Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by buffsyko, Aug 11, 2010.
Concerned over the many "I don't know's"...:wow:
That is one bad interview. I am glad Ringo asked him some tough questions and wish he'd asked him how much better is Hirshman than Cody RIGHT NOW!. It is impossible to get excited for this team with these moron coaches. If the team doesn't do well this season and Ambrose is a good coach and Prince is as well, it will be sad to see them go down the drain with Squawk and Keisau.
Eric Kiesau is not a bad coach and he's certainly not a moron.
He's also a class act and a hell of a recruiter.
i feel a battle brewing........
Give the guy a break..I think folks are searching for reasons to criticize the coaches. Basically he said he'd tailor the offense to the personnel, which is what people have been clamoring for the last several years.
I am hoping for a straight forward offense. Less hokey stuff like we have tried to do the last four years.
It seems that's what they are trying for. When they say simplify thats what I get out of it.
I still think EK has a great deal of potential. No inside info, just a guess that he is being told to keep the QB competition open by DH. DH seems to like the idea of every postion being up for grabs. None of this will matter if CU beats CSU.
I think this is a near certainty.
I am too. I get the sense that may be the case. My only concern is that they seem to indicate they are going to be pass heavy. I hope that doesn't mean they are going to neglect the run game.
Roy Polk interview (which is very good and he seems like a very good kid). In it he states that the offense is relying much more heavily on passing. Here is the interview link:
Wonder if actually having some weapons at wr will help open up the running game. All the hokey crap from last year seemed to be directly related to limited options for spreading the field.
I dont have a problem with being pass heavy but you have to run the ball when it counts. TTech has never won a title for a reason. Same with Texas last year, they couldnt run the ball for ****. Nebraska totally let their dline loose because of it and Alabama saw that as well. No running game and wide open might get you points but, in the end, it will be your undoing.
I agree. I think a better passing game will help the running game and vice versa. I just hope we at least have a running game that can be counted on to gain yards when needed and to have at least a moderately balanced offense.
I'm not usually a fan of using the pass to open up the run. However, in the case of CU, opposing defenses are going to stack the LOS until CU can prove that it will hurt them through the air. One of the reasons that the 2001 team was so great at running the ball was because Pesavento could throw the ball downfield to McCoy and Graham.
Very true but we had a very good oline in 2001. The Oregon game still pisses me off, play to Grahamn was a touchdown. Playaction boot would have killed them, their lbs were worried about the run and thats it.
I'm ok with being pass first. I just don't want to be a damn spread team that can't get the ball into the end zone on the ground if we've got a 1st and goal from the 5.
That is when you run the sread option with Tyler and Speedy.....worked awesome against A&M. (Although Hansen shouldn't have pitched that ball) I hope to see more of the option this year.
This. For many reasons. I want to see more of the offense altogether this year because we need to get our defense off the field every now and then. I also want to see more of the option because it means we are close enough or winning so we have the luxury to run it. It also means we aren't in a long yardage second or third down situation. I also think it can be very successful with our athletic QB in TH and our quick running backs.
For those of you concerned about this interview.... would you like the coach to lay out his whole philosophy right there in print? If you ever read an article about Andy Reid, you would think he is a complete idiot!
Separate names with a comma.