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!

'13 CO OT Dan Skipper (Verbal to Arkansas)

Chris Fox is okay, but Skipper in my opinion is still growing, has the higher ceiling. Its is not about what you did in HS for me, it is about how the player will do in College and the NFL. After saying that wouldn't not mind taking both Skipper and Fox.
Skipper growing is not a good thing. We don't need a 7'0" T. Chris Fox already has offers from CU, Michigan, and I think tO$U. Skipper has a CU offer. Chris Fox is by far the best in-state prospect this cycle.
 
You are right big blocking TE that the coaches moved to OL. The coaches obviously saw him as a OL.

Actually the coaches weren't sure how it would work out for Nate. He was 6-8 240 coming out of Buena Vista, and they weren't sure if his frame would bulk up enough to play OL. Nate said he preferred TE to OT, but he would be willing to switch if it didn't work out.

So to say he was a OL prospect from the very start is incorrect, imo.
 
Skipper growing is not a good thing. We don't need a 7'0" T. Chris Fox already has offers from CU, Michigan, and I think tO$U. Skipper has a CU offer. Chris Fox is by far the best in-state prospect this cycle.

I remember worrying about this with Miller, and Solder. Some folks said he would lose leverage if he grew that tall.
 
Skipper growing is not a good thing. We don't need a 7'0" T. Chris Fox already has offers from CU, Michigan, and I think tO$U. Skipper has a CU offer. Chris Fox is by far the best in-state prospect this cycle.

That's my concern, too. It's going to be tough for him to keep consistent leverage if he gets any taller. There comes a point where that height really becomes a detriment to his QB, too.
 
Chris Fox is okay, but Skipper in my opinion is still growing, has the higher ceiling. Its is not about what you did in HS for me, it is about how the player will do in College and the NFL. After saying that wouldn't not mind taking both Skipper and Fox.

I'll give you this- you stand by your opinions. But Fox just has the ideal build for the type of power running game we're going to see. The kid is just an absolute road grader, and an elite national OL prospect.

Edit- After re-reading this, I don't want to give the opinion I don't like/want Skipper. He does have a lot of potential, and I'd love to see him stay in-state.
 
Actually the coaches weren't sure how it would work out for Nate. He was 6-8 240 coming out of Buena Vista, and they weren't sure if his frame would bulk up enough to play OL. Nate said he preferred TE to OT, but he would be willing to switch if it didn't work out.

So to say he was a OL prospect from the very start is incorrect, imo.


He is the best OL from Colorado to go the NFL in a long time. That makes him in my opinion the best OL prospect out of Colorado in a long time. Most HS players switch positions once they get to College, we can't really project HS players to a certain position untill they get to campus.
 
I'll give you this- you stand by your opinions. But Fox just has the ideal build for the type of power running game we're going to see. The kid is just an absolute road grader, and an elite national OL prospect.

I like Chris Fox, but more as OG and DT. Skipper is more athletic and has that arm length that will help in pass coverage.
 
I have to admit, it's pretty funny reading the banger's posts from time to time. Never informative, usually off base, almost always funny.
 
Most hs players don't switch positions in college what are talking about. Only special cases like Nate Solder do. Or players who are forced to switch because of team needs. I bet every player but Norgard in the 2012 class play a position they played in high school.
 
Most hs players don't switch positions in college what are talking about. Only special cases like Nate Solder do. Or players who are forced to switch because of team needs. I bet every player but Norgard in the 2012 class play a position they played in high school.

is this sarcasm? It happens all the time guys move the o-line to the d-line, from WR to DB.
 
Honestly surprised we offered Skipper so early. Not seeing anything special in the highlights.
 
Honestly surprised we offered Skipper so early. Not seeing anything special in the highlights.

Depends on how highly you value in-state recruiting.

If you come from the angle that CU should be offering early and trying to lock down every in-state player the coaches evaluate as quality Pac-12 caliber players, then this make sense.

