New depth chart released - Crawley to start

[Duff Man]

Too bad we couldn't close Devin Lucien

No doubt.

Highlander, I respect your opinion, but all I really got out of that post is we have a bunch of solid guys who might be good at some point down the line. A nice way of saying we have a bunch of 2s and 3s. Hopefully that changes sooner rather than later.

 

[Dark Bohner]

I have to say that I am pretty comfortable with the depth chart. There is a very good mix of veterans and new talent. All I had hear was that our team was going to be starting 15 true freshman from the alarmists. It looks like the guys that will be getting on the field will be because they are the best player.

The defense looks like it could be greatly improved this year.

 

[CUAviator]

updated depth chart.

http://www.cubuffs.com/fls/600/gameday/2012/depth_chart.pdf

I didn't really notice - but did this one change since the original was put up on the 24th? Maybe just some corrections to "letters earned" and whatnot???

 

[Leon Sandcastle]

No doubt.

Highlander, I respect your opinion, but all I really got out of that post is we have a bunch of solid guys who might be good at some point down the line. A nice way of saying we have a bunch of 2s and 3s. Hopefully that changes sooner rather than later.

Based on your opinion about how the coaches are going about this, I expect you to be frustrated for many years. We are never going to be Alabama or USC. Embree clearly stated when he arrived that his goal, his model, was more in line with the Wisky and Iowa model. Recruit mostly solid 3* kids that are very solid football players, base it upon your own evaluation, sprinkle in a big time recruit here or there, and develop, develop, develop. But they (the kids) HAVE to fit what you want to do, from a personality, physical and mental aspect. I hear a lot of people gripe about lack of production from the coaches as it relates to recruiting...."they were supposed to be lights out recruiters" etc...well, I look at it more as they have recruited exactly the kind of kids that they want in here to this point. People will say that that is spin BS...but IMO, it is hard to argue with when it has been Embree's publicly stated model since day one.

This article continues to confirm it...

http://www.buffzone.com/cu-news/ci_21397758/recruiting-foundation-reach-goals-cu-buffs-football

 

[slider]

We need to stay healthy at OL, RB, and DE (CUD mainly) for this season to be a success. There is a huge drop off after the #1's at these positions

 

[BuffClass90]

Still not excited about the offense, but the D is looking better. A full year under their belts, and this team should be pretty good next year. Still guessing 4-6 wins...hoping for 7.

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Based on your opinion about how the coaches are going about this, I expect you to be frustrated for many years. We are never going to be Alabama or USC. Embree clearly stated when he arrived that his goal, his model, was more in line with the Wisky and Iowa model. Recruit mostly solid 3* kids that are very solid football players, base it upon your own evaluation, sprinkle in a big time recruit here or there, and develop, develop, develop. But they (the kids) HAVE to fit what you want to do, from a personality, physical and mental aspect. I hear a lot of people gripe about lack of production from the coaches as it relates to recruiting...."they were supposed to be lights out recruiters" etc...well, I look at it more as they have recruited exactly the kind of kids that they want in here to this point. People will say that that is spin BS...but IMO, it is hard to argue with when it has been Embree's publicly stated model since day one.

This article continues to confirm it...

http://www.buffzone.com/cu-news/ci_21397758/recruiting-foundation-reach-goals-cu-buffs-football

I can't understand why these people expect this group of coaches to be pulling 4 & 5 star recruits when the team has been to 1 bowl game in the past 7 years. Just because we love the university and know the team history means nothing. This team has sucked most of the duration of recruit aged kids interest in college football.

 

[Buffalo Brad]

I can't understand why these people expect this group of coaches to be pulling 4 & 5 star recruits when the team has been to 1 bowl game in the past 7 years. Just because we love the university and know the team history means nothing. This team has sucked most of the duration of recruit aged kids interest in college football.

Agree, they are going to show that they develop talent they have and start winning games on a regular basis. Have to start winning games we are not supposed to in order to get the attention of these kids.

 

[tante]

I think Washington is the best comparison you can make with another school. I think everyone can agree that Washington has turned around very nicely and we would probably be happy if we followed a similar path. Here is how our two schools mirror each other:

National Championship:
CU = 1990, Washington = 1991


last BCS Bowl apperance:
CU = 2001 Fiesta Bowl, Washington = 2000 Rose Bowl


low point that ended career of previous coach:
CU = 28 point comeback by Kansas in 2010, Washington = 2008 0-12 season


recruiting rankings of new class:
Washington (2009): #68(rivals), #66(scout)
Colorado (2011): #74(rivals), #62(scout)

recruiting rankings of 2nd class:
Washington (2010): #28(rivals), #11(scout)
Colorado (2012): #36(rivals), #29(scout)


just for the record Washington went 5-7 in 2009, which we could have done with an easier schedule and went 7-5 (7-6 with bowl win). Which would be considered wildly successful by our expectations for the season. I don't know how many freshman that Washington had to play but I can't imagine they had a lot of good upperclassman after going 0-12 shortly before.

 

[GoonieBuff]

I think Washington is the best comparison you can make with another school. I think everyone can agree that Washington has turned around very nicely and we would probably be happy if we followed a similar path. Here is how our two schools mirror each other:

National Championship:
CU = 1990, Washington = 1991


last BCS Bowl apperance:
CU = 2001 Fiesta Bowl, Washington = 2000 Rose Bowl


low point that ended career of previous coach:
CU = 28 point comeback by Kansas in 2010, Washington = 2008 0-12 season


recruiting rankings of new class:
Washington (2009): #68(rivals), #66(scout)
Colorado (2011): #74(rivals), #62(scout)

recruiting rankings of 2nd class:
Washington (2010): #28(rivals), #11(scout)
Colorado (2012): #36(rivals), #29(scout)


just for the record Washington went 5-7 in 2009, which we could have done with an easier schedule and went 7-5 (7-6 with bowl win). Which would be considered wildly successful by our expectations for the season. I don't know how many freshman that Washington had to play but I can't imagine they had a lot of good upperclassman after going 0-12 shortly before.

Wow. Great comparison & numbers. Rep.

 

[CenturyBuff]

Wow. Great comparison & numbers. Rep.

I'll second that. Nice work!

 

[Jaximus]

So is liufau our jake locker?

 

[Quattro]

nm

 

[White_Rabbit]

My concern with BK is not so much that WR is looking weak this year. Most of it was really not avoidable. My issue is that our Dallas area recruiting hasn't been what I was hoping for. Last cycle was solid with the 3 WRs + Hobbs. Before that was fairly weak, although Vincent was sounding promising. This year is again looking pretty weak. Compare that to our Houston area recruiting headlined by Kanavis and it's not even close.

And the 3 WRs we have this year are <<<<<<<< than last years 3.

 

[Darth Snow]

methinks there is some trickery on the depth chart.