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!
Help Out Bruins Nation, The Colorado Rick Neuheisal Days
- Thread starter RSSBot
- Start date
The great SB Nation UCLA site, Bruins Nation recently sent me some questions pertaining to the playcalling during the Rick Neuheisal days here at Colorado. Since most of you can do a much better job than I can of helping them out, I decided to pose the question to the board.
Here's the question that was asked of me:
While we have been really happy with Neuheisel's recruiting, his disciplinary actions, it's the playcalling that has been perplexing.
From what I can remember from watching the Colorado and Washington teams under Neuheisel, they never came across as being conservative (my memories here are built on bowl games and the high profile Pac-10 games at UDub).
Do you guys remember having issues with Neuheisel due to his conservative playcalling? It's something we have been very surprised by at UCLA. Would love to hear your thoughts on it if you have time. Cheers.
Do me a favor on this one. Please DO NOT turn this into a Rick bashing post. We all know how most of us feel about Neuheisal and quite frankly so do the UCLA fans. Keep the comments strictly about his playing calling while he was here at CU.
Here's the question that was asked of me:
While we have been really happy with Neuheisel's recruiting, his disciplinary actions, it's the playcalling that has been perplexing.
From what I can remember from watching the Colorado and Washington teams under Neuheisel, they never came across as being conservative (my memories here are built on bowl games and the high profile Pac-10 games at UDub).
Do you guys remember having issues with Neuheisel due to his conservative playcalling? It's something we have been very surprised by at UCLA. Would love to hear your thoughts on it if you have time. Cheers.
Do me a favor on this one. Please DO NOT turn this into a Rick bashing post. We all know how most of us feel about Neuheisal and quite frankly so do the UCLA fans. Keep the comments strictly about his playing calling while he was here at CU.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
Neu's teams were good when he had the talented QB he inherited from previous coach. Koy, M. Tuiosopopo.
and D players. was not a fan of "Coach Blitz"/AJ Christoff, but I digress.
and D players. was not a fan of "Coach Blitz"/AJ Christoff, but I digress.
Rick's biggest issue in Boulder was an overall lack of discipline on the football field. His teams were soft, unprepared, and often looked confused. They didn't have a killer instinct. They had difficulties running the ball, even when they had some good RBs and offensive linemen. Too much chuck and duck, not enough fundamental hard nosed football.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
i remember my dad saying that a Neuheisel practice had way too much standing around and non-starters "playing grabass" on the sidelines (direct quote). and that they used to leave the practice field equipment like sleds and those things with the tires and whatnot in disarray after practice. everything left where it was last used. when Barnett came, the practice field had order. after practice, equipment stored in the same places every night. locked down, covered with tarps. that sort of thing. that's what I call attention to details from the ground up and a "little thing" that speaks volumes.
i'm sure it's changed with Rick now (still don't like him), but that was OUR Rick.
As far as play calling, I have to say the couple of times I've watched UCLA this year (vs. UT and vs. Oregon) I've been shocked at the amount of times they run the ball. I know they're running the pistol now, but even Nevada throws out of that formation more than UCLA does. Didn't Prince throw over over 2k last year?
This is unlike any Neuheisel team I've ever seen. When he took over, our offensive philosophy went 180 degrees from where it was. I mean we threw the ball ALL OVER the place. Look at Hessler's stats when he came in for Koy in Rick's first year. Neuheisel's teams, if anything, were exciting to watch. Heckuva a lot more exciting than what we have to watch now. Rick's Baltimore stop must've messed with his head.
This is unlike any Neuheisel team I've ever seen. When he took over, our offensive philosophy went 180 degrees from where it was. I mean we threw the ball ALL OVER the place. Look at Hessler's stats when he came in for Koy in Rick's first year. Neuheisel's teams, if anything, were exciting to watch. Heckuva a lot more exciting than what we have to watch now. Rick's Baltimore stop must've messed with his head.
When Rick had quality O-linemen from prior coaching staffs he was able to do a lot more with the skill position guys which is where he likes to focus his attention. When he took over from Mac CU was strong and deep in the O-line. Rick was able to run just about whatever he wanted to with that line and was very good at changing things up to be effective.
As the linemen graduated and he failed to recruit/develop replacements the entire offense became much less effective. He was not able to get the protection needed for a deep passing game allowing DB's to jump on the short routes, he was unable to dominate on the ground again letting the D dictate what he did on offense.
Seems like the pattern repeated at Washington. He brought in lots of WRs and DBs but failed to pay attention to the guys at the LOS. I haven't followed UCLA closely but I wonder if he hasn't run into some of the same problems. It is hard to run a wide open offense when your QB is on his back and RBs are getting hit in the backfield.
As the linemen graduated and he failed to recruit/develop replacements the entire offense became much less effective. He was not able to get the protection needed for a deep passing game allowing DB's to jump on the short routes, he was unable to dominate on the ground again letting the D dictate what he did on offense.
Seems like the pattern repeated at Washington. He brought in lots of WRs and DBs but failed to pay attention to the guys at the LOS. I haven't followed UCLA closely but I wonder if he hasn't run into some of the same problems. It is hard to run a wide open offense when your QB is on his back and RBs are getting hit in the backfield.