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!

CSU at Mile High is now the 2nd game for the Rams

Good or bad for CU that the Rams are playing an opener vs OSU ahead of the RMS?

  • Total voters
    178
  • Poll closed .
Everything Nik says is true, however, you don't lose guys like Chido, Spoon and Tedric and not see a negative impact. I'm less concerned about the front seven than I am about losing those guys. I hope we can put enough pressure on opposing QBs, at least early in the season, that the back end guys can get their feet under them.
 
TSchekler said:
Lol, not the first time I've seen the comparison, obviously. I understand the cautious optimism around this game, but CSU is a middling G5 team. I feel like there is more optimism from our fan base surrounding the UA and ASU games this year than this one... Just defies logic to me.
Click to expand...
Because, at least in my experience, when I go into the game with anything more than cautious optimism, CU gets embarrassed.
 
If this was Nebraska in 2018 coming off a game against a P5 opponent I would say that is a disaster for us but I think it is pretty obvious that G5 teams struggle going up against P5 opponents back to back like that. It tests their depth, their conditioning and their coaching/playcalling so they can't throw everything they have two weeks in a row. Obviously the Buffs need to take CSU seriously though, and Mac had done a good job having his team up and ready to go outside of the 2015 game where we definitely came out flat.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Because, at least in my experience, when I go into the game with anything more than cautious optimism, CU gets embarrassed.
Click to expand...
It's not supernatural, it's because we've basically been a MWC team from 2006 until about 2 years ago. The talent gap hasn't been this wide since maybe the early 2000s? And even then, they had some talented teams.
 
TSchekler said:
It's not supernatural, it's because we've basically been a MWC team from 2006 until about 2 years ago. The talent gap hasn't been this wide since maybe the early 2000s? And even then, they had some talented teams.
Click to expand...
I know it isn't supernatural. The point is that we must always respect our opponent. No matter who it is. Last year CU came out and played CSU as tough as they played Michigan. There was some serious team leadership and some serious talent especially on the defensive side of the ball. Almost all of that is being replaced. CU has always had more talent than the sheep, but they haven't always taken the opponent seriously. That is what I am worried about.

That being said, CSU reworking its schedule is only going to help CU which was the point of this thread. As long as the buffs take care of business in practice leading up to the game, this should be a victory.
 
TSchekler said:
It's not supernatural, it's because we've basically been a MWC team from 2006 until about 2 years ago. The talent gap hasn't been this wide since maybe the early 2000s? And even then, they had some talented teams.
Click to expand...

Really, other than the 2001 run GB's teams were only above average P5 as were RN's after 1996, which put them squarely in danger of an upset against a decent G5 in a rivalry game. So, in retrospect, it shouldn't be surprising that we had a lot of close games between 1997 and 2015 and only went 12-7 in those games overall.

64-22-2. Need to win these last 4 in the series and get our winning percentage over 70% all-time for the RMS.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
I know it isn't supernatural. The point is that we must always respect our opponent. No matter who it is. Last year CU came out and played CSU as tough as they played Michigan. There was some serious team leadership and some serious talent especially on the defensive side of the ball. Almost all of that is being replaced. CU has always had more talent than the sheep, but they haven't always taken the opponent seriously. That is what I am worried about.

That being said, CSU reworking its schedule is only going to help CU which was the point of this thread. As long as the buffs take care of business in practice leading up to the game, this should be a victory.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with the bolded, and neither do the results in head to head or our general level of play outside of that game. Went 5-4 against CSU from 2006 to 2014 with other losses to Montana State and Sac State, while getting blown out in almost every conference game since we entered the Pac 12. We have not always had more talent than CSU.
 
TSchekler said:
I don't agree with the bolded, and neither do the results in head to head or our general level of play outside of that game. Went 5-4 against CSU from 2006 to 2014 with other losses to Montana State and Sac State, while getting blown out in almost every conference game since we entered the Pac 12. We have not always had more talent than CSU.
Click to expand...
This post alone underscores, for me at least, the much needed participation of 'tini in this thread. The off season is here and some over-the-top, can't get enough sunshine, full contact posting is needed for comic relief.
 
The strategy of sandbagging expectations around the CSU game isn't a bad one.

Spring practices weren't public. CU has lost some high impact seniors. There has been major upheaval on the defensive coaching staff, which doesn't exactly look like an upgrade.

So, yeah, it's probably wise to dial back expectations that were established last year. That glorious 44-7 whooping was the largest margin of victory against CSU since 1956.

This year's result might look a little more like 1989 or 1995 or 1997.
 
There really isn't a reason that CSU should be in this game with us. They will have spent their initial season enthusiasm on trying to open their new stadium on a positive note, they will likely be beat up from playing a team that is not only more talented than they are but also plays a physical style of game. We will also have film on them.

We on the other hand will have some surprises for them. We will have a new starting QB but one who has started a couple of games against much better teams than CSU so he shouldn't have those first start jitters. We have bigger, faster players and more depth.

