The media, everyone associated with the Oregon program, etc.
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!
Other Pac 12 games, discussion thread...
- Thread starter Liver
- Start date
aghcsm
Well-Known Member
Cant argue that. It's always the case that each successive game better defines the team, but this year in particular I suspect we'll be learning the capabilities, limitations and character of the 2016 edition game-by-game.
Look for ASU to struggle to contain TT
Stanford isn't going to lose games on the LOS. Washington is a good team that has made big strides but until somebody matches up with Stanford up front they have to be the favorite.
Just hope they don't have a stupid loss like they have had in recent years. PAC12 needs a solid candidate for the playoffs this year and Stanford looks like the best bet.
Just hope they don't have a stupid loss like they have had in recent years. PAC12 needs a solid candidate for the playoffs this year and Stanford looks like the best bet.
Utah was not good on offense but I saw potential. If the QB develops they will win south. You know ST and D will be solid.
CU wins the South. Heard it here first
We should remember that WSU lost it's opener to Portland State last year, then barely beat a bad Rutgers team by a field goal. They finished 7-2 beating Oregon in Eugene, Arizona in Tucson, ASU and UCLA at home and (most impressively) losing a 2-point game to Stanford.
It's early......
It's early......
fify
Exactly right. What happens the first week is not necessarily indicative of how teams will perform all season.
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
As Duff would say, people should "slow their roll" or something like that. The team looked very good in game 1. However, the CSU DL and DBs were more than a little suspect and the whole team seamed very poorly coached.
Leavitt was throwing very vanilla blitz packages at their OL, and they reacted much like the Buffs did last year against Hawaii with them. Their most experienced position group looked lost, probably because they had been practicing against High School kids all spring and fall. We mostly had our way with those same High School kids.
Buff fans should be enthusiastic, but I'd also be careful with the kool-aide when it comes to most areas. I'm confident in saying that our DBs are very very solid.
Leavitt was throwing very vanilla blitz packages at their OL, and they reacted much like the Buffs did last year against Hawaii with them. Their most experienced position group looked lost, probably because they had been practicing against High School kids all spring and fall. We mostly had our way with those same High School kids.
Buff fans should be enthusiastic, but I'd also be careful with the kool-aide when it comes to most areas. I'm confident in saying that our DBs are very very solid.
Poster on Reddit made a great point.
CU is the only pac-12 south team with a win over an FBS opponent.
We're gonna win
CU is the only pac-12 south team with a win over an FBS opponent.
We're gonna win
Reminds me of something I decided not to post before the CSU game. I asked a CSU players' Dad how they looked at QB and he replied that it was impossible to tell because their WRs were so bad and their DBs were worse. I decided he was sandbagging, but I don't think he was.
In other words kids, "don't drink that Koolaid just yet..."
Just go sommelier style - swish and spit.
Our WR are still terrible, yes?
No - Ross and Bobo are improved for sure and I'm almost optimistic on their development. But will wait a few weeks to judge.
Are they "deep" or our "position of greatest strength" as was stated a month ago? No. Guys were gushing the first day that we saw Huntley in shorts (it's all here in black and white). We will be much better there next year when we have some more true-frosh pushing everyone.
No comment on Fields?
Yeah, where was he?
Getting open.
He wasn't targeted much other than the one deep ball. JayMac either. Fields appeared to struggle blocking more than The others as well.
3 catches for 80 yards....
What do you have against Fields? He caught 3 passes for 79 yards and one near TD (26 yards per target). All 3 catches went for more than 10 yards (all first downs!) and I believe he caught all three in the first half, or even the first quarter, when the game was still in doubt. After that things shut down other than the penalty assisted deep throw to Bobo. Every time he was targeted, it went for a big play. Sounds like a pretty legit deep threat to me.
I agree that his blocking was bad - I think Jaymac's was better. Talk about an improvement there.
But to just say he wasn't targeted as much and move on to the one weakness in his game? Dishonesty through omition. What's with your bias?
Last edited:
somebody
Well-Known Member
Hitting him with legalese?
I didn't realize he put up 79. Not bad, but I thought he'd be our feature guy.
Shay will be fine, I'm quite sure their secondary prepared for him more than any other receiver.