Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by DBT, Jun 1, 2010.
I can't post the link. If someone could find and post it, I'd appreciate it.
This was the year CU was supposed to win 10 or more games. It's not gonna happen. Cal, OU, NU and MU on the road takes care of any 10 game winning season.
Fire Hawk Now !!
He liked them last year too, picking them to be one of the nation's most improved teams. I hope he's right this year, but twice burned, shame on me.
The thread title clearly states that Phil Steele "LIES" the buffs. Based on what he said, I agree. He's lying.
PS is usually pretty accurate. I find his stuff hard to read. One does have to take into account he had CU as one of his most improved teams last year, and CU flopped. So, PS isn't infallible. IMO, most outsiders have a great deal of trouble reconciling Hawk form Boise with Hawk from CU. Hawk from Boise just had to keep the Ferrari on the road, in a league of Yugos. Hawk from CU has the talent on the roster to compete, but now has to compete in a league of Ferrari's and lacks the one crucial component to get it done. A plan. Hawk just isn't in the same coaching league as his current opponents. Outsiders look at the roster, and look at Hawk form Boise and arrive at the conclusion PS does, they have to be good now, right? Unfortunately, I fear we know the answer to that one.
It's an easy trap to fall in to. You look up and down the roster and see guys who can make plays. You figure that there's talent across the board and talent usually wins. What we have come to realize is that Hawk doesn't have the first idea what he's doing, and it wouldn't matter if he had the 49'ers with Joe Montana and Jerry Rice.
I thought the Denver Post headline for the article was a bit much. The term "bullish" was thrown around, but is third in the North and a winning record (while being outside the top 40 teams in the country) really something to get that excited about?
if we are twice as good, we still only have 6 wins.
:lol: Freudian Slip?
I had the same thought when I read the blurb -- is thiswhat it has come to? That being "bullish" on the Buffs means finishing third in the Big 12 North? Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Good points. It's a little hard to sell the measure of "success" MB defines as "being in the top half of the Big 12" to fans who have seen other AD's and coaches do a hell of a lot better than that...and I'm not talking distant past either.
3rd in the north would mean at least 7 wins, right?
Last year K State finished 3rd in Big 12 North at 6-6. If being "bullish" on Buffs means that we finish .500, I don't want to know what the general perception is.
Hell, the last time we finished .500 or better was 2005. Maybe it is bullish.
3rd in the north is very likely even for these buffs. Other than NU and Mizzou, the north looks pretty weak this year IMO. #3-6 could be a shakeup in any way of CU, ISU, KSU and KU.
Steele said it is very rare that he pick a school as a "sleeper" two years in a row. He seems to think CU had some bad luck, or whatever, last year.
He must have seen some things in the offseason to change his mind. I asked him about the CU situation in December, and he was shocked they were retaining Hawk. Didn't have much confidence left in the tank for Hawk.
He's probably saying these things so he can keep his media credentials with the CUAD.
there's a fine line between bullish and bull ****.
to paraphrase Nigel Tufnil [there's a fine line between clever and stupid]
I haven't had a chance to read this story yet but PS has 2 separate categories - Surprise teams and Most Improved teams, and it sounds like from the discussions that he's putting us on his list of most improved teams, and last year he had 22 teams on that list. Since we only won 3 games last year, even a mediocre 6 or 7-win season would undoubtedly put us in the top 22 of most improved teams as far as wins and losses go. Certainly nothing to get terribly excited about. :huh:
I hate to say it, but I'll be happy with a winning season after the last 5 years. Thats how low we've fallen.
See, this is the thing I cannot understand from reading the article. He mentions that we got some "bad breaks" last season. I would buy that reasoning with all the injuries we suffered in 2008, but last season we were just flat out awful for the most part.
Carolina is correct too. We may very well be one of the most improved teams in the country if we get to six or seven wins, and it is not like I will be pissed if we reach that threshold. But I also do not want to hear any BS about getting six or seven wins while finishing third in the North is some great accomplishment if it comes to pass. We fired a coach that went 7-4 and finished first in the North.
The road schedule is tough, I don't see Talkins having a winning record because of this. We don't have a history of playing well in Lawrence.
Well said, my man.
You're right, but these home games are all very winnable to get us 6 wins IMO.
Where is DBT, and what have you done with him?
Well, he did say he swallowed his hearing aid. Maybe the lithium in the lithium battery was just what he'd been needing.... :smile2:
Using inverse Missouri logic here, the fact that we've had Tech's number in the past has absolutely zero bearing on what will happen this year. In other words, we can't count on Tech's coaching staff to make the same mistakes they made the last time they played us. In fact, as Tubberville is the new dude there, I'd say we can pretty well count on them NOT making those same mistakes. I'd give this group a 20% chance of beating Tech this year.
I gotta defend DBT here. He has been pretty consistent in saying he wants around 8 wins next year for Hawkins to truly prove himself. I think he has more or less adopted "he will be here next season, so I will support him for now" stance.
Separate names with a comma.