With all this I still worry. Despite the new stadium factor this is still their Super Bowl, this is the game that they spend each year looking forward to. Bigger than that I still remember the Hawaii fiasco. That was a game we had no business losing but we found a way to do so and we can't blame that one on the prior coaches, M2 was in charge that day.

Bottom line is that CSU can't beat us but we can beat us. We better have our act together and not play like they are going to give the game to us because they won't. Even with a 10 win season last year we can't take this one for granted, if we are ready to play we win easily, if not this board won't be pretty after the game.
 
We should worry about CSU.

Veteran team with an offense that has senior playmakers at QB (Stevens), RB (Dawkins) and WR (Gallup) and a defense that returns pretty much everyone. This is a tough opener, guys. Pretty much like the last Sparkles team in 2014, this is the group that Bobo is hoping to ride out of town to a bigger job.
 
Uncle Ken said:
Science!
Click to expand...
05a7edebaba2be60d2a90f8b38109846.jpg
 
CU's offense should put up big numbers vs the rams. I expect csu's offense to play much better but still see CU winning betwen 10-14 points.

Sure, it's better to have already played a game, but talent and coaching goes to CU. Unless our new DC and coaches are clueless, this should be a win period.
 
Buffnik said:
I think the number of starters being replaced is overstated a bit. Beyond Fo, Gamboa and McCartney returning, we've got a number of quasi starters returning (guys who have started or won POTY in the past) such as Moeller, White, Jackson, Oliver, Fisher and Falo. Then other upperclassmen for depth who have seen the field a lot such as Coleman, Franke and even Frazier if he plays defense along with JUCOs who are reinforcing the 2-deep and may even start such as Edwards, Mulumba, Wigley, Hamilton and George along with some upperclassmen who will play significant roles such as Lewis and Hasselbach. Yes, we lost a lot. But I've seen people call this defense "young" and I don't think that's the case. It's mostly upperclassmen and veteran except for the likelihood of a frosh or soph starting at CB2. It only starts skewing young if the talent from some of the underclassmen rise up... and that would be a very good thing.
Click to expand...

The defense is not young, but it is fair to question how it will all come together, especially in game one.
 
Buffnik said:
Agreed. Lots of question marks and new parts with new coaches.
Click to expand...

Which is why I laugh at some people wanting our offense to ditch balance and go more Air Raid. Seems like a recipe for disaster with a defense trying to establish an identity.
 
Duff Man said:
Which is why I laugh at some people wanting our offense to ditch balance and go more Air Raid. Seems like a recipe for disaster with a defense trying to establish an identity.
Click to expand...

The balance this year is tipped toward 3rd down conversions to control the game vs generating explosive plays, I think. Coverage teams performing and limiting our turnovers also huge.

With that, I think this defense has the talent to be very good as the season progresses. I just don't see it coming out of the chute like it did for the CSU game last season.
 
**** that, I don't wanna see Air Raid. Wanna see a run game as well. If it has to happen in certain situations in games, so be it. Don't abandon running the ball though. Ill go watch that garbage at a 7 on 7 contest. The game has changed a bit from years past but you don't have to throw it ****ing 70 times to win games.
 
Buffnik said:
I think the number of starters being replaced is overstated a bit. Beyond Fo, Gamboa and McCartney returning, we've got a number of quasi starters returning (guys who have started or won POTY in the past) such as Moeller, White, Jackson, Oliver, Fisher and Falo. Then other upperclassmen for depth who have seen the field a lot such as Coleman, Franke and even Frazier if he plays defense along with JUCOs who are reinforcing the 2-deep and may even start such as Edwards, Mulumba, Wigley, Hamilton and George along with some upperclassmen who will play significant roles such as Lewis and Hasselbach. Yes, we lost a lot. But I've seen people call this defense "young" and I don't think that's the case. It's mostly upperclassmen and veteran except for the likelihood of a frosh or soph starting at CB2. It only starts skewing young if the talent from some of the underclassmen rise up... and that would be a very good thing.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel. There's bound to be a drop off, you don't lose that many draft caliber players and not have one, but at the same time, the "replacing 9 starters" storyline is missing some important pieces. We have plenty of guys returning that have had big time minutes in big time games, something that most teams losing that many starters don't have.

BUT, then you have losing Leavitt. There's where I worry. Not enough to think we won't outscore CSU, but going forward into the conference season, I worry about the defensive side of the ball from a coaching standpoint.
 
Alfred91 said:
BUT, then you have losing Leavitt. There's where I worry. Not enough to think we won't outscore CSU, but going forward into the conference season, I worry about the defensive side of the ball from a coaching standpoint.
Click to expand...
There's definitely valid concern from a playcalling standpoint, no doubt. Eliot has a lot to prove in that regard. I do, however, think the loss of Clark and Tumpkin for game day coaching is a little overplayed. Sure, Tumpkin was the halftime X's and O's guy, but not because he was the guy coming up with and creating the adjustments, but rather he was the one relaying and implementing them to the defense. Els, Eliot and/or Brown are plenty capable of doing the same thing.
 
These threads make me thank Tini isn't around anymore shouting everyone down that doesn't have the exact same opinion has him. This would be at 10 pages with half of them coming from him/her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top