If you come from the angle that CU should stack its board with the players from within our recruiting geography and pipelines without regard for what state the player happens to be from, then this may not make sense.
 
is this sarcasm? It happens all the time guys move the o-line to the d-line, from WR to DB.

yes, it happens all the time, but the guy was refuting bigbang's statement that MOST guys switch. MOST do NOT switch. The vast majority of players stay at their current position, but yes, position switches frequently occur.
 
Depends on how highly you value in-state recruiting.

If you come from the angle that CU should be offering early and trying to lock down every in-state player the coaches evaluate as quality Pac-12 caliber players, then this make sense.

If you come from the angle that CU should stack its board with the players from within our recruiting geography and pipelines without regard for what state the player happens to be from, then this may not make sense.

Don't you think this is important, to some degree, to build relationships and expectations in state so that when we do have some real blue chip guys, they might have some in state loyalty, too? Or do you think each recruit is so unique that doesn't matter, they'll always look elsewhere anyway, and it's really wins that matter to get their attention?
 
Don't you think this is important, to some degree, to build relationships and expectations in state so that when we do have some real blue chip guys, they might have some in state loyalty, too? Or do you think each recruit is so unique that doesn't matter, they'll always look elsewhere anyway, and it's really wins that matter to get their attention?

I'm a believer in building pipelines, especially when we're talking about high football character guys you want to go to war with.

I also think that you need to respect the fact that CU is the state's flagship university. There are at least 5 prospects a year from in-state who can play a significant role in a championship Buff program and they should be offered early.
 
Fair points, Nik. I guess it should be noted that how long the coaching staff is willing to wait on a particular prospect is just as important as when the initial offer occurs. Would be interested to know where Sipper fits on the overall board.
 
Honestly surprised we offered Skipper so early. Not seeing anything special in the highlights.

Heard reports that Skipper likes CU. And what i saw on tape is a 6'9" 280 guy who plays low with good leverage, good arm length. Once he gets through his red shirt freshmen and sophomore year, he should be about 320, and dominant. I value OT more than TE, he is my number one prospect. And i am going to predict he is going to be an early commit.
 
Fair points, Nik. I guess it should be noted that how long the coaching staff is willing to wait on a particular prospect is just as important as when the initial offer occurs. Would be interested to know where Sipper fits on the overall board.
In state recruiting, it seems to me, has an entirely different dynamic than out of state. Colorado high school coaches/programs expect CU and CSU to give special consideration to the in state kids. If we get a reputation, deserved or not, of not valuing the in state kids, we can get kind of black balled by coaches. It becomes kind of a pride/ego thing.
 
I just don't like the idea of offering players because they are instate. The staff should go after the best players regardless which state they are from.
 
I just don't like the idea of offering players because they are instate. The staff should go after the best players regardless which state they are from.
Well, there are a lot of factors that go into the decision. It isn't like you just take an in state guy for the sake of it.
 
I just don't like the idea of offering players because they are instate. The staff should go after the best players regardless which state they are from.

I agree. Offering a scholarship to a player simply because of his location, not because of his potential, is a very flawed kind of reasoning.

Reason is not required when one makes decisions, of course. One can use whatever arbitrary or unconscious factors one chooses. One can even make a decision based upon what kind of burrito one likes....or what you think that burrito is telling you...."the burrito said so!" I wouldn't recommend it though... probably leads to indigestion which one then really has to "get over it"
 
I agree. Offering a scholarship to a player simply because of his location, not because of his potential, is a very flawed kind of reasoning.

Reason is not required when one makes decisions, of course. One can use whatever arbitrary or unconscious factors one chooses. One can even make a decision based upon what kind of burrito one likes....or what you think that burrito is telling you...."the burrito said so!" I wouldn't recommend it though... probably leads to indigestion one really has to "get over it"
I'm shocked you two agree. It wasn't arbitrary, I thought the reasoning was so obvious it didn't require explanation. Do you really need reasons explained to you?
 
depends whether the reasons are clear and conscious. We were speaking about the general case, which you seemed to disagree with. And then appeared to ridicule a very valid point.

In the specific case of Skpper, because of his potential, there is ample reason to offer him a scholly
 
We just have to find the right position for him to maximize his potential, maybe LB or S.

~BigBang
 
Back
Top