Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by 13Buff, Sep 27, 2009.
Sounds like a stuborn way of looking at things but that is pretty much been their MO from the start.
That about sums it all up, suprized we actually did it with the D.
I think that it worked with the defense actually scared them because of some of the reaction after the UW game.
In one of the article in the last few days, Hagan made it a point to say that the offense WILL NOT follow the D's lead. That sounds very defensive. I could be a little sensative at this point, but...
your right but we may just change our offense :lol:
Its offense/defense. And I really dont think that the fans perspective is why they do/do not do things. They just want to win, save their jobs. Whether or not they can to that is up for debate, but, I dont think its as big of a conspiracy as you make it seem. I think they dont change because they really believe what they have, once learned, will be the most rewarding. We'll see.
If it was conspiracy would it suprise you?
After all of the QB race is neck and neck crap during camp. And all of the "have you ever coached?" or "You guys don't have kids, so you don't understand" type responses over the last 3 years.
It would surprise me. I think we made the right decision on QB. Maybe I should say, the ONLY one. TH wanted to redshirt, and I think thats best. People that know really seem to think CH is just better right now. Maybe that sucks to say, it does in fact, but, I think he's the best right now. Look at J-fly's comments, for example.
As far as "have you ever coached" and "you guys dont have kids" I dont really think that has anything to do with a conspiracy. I just think we can want Hawkins to go, but, we're taking the theories a bit far. He wants to win, too. Nepotism thing is a joke to me.
The sad thing with the offense is when you break the plays down without the bells and whistles it is fairly simple. No complex reads for Cody really. No real out there run plays. It is a Rube Goldberg at it's best offense.
The staff has been quoted as saying they can't simplify the offense any more than it is.
Hawkins has to realize his job is on the line at this point, I think he's doing whatever he can. I don't think even he is stubborn enough to go down with a sinking ship just to prove he's right. I hope he's not anyway.
No doubt that the offense plays are simple, so my first question is, if it is simple why are a lot of players having such a hard time learning it? and second, why are we constantly breaking the huddle with 10 seconds on the play clock, when they could be on the line early and give every one enough time to actually read the D before we snap the ball? The plays are not hard so it has to be the way they are being called or how they are being relayed onto the field. Those are the things that they could be simplified in my opinion.
I know this has been discussed and we are beating a dead horse but I still cannot believe that they don't see this.
No way is this an issue of Hawk's pride getting in the way of making a change because some Internet guys have suggested the same thing.
I truely believe that this is not the case, but I do think it could be a stuburness issue.
I hope he can make this thing work quickly. And I would gladly welcome Hawk to be the coach for many years to come if once it clicks it is consistantly competitive (preferably dominant). I love Hawk as a person and the face of the program when he is not fighting with the media and defending his job. I'm just not convinced of it at this point.
Please Hawk, prove me wrong against WV and beyond.
Can a moderator please fix the title of this thread? You would think we were on a Husker or WVU Board.....
I know. We don't even have a damn baseball team. Why would we be investing money in changing an outfield fence?
Sorry, as soon as I hit post I noticed the typo. I'm sure it is the media's fault somehow though. :smile2:
Can I neg. rep. myself for this error?
No...just give me a postive rep. and everything is cool....
I thought it was a soccer thread with the British English spelling.
No it's not.
When talking about spellings and usage of the English language, it's rather common to refer to the differences as American English or British English. For example, in American English the word is spelled "offense", in British English it's spelled "offence". Since I was talking about the spelling of a certain word, I referenced which English I was talking about.
A few other common spelling differences among American English & British English:
"British" is a descriptor for "English". Both are always capitalized. And "British English" differs dramatically in some cases (spelling & usage) from "American English".
For example, the statement "My wife caught me sucking on a ***" has a very different meaning on opposite sides of the pond.
nik's example is far better than mine. Out****ingstanding!
fanny is a good one too.
"she stuck a *** in her fanny pack."
And I always loved the liberal usage of "geezer" that I heard in Norfolk.
I forgot "pissed."
"Cubicle" is another with quite different meanings.
... "want to shag some flies?" ... "stuff it in her fanny pack" ... "feast on spotted dick"
In Britain to make a phone call to someone is to "call them up" or "ring them up," to visit their home is to "knock them up." Therefore "knocking up the neighbor lady" has a whole different meaning than here, a much less problematic meaning.
Separate names with a comma.