What's new
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!

1990s Buffs running plays used by Manning and the Colts

huskermike

Member
I don't know how many here read the smartfootball blog, but it's usually a good read. He makes reference to the early 1990s CU running plays in this analysis of the Colts offense.

"And Manning’s menu of plays are both simple and have been constant for a decade. For runs, he basically has three choices: outside zone (the most common), inside zone, and draw (there are a few others mixed in as well). Believe it or not, the run game comes basically verbatim from what the University of Colorado did in the early 1990s (except for the option runs, of course) — football is not as complicated as people think."

http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/smart-football-super-bowl-preview-manning-vs-brees#more-802
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dio
Very interesting. I'm not sure I see the connection as most of our runs were out of the Wishbone - maybe he's talking about everything we did from the Blockbuster Bowl and beyond (when Mac changed the offense)?
 
CU ran the I-bone, not wishbone.
Starting in '92, CU went away from a staihgt triple option look and began incorporating some zone blocking stuff into the O. There were still some option plays but the O began morphing away from the triple option in '92 after Hagan ran the new look O in the Blockbuster Bowl v. AL.

As far as the OL goes, there's no functional difference in the wishbone and the I-bone. The differences are in the backfield sets and blocking schemes. The beauty of the I-Bone is it allowed more flexibility in the pass game. The version of the triple the service academies and GT use "breaks" the bone and puts HBs on the edge in way that started with the I-Bone. The action up front with the OL is almost exactly the same....

FB really isn't as complicated as many make it out to be. In the end it is fielding a team that understands what their assignments are and is looking to physically beat the other guy. Some coaches can get teams rolling, some can't. It isn't low gravity physics...
 
Last edited:
Cool find. Thanks!

Not to derail the thread, but the story below is interesting:

The Raiders can clinch their second AFC West title in three years by beating either the Seahawks on Sunday or the Rams in Anaheim in the Monday Night finale.
 
I don't know how many here read the smartfootball blog, but it's usually a good read. He makes reference to the early 1990s CU running plays in this analysis of the Colts offense.

"And Manning’s menu of plays are both simple and have been constant for a decade. For runs, he basically has three choices: outside zone (the most common), inside zone, and draw (there are a few others mixed in as well). Believe it or not, the run game comes basically verbatim from what the University of Colorado did in the early 1990s (except for the option runs, of course) — football is not as complicated as people think."

http://smartfootball.com/grab-bag/smart-football-super-bowl-preview-manning-vs-brees#more-802

Would those plays be from the era when Caldwell was on Mac's staff??
 
Starting in '92, CU went away from a staihgt triple option look and began incorporating some zone blocking stuff into the O. There were still some option plays but the O began morphing away from the triple option in '92 after Hagan ran the new look O in the Blockbuster Bowl v. AL.

As far as the OL goes, there's no functional difference in the wishbone and the I-bone. The differences are in the backfield sets and blocking schemes. The beauty of the I-Bone is it allowed more flexibility in the pass game. The version of the triple the service academies and GT use "breaks" the bone and puts HBs on the edge in way that started with the I-Bone. The action up front with the OL is almost exactly the same....

FB really isn't as complicated as many make it out to be. In the end it is fielding a team that understands what their assignments are and is looking to physically beat the other guy. Some coaches can get teams rolling, some can't. It isn't low gravity physics...

1991 Blockbuster bowl we switched full time to the 1 back offense with NO option game. I was moved to Left tackle for pass pro(long arms). We ran inside zone (called 4 & 5) and outside zone (7 & 8). There was no morphing, it was a radical shift. Hagan ran it one bowl game and Kordell, Koy and Duke Tobin took the reigns from there. The off-set guard look of 94 began evolving in 93...
 
1991 Blockbuster bowl we switched full time to the 1 back offense with NO option game. I was moved to Left tackle for pass pro(long arms). We ran inside zone (called 4 & 5) and outside zone (7 & 8). There was no morphing, it was a radical shift. Hagan ran it one bowl game and Kordell, Koy and Duke Tobin took the reigns from there. The off-set guard look of 94 began evolving in 93...

I really liked the off-set guard stuff.

The offense since 2006 has been mostly a shambles. There were a few sparks of life in 2007. What will they do next??
 
The offense has been a joke for a lot longer than 2006. They don't call him Shortbus for nothing.

You did get that right. The last decent offense was 2002. Marshall and Bieniemy influence was gone after that. It's been a long wait and I'm still waiting.
 
1991 Blockbuster bowl we switched full time to the 1 back offense with NO option game. I was moved to Left tackle for pass pro(long arms). We ran inside zone (called 4 & 5) and outside zone (7 & 8). There was no morphing, it was a radical shift. Hagan ran it one bowl game and Kordell, Koy and Duke Tobin took the reigns from there. The off-set guard look of 94 began evolving in 93...
I stand corrected. I thought Kordell ran some option though, didn't he?
 
I stand corrected. I thought Kordell ran some option though, didn't he?

they ran some. one of the TD's KS threw to Westbrook @ michigan was off a option play action. plus if i remember correctly, the fumble KS had at the goal line was on an option play.
 
As far as the OL goes, there's no functional difference in the wishbone and the I-bone. The differences are in the backfield sets and blocking schemes. The beauty of the I-Bone is it allowed more flexibility in the pass game. The version of the triple the service academies and GT use "breaks" the bone and puts HBs on the edge in way that started with the I-Bone. The action up front with the OL is almost exactly the same...
And this is what I was referring to but failed to note, the O-line can run the old CU blocking scheme without being in a wishbone backfield as Mac did in the early 90s.
 
The 1994 offense was my favorite since I've been a CU fan. If that team didnt run up points and yards, usually it was because of penalties and/or turnovers. They werent really stopped unless they stopped themselves.
 
By 94, they did have some option back...but when I left in 92 there was none, and after Kordell left it got scarce again...
 
Back
Top