Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Wise Old Man, Jul 8, 2008.
I like it, it keeps the defense moving and spread out. They can't cheat on dive plays because they have to be religious about the end-around, reverse, etc. It just gives them one more thing to worry about. Not to mention that we are quickly developing speed on our team, and it is likely to only grow more effective.
I think we saw the effectiveness of the style of play during the NU game... NU was completely lost.
Now we throw in some no-huddle, and it is going to cause even more wrinkles for opposing teams.
I do understand that it can be a bit frustrating to watch, but I think it is effective.
I wish I still had the exact stat, but someone did an analysis of that endoround play that everyone grew to hate last year and it was actually surprisingly effective overall when you looked at average gain. Anyone remember that?
We are going to run the ball. A lot. And it will be effective.
Defense and special teams are far bigger worries.
The kicking game scares the living crap out of me. As does our defensive secondary. I'm a field position lunatic. A strong kicking game does wonders for your overall field position.
I want to say it was between 5 - 6 yards per attempt.
Yep. I'm hoping Hawk has learned from past mistakes and will not be quite as reckless with the fourth down gambles this year. With a questionable secondary, the last thing we need to do is make it easier for opposing offenses by giving them great field position.
Yeah, well, maybe. If DiLallo has improved enough, then we might get lucky there. But our kickers are not reliable, and any kick from outside 30 yards is going to be an adventure. Don't be surprised to see a lot of 4th down gambles.
There were a few issues I remember having with those offenses. For one, they were pretty predictable (Shortbus Watson.....). For two, you need superior linemen at least two deep for that to work consistently, which we haven't had in years. For three, it sure does bang up a running back.
I can take some of those gambles, but you're right about the reliability of the kicking game right now. It's the gambles inside our own territory (Iowa State:huh that irritate me.
Our kickers were consistently kicking it to the endzone on kickoffs in the spring. And that is already an improvement over Cope. Eberhardt was a good clutch kicker, but he couldn't make his first FG attempt to save his life.
I think we have two solid kickers that just had to shake the rust off this spring. I think we'll be fine there.
Wouldn't that have made it a clutch kick and, therefore, one likely to be make by him?
They can kick far but we haven't seen them kick strait. Does anyone know why the hash marks are wider in college than in the NFL? If a right footed kicker is kicking on the right hash he has to almost turn his whole body left when he plants to aim at the goal posts.
I would guess that it has a lot to do with the goalposts being wider apart in college than in the NFL.
I've seen DiLallo kick a number of times in practice. He's what I call a "lazy kicker". There's no sense of urgency or attack to his approach. An easy block if I ever saw one. Booms 'em when he gets a hold of them, but he takes too long to get set up. He's our weakest link IMO.
I think the rest of the kicking game will work it self out and be "OK". Not great but not bad either. I think all kicks will be an adventure. Almost high schoolish.
Hawk better hope this offense gels quick and puts up a boatload of points.
I guess so? Not quite sure exactly what you mean. I just meant with the game on the line he made some huge kicks for us (OU, CSU and even Iowa State although they didn't count).
But, against FSU, KU, Texas Tech, OU and Iowa State he missed early FGs. Against FSU and KU his missed FG killed any momentum we had. Luckily we were able to hold on to our lead against TT and were able to make an impressive 4th quarter comeback against OU. As for Iowa State, who knows how that FG might've changed that game. Maybe we are kicking for the game winner at the end instead of a game tying FG?
He also missed a 3rd quarter FG against Bama that certainly would've changed that game.
With Cody running the offense out of the gun, and with the RB talent the Buffs have coming on line, I wanna see some shovel passes right up the gut. The end around thing with lots of motion gets old.
I think with such a huge offensive line this year we will see alot more varity in the play calling. Expect the unexpected.
If the rules allow it I would like to see Solder line up at TE in goal line formations and Adkins/Tau play his tackle spot. It would be interesting to see how a defenses matches up against a 6'8" OT that knows how to play TE. Solder is also a HUGE red zone target.
The rules allow it. A player who wears a number other than the usual for backs and ends can line up and be an eligible receiver. The player has to check in or report to the referee, who in turn advises the defense.
I thought the "checking in" thing was an NFL rule. In NCAA you can't do that.
I've heard announcers talk about it - most recently during the debacle in Ames in 2005 when the clowns went to an unbalanced line set and threw a TD pass to one of their tackles.
Here's an exerpt from the ncaa rules (although this part does not mention reporting to the referee).
Eligibility to Touch Legal Pass ((team A refers to the offense)
ARTICLE 3. Eligibility rules apply during a down when a legal forward
pass is thrown. All Team B players are eligible to touch or catch a pass.
When the ball is snapped, the following Team A players are eligible:
a. Each player who is in an end position on his scrimmage line and who is
wearing a number other than 50 through 79 (A.R. 7-3-3-I).
b. Each player who is legally positioned as a back wearing a number other
than 50 through 79.
c. A player wearing a number other than 50 through 79 in position to
receive a hand-to-hand snap from between the snapper’s legs.
So if his jersey is between 50 and 79, he can't line up at TE and catch a pass, right?
Separate names with a comma.