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!

DEFENSE? 5 sacks! Your thoughts...?

buffsyko

buffsyko

Club Member
Well, I thought the guys did a good job up front. 5 sacks and herrod and nicolas were especially good. Jones was all over the place and walters was just drilling people.

I would like to see more blitzing from our lb's,seemed the coaches were pretty vanilla last night.

Every sack we got my grin got bigger,by the end of the game,I looked like the joker:smile2:

Need to work on not getting sealed on those off-tackle runs.

Good job guys, very nice!
 
Wasn't too bad I thought. CSU was keeping six players in protection for much of the game, so it shouldn't be surprising we struggled at times with just rushing a front four most of the game. It did seem like we chose good spots to use blitzes. I think Herrod could be pretty damn good by the end of the season, and Jones should be a good rusher off the edge occasionally.
 
Some people are complaining that they were coverage sacks. Well, that's even better because I have my concerns about our cb's and I thought they played well with the exception of the blown coverage on morton's td.

I think we'll see more blitzes in the coming weeks but with all these mobile qb's, it makes things much more difficult.

I agree with you on herrod,guy never stops.Still waiting on OBI to make his mark.Nicolas is underated big time.
 
Interesting to note that Cunningham's redshirt was burned yesterday. The coaches must be intent on getting him experience this year. I can't say I disagree with that strategy. We are going to miss Hypo and Nicholas big time next year.
 
Everyone keeps saying 2009 but just what you pointed out,no hypo or nicolas in the middle. That's 2 big losses.Then you add walters and dykes gone at the safety positions and cu will have to score early and often until we get the new guys on pace.

That's why DT recruiting this year is crucial,very crucial.
 
I was really happy with the sacks. I realize we weren't blitzing much, so 5 sacks from the d-line is even sweeter. Thought we could have had a little more pressure, but the lammies were keeping 6 in to protect (and I think 7 on a few occasions).

I don't have any problem with "coverage" sacks. It's reciprocal - good coverage improves your chances for getting sacks; good pressure improves your coverage.

I'm happy with the D overall. The lammies came in with an experienced o-line, huge senior rb's, an exceptional tight end, and the Buffs didn't know exactly what to expect from the new csewe staff (system, formations, etc). Yet the Buffs D held 'em to 10 points. I'd take that every game.
 
We allowed way too many big runs. But we did get sacks and pressure on the QB.
 
Not worried about the D-Line... The secondary scared me as expected. CSU's receivers burned McKay and Brown multiple times (if CSU had a QB it would have been exploited--as it was on CSU's first TD). Eastern Wash threw for 341 yards against Tech on Saturday. :rolleyes:
 
coverage sacks or not, five is outstanding. i hope to be as "unfortunate" every game with respect to sack #'s.
 
I think if we were playing a more experienced quarterback, those sack numbers would have been more like 1 or 2. Chase Daniel isn't going to let that kind of thing happen.

Even so, CU played an extremely vanilla defense. Hardly any blitzes, no disguised coverages, just straight man or zone.

I also think CU took Sperry out of the game, which caused CSU problems. I believe CSU wanted to use Sperry a lot more, but when he was covered, Farris panicked.

All in all, it was a solid defensive effort, but not spectacular. 14 of CSU's 17 points were gifts (short field, blown coverage, missed assignments on the kickoff).
 
DBT said:
We allowed way too many big runs. But we did get sacks and pressure on the QB.
Click to expand...

I thought they had too many big runs, too.

In the final stats, the Rams only had like 4 rushes that were more than 10 yards - but those runs were killer. That Johnson dude had runs of 24 yards, 18 yards, and 11 yard runs. The Rams have always had a powerful running game. They also line up with 2 tights ends, a fullback, and a big ass RB on a regular basis!!

I wish the Buffs would employ that type of offense a bit more, especially with our stable of RB's now.

I wouldn't mind see us lining up in the I-formation every play -- and then if we want to -- shift into a shotgun formation with the backs split beside the QB.
 
Lt.Col.FrankSlade said:
I wouldn't mind see us lining up in the I-formation every play -- and then if we want to -- shift into a shotgun formation with the backs split beside the QB.
Click to expand...

Not saying it's going to happen, but I wouldn't rule it out. This game was as bland as it gets from CU. On offense, no misdirection, no sweeps, no deep balls. I got the impression that they used about a third of their playbook.

It wouldn't shock me to see CU line up in the shotgun, then shift to a power I against WVA & FSU. Show them something they've seen on film, then switch up on them.
 
sackman said:
Not saying it's going to happen, but I wouldn't rule it out. This game was as bland as it gets from CU. On offense, no misdirection, no sweeps, no deep balls. I got the impression that they used about a third of their playbook.

It wouldn't shock me to see CU line up in the shotgun, then shift to a power I against WVA & FSU. Show them something they've seen on film, then switch up on them.
Click to expand...

As I posted on BZ, I believe that the staff's game plan was intentionally conservative for two reasons:

1. Work out the "first game" issues of nerves, game speed, timing etc... Build a foundation of confidence with the basics before moving into the more synchronized portion of the playbood.

2. Not give too many of our capabilities away. Win with the minimal use of the playbook as possible. Rely on the element of surprise at a later date.
 
CSU Husker said:
...Farris needs to learn when to throw the fkn ball away
Click to expand...

That was a huge difference between Cody and Billy. Cody held on took good looks, and then threw it away if he had to. Billy looked panicked a couple of times for sure.
 
The only "true" sack was Herrod's speed rush off the edge. But, overall, I was pleased with the DL play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top