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!

O-line vs D-line

XIIfan

XIIfan

Club Member
Club Member
I don't think anyone would disagree that both the O and D-line make or break a team over the course of a season. I think many of our disappointments over the past few seasons (almost a decade really)on both sides of the ball can be directly linked to the lines. What I can't figure out though is why we can have NFL caliber linemen and still not have a successful line. Is it possible for a single O-lineman to be a game changer like a dominant DT can be? Do they need to play more as a unit to be successful rather than just a crazy kick-***** beast up the middle? We seem to be targeting more of a "right fit" for OT and OG but beasts for the DL. Thoughts?
 
Lot of stuff here.

A single dominant D-lineman with decent support can make a huge impact on a game. The corresponding great O-linemen is much easier for a defense to scheme around and negate impact.

Also as you said, the O-line is very much a unit that requires all parts to work together. If a player in the D-line doesn't perform on a play the cost to the team can be minimized by the other defensive players, even if the play goes after his responsiblities.

On the other hand if the whole O-line works except one part, the play is still potentially blown up.
 
OL cohesion is more important than DL cohesion.

As far as this recruiting class, we just have not gained much traction in OL recruiting. It has little to do with us being selective.
 
On the OL, there is definitely a prototype we are looking for. Marshall wants 6'5" guys with long arms, good feet, and a nice base. He'll develop them from there. The only real selectivity has been related to guys who are too short for us or not athletic enough. With the highly-rated guys, this isn't an issue and we have simply missed.
 
Better land start landing some OL (Davidson, Cyburt, Siragusa) Although I don't think we're in the lead for any of them
 
sliderNcider said:
Better land start landing some OL (Davidson, Cyburt, Siragusa) Although I don't think we're in the lead for any of them
Click to expand...

While it is never good to whiff on so many OL in one class, we can absorb the blow a little bit because of what we signed in the last class. Makes next year pretty important in that regard though.
 
Boulder Buff said:
While it is never good to whiff on so many OL in one class, we can absorb the blow a little bit because of what we signed in the last class. Makes next year pretty important in that regard though.
Click to expand...

can you explain that a bit more for those of us who are not as up to date on recruiting and depth as you are, please. what are you seeing with the last class that makes you think this? thanks!
 
I'm still holding out hope for a couple of O linemen. I still don't understand how we whiffed on all the in-state guys (unless we get an unexpected change before signing day). I never expected to get all of them, but to get none is puzzling. You'd think at least one of them would be attracted by what CU offers.
 
4DemBuffs said:
can you explain that a bit more for those of us who are not as up to date on recruiting and depth as you are, please. what are you seeing with the last class that makes you think this? thanks!
Click to expand...

Not BB but I think it's partially due to #'s. We brought in 5 OL last year (Nembot, Asiata, Mustoe, Lewis, and Cotner). Asiata and Lewis will probably start next year, and Nembot looks like a future stud at Tackle. 3 good young OL... but we still need some OL this class... as we do every year
 
Unit. Nuff said

Another point (by extension) is I care less about star-ratings wilt OL than any other position by far. 5 star guys are generally just more physically ready at 18. Miller vs Bahtiari.

A big, explosive DL is God given. Big fast WRs or tall strong-armed QBs.... Tall CBs who can be physical and run 4.4s.... All gifted. You have it or you don't. Most other positions there are less differences between 2 and 5 stars. IMO.
 
I'm just glad Embree is emphasizing recruiting the OL/DL. Hawk did ok at OL... but his DL recruiting was terrible. Only taking one DL in the 08' class (Cunningham) and Poston/Poole a diff class is just BAD
 
sliderNcider said:
Not BB but I think it's partially due to #'s. We brought in 5 OL last year (Nembot, Asiata, Mustoe, Lewis, and Cotner). Asiata and Lewis will probably start next year, and Nembot looks like a future stud at Tackle. 3 good young OL... but we still need some OL this class... as we do every year
Click to expand...

thanks. that is pretty much what i was looking for. mostly i was wondering if any of the guys listed from last years class were serious contenders for PT and if they had some real potential. i appriciate the feedback.
 
I would be happy with 1 more OL and 2 more DL

Wish list

Davidson-OT
Borne-DT
Breslin DE



Depth next year


LOT- Bakhtiari(sp), Nembot, Davidson
LOG- Asiata, Munyer or crabb, Irwin
C- Handler, Kelly or Cotner
ROT- Munyer or Crabb, Kelly or Cotner, Kough
ROT-Daniewitz or Harris, Mustoe, lewis


DE- Uzo Diribe, Jagne, Stuart
DT- Pericak, Borne,Henington
DT- Solis, Topou, Bonsu,
DE- Breslin, Juda Parker, Wilson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top