoned kids whom Embree and company recruited to run his system are doing.
Can't argue against a D,but also think its too early to put much stock in that after year 1...If we're still at a D in a couple years then thats a problem
The D grade reflects those painful home losses to WSU and Cal. A 5-8 record would have bumped the grade up a knotch. Embree had a crappy hand to play and was able to salvage a little goodwill at the end.
I do appriciate how Embree bounced from Rockbottomtober with a couple late season wins on Senior day in Boulder and the rivalry weekend finale at SL,UT.
From a perspective of what Colorado should be compared to what we got the D is justified, maybe an F.
To pin that on Embree though shows a lack of understanding of what he faced this year. The big thing that should be looked at is that despite coming into the season with a roster that wouldn't have been competitive even if it was healthy. With all the injuries they had to that roster even winning 3 may justify at least a B. What is most encouraging is that two of the wins came late, the team didn't quit and in fact got better over the course of the year.
There were missteps. There were a couple of losses that are hard to explain. There are still some questions about who this team is going to be, but overall if the national press wants to give a D let them. I'll wait until Embree has more time before passing judgement.
Also, we know that Embree was not one of the hot names on the coaching market. He didn't have other offers nor was he one of the names the media liked to speculate about. That all said with the situation he came into how many coaches out there regardless of stature in the media would have done better?
I do hold Embree accountable for all those early season penalties. That can't be pinned on the former regime. The lack of depth Embree suffered is the fault on everyone responsible for D2yr5.
The Hawaii, Cal, Wash St and the no show at UCLA is a bad indictment on Embree and his staff. Beating Utah took a little sting out of it but from what I've seen our coaching wasn't at the level it needs to be if we want to compete in the Pac 12.
From the perspective of a CU fan, I would also give the team a D, if not F. This isn't to say that I'm against Embree and think the staff's absolutely garbage. However, the team didn't produce. I agree with a lot of what MtnBuff wrote. I'm still behind Embree and Co, but this past year was deserving of at MOST a D. I like the a few signs of life/rebuilding from the staff, but results need to show on the field in a few years.
Agree with you on the penalties although I also do give some of the credit for that to the prior regime. Some of it came back to the lack of discipline and lousy attitude that permiated the team whem Embree took over. It kind of comes back to what he needed to work on first.
That said, I think looking back he would admit that he could have made some decisions that would have changed the outcome of the Cal game and WSU game.
If we're grading just based on the w/l, then sure. That was the criteria the national writer had.
I've got 3 criteria I'm looking at.
First is w/l. That's an F. A 3-win season is never anything but a failure.
Second is culture change. This is the first step in the rebuilding process. It took longer than I wanted, but by the end of the year I felt like we were on schedule. I give that a B.
Third is building talent and depth across the roster. It's not like Embree and his staff came in and recruited like it was Urban Meyer taking over, so it can't be an A. Right now, I'd give him a C with a good chance that I'm grading him at a B by the time the offseason moves are finished.
Overall, it's a C- right now with the potential to move that to a C+ in the next month (but probably settle in at a C for his first year).
Glad they took injuries into account.
Other teams have injuries too tini.
How many other teams started offensive players in the secondary again?
Heck of analysis by Yahoo! Buffs need some playmakers. Gee, thanks. Too bad Embree couldn't grow them like sea monkeys.
This analysis is so worthless that if it was only written on squares of toilet paper, the toilet paper would be more valuable for wiping my ass.
We harped enough on the defense during the year. Truth is, the offense and special teams needed to do a lot more. We knew we were going to have to score a lot of points to be in games and win them. Unfortunately, that did not happen for whatever reason. We had experience across the offense too.
I think a D+/C- is about right.
A d is more than fair. I can't wait for the time when they give our coach an a, and it's no longer a surprise.
I think it's fair so far. OTOH, the most important part of his job this year won't be finished until February. If he gets a D on that part of the job, we're in serious trouble...
who cares what the outsiders think! I agree with the D though... but - bad unmotivated players=lots of young kids with play time, (as much as i like and feel for TH) not a legit D1 qb (at least not legit positional coaching), all new staff, new conference, TOUGH schedule - I would not read much into that grade
Seeing that Embree inherited a program that had 4 solid years of F grades, getting a D is like a 20% improvement over the DII years.
I like the criteria you have and a agree on 1 and 3. 2 is soft (not easy to measure) and not sure how we can tell if we are changing or not. I'm optimisic, but its not easy to tell if we are changing.
The team performed at a "D" level, for sure. But to say, given what he had to work with and the mentality that carried over from the previous regime, that the coaching was at a "D" level is a bit unfair. In my opinion. Given the level of talent, I don't think Vince Lombardi reincarnate could have done much better. The biggest dings would be the Hawaii, Cal and WSU games. Conversely, the team seemed to have turned a corner a bit by the end of the year. I'd give the staff an "Incomplete."
I don't buy this "turned a corner" crap. They won 2 out of 3, but that UCLA game was as bad as anything I've seen this side of a mizzou game in the last 6 years. That said, we should definitely be selling that to recruits :lol:
I said "seemed to have." Moreso in terms of "buying in" to what the staff was selling than actual performance on the field.
The way you measure it is by road wins. We got one. Finally. A Hawkins coached team would have pissed down their leg in SLC.
Muschamp should of got an F. Going 6-6 with all of the Florida talent....with wins coming against the likes of Furman, Florida Atlantic and UAB.
On a quantitative basis a D is more than fair for CU's on the field result but I think there is more to it than just that. CU has a lot of rebuilding to do and the results of that effort are not in yet. From my perspective I like the direction that things are moving but it is still a work in progress.
Separate names with a comma.