DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
After last night, snow be damned, I think Lake is my number one now.
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!
Jimmy Lake - DC Washington
- Thread starter dio
- Start date
Sykobuff
Well-Known Member
How do you know that one of the Junta isn't RG in real life?
He wouldn't move threads as much?
As I posted on 247, here's where I'm at on Lake so it's clear that I'm not negative:
My preference is to go with an offensive innovator with this hire, but nobody should be disparaging Lake. Elite recruiter. Top defensive mind. CU would be following a pretty successful formula of identifying the best assistant at the best program in your conference and hiring him away to give you what they've got (while hurting them).
My preference is to go with an offensive innovator with this hire, but nobody should be disparaging Lake. Elite recruiter. Top defensive mind. CU would be following a pretty successful formula of identifying the best assistant at the best program in your conference and hiring him away to give you what they've got (while hurting them).
jizzrag85
Well-Known Member
In a perfect world, RG moves the needle with an established name bringing credibility to recruiting efforts. I’d much prefer hiring a guy who is a known recruiter everywhere he’s been. Not just a guy who has been great in areas with great recruiting. Offense/defense to me doesn’t matter, you hire coordinators for that stuff. I dont want offensive innovation, i want a team that will punch you in the mouth until you give up. We get that by hitting home runs in recruiting and getting size where size is needed. I’d prefer a guy with a large persona who is going to bring swagger back to CU.
Ripp
Woke bitch
I like the idea of hiring a defensive mind as HC and then hiring an offensive guru as OC. The reason being, I think defensive minded coaches tend to be more structured and disciplined. I know that could be argued until the buffaloes come home but I just think defensive minds demand more from their players overall.
I would rather win a game 35-17 than 45-42 because when the defense gets that porous things can go wrong quickly depending on circumstances. I'd rather have a more balanced structure, approach, and discipline throughout the team rather than it being lopsided either offensively or defensively.
/shrug
At the end of the day, a lot of things have to come together for a team to be successful. Perhaps we're all wrong and the best coach out there is a ST coach lol. But, I like Lake's recruiting prowess, teaching ability, and charisma. I think he's going to go a long way wherever he ends up. Hopefully here.
Either way can work. Spurrier won. Urban won. Etc. You can win and have a great organization with an offensive coach just as well as with a defensive coach. Important thing is to get the right coach and then spend for coordinating the other side of the ball. And regardless of the direction, hire ninja recruiters for the staff.
Ripp
Woke bitch
No doubt, recruiting is key. Gotta have stud recruiters throughout the staff. Things tend to fall in line easier when you have 4* and 5* recruits runnin' around.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
RG needs to give this next staff the green light to bring back the hookers and blow parties.
That’s what a top notch recruiter is going to say.
I’ve posted this before but my preference will always be a defensive guy because I think they know more about offenses than offensive guys know about defenses so they can be a better sounding board as a head coach but that doesn’t mean you take a defensive guy every time.
I’ve posted this before but my preference will always be a defensive guy because I think they know more about offenses than offensive guys know about defenses so they can be a better sounding board as a head coach but that doesn’t mean you take a defensive guy every time.
It won the super bowl last year.
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
Ok, but how many Super Bowls has it won in total? A sample of one doesn't mean much.
Ha. You definitely see more defensive coaches pick an OC based on knowing what they have trouble stopping. Offensive coaches tend to have an attitude that there hasn't been a defense designed that should give them trouble. So I definitely get where you're coming from. You just can't get one of those defensive coaches who comes in with the attitude that the offense needs to be mostly about avoiding mistakes and protecting his defense with ball control (something MM reverted to whenever things got difficult).
49ers (80s), Cowboys (90s), Rams (Vermeil), Saints, Packers, Colts and most of Belichick's teams all won because their offense controlled the game.
You thinking the Bears have a better shot at the trophy than the Saints or Rams this year?
DrunkRalphie
Well-Known Member
I'm saying you can nitpick examples of anything you want. I'd rather have a balanced team than one extreme or another. That's all.
Where I'm at is that I think it's easier to get to very good with an offensive team, but I think what gets you to "great" regardless of system is whether your OL and DL can take over games against the really good opponents.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
https://www.thenewstribune.com/sports/college/pac-12/university-of-washington/article99205432.html
I've liked Lake a lot, but now I'm on the bandwagon. He's got the right kind of personality for this team right now-complete opposite of HCMM while bringing the right kind of swagger-He's an elite recruiter, and he knows it. Look at the I can drop into any city anywhere and relate to the coaches and their families line. He's a damn good football coach, and he knows it-look at what he said last night after his defense shut down Wazzu again. Get this one done.
Since it's been in the NFL one year or so, one out of one
Ripp
Woke bitch
Agreed.
Also, people tend to forget that offensive and defensive tendencies are cyclical so in a few years it's most likely going to trend back toward defenses as they figure out the new offenses. I'm all for the balance with a smart, defensive-minded HC who is pliable and knows how to find quality OCs and staff. But most of all, he's gotta be a recruiting stud.
The rules are making it less and less cyclical. Great offenses have been the trend for a while now and I doubt that’s going to be curbed much in the future. There are only a select few teams in the country who can recruit effectively enough to have a dominant offense and a dominant defense, and even those teams ultimately give up points when facing other great offenses. See last years CFP.
This is an argument FOR JLake IMO. You need a dominant defensive recruiting staff to keep up!
Doesn't mean anything. Broncos just won the SB 2 years ago. Dominant defense can win championship, dominant offense with mediocre defense can not. Haven't we learned some lessons from the broncos just a few years ago?
Saying winning the super bowl means nothing is a really interesting argument. Good luck .
The offense has to be elite for it to matter at the end of the day. Take 2016 for example. Buffs had a pretty great defense and ended up getting boat raced by both Washington and OSU, because their offense was so inept against better defensive team. UW had a great defense as well, but OSU wasn’t anything special. Point is, even great defenses are going to get score on. If your offense can’t score points, it doesn’t matter. Offense first.
That was a top 3-5 all time defense and it was honestly extremely luck to even be in the Super Bowl. Seattle 2013 and 2001 Ravens are the others in the past 18 years that qualify for that. It’s the exception, not the rule.
Just saying one particular example means nothing. It's not like most of the super bowl were won by offense in the past 5-10 years
I'm not saying offense doesn't matter. I'm saying I don't believe the history is telling us offense comes first.
The winning team has scored 27 or more points in the Super Bowl in 8/10 years and 31 or more in 6 of those. Offense first.
Yep. And it applies to college, too. Last year we got an SEC matchup in the title game, resulting in a 26-23 final score. Previous years of CFP championship saw total points of 66, 85 and 62. Average points by national champions has been 37. If anyone thinks the path is to try to build a team that wins 20-10 type games on a consistent basis, you're going in the wrong direction.
If you ignore the context of why I pointed out the example and the very short history of the air raid in the NFL, you can say that I guess. I was responding to a person making an inaccurate statement. You are arguing something else.
No one should be trying to win 20-10, just as they should not be trying to win most games 52-45.
It's almost as if really good teams need both.