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!
Rep Challenge: Who leads the Buffs in rushing this season?
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
This would be about on par with last year's rushing numbers when taking carries and yards from other positions other than RB into account.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingAttempts
Doesn't look like running more = running better necessarily. And saying we should run more because teams like Oregon, Wisconsin, and Ga Tech do it seems kind of dumb to me. They kind of are good at it for a variety of reasons, none of which we share with them.
Exactly, we don't have someone that can run it. Be nice if we did.
Sincere question, but is that what college football has become. You can't have a respectable running game anymore without a dual threat quarterback?
Deleted member 807
Guest
Pretty much. If there is a compelling reason for materially better numbers, I'm not sure what it is.
In the spread, I do not think you get by with a QB who is not a decent running threat.
Oklahoma State and Baylor have pulled it off, but those are admittedly exceptions to the general rule.
2004 had Purify, Vickers and Charles. Not bad. I'd take those three any day and I can't believe its been over a decade since that.
Like Duff said, I think it's a spread offense issue more than a general college football issue. Stanford and Wisconsin are two examples of great running games without the DT QB.
FIFY! Carr goes off for 700 yds.
Like I've stated, I believe if they take a more balanced approach on offense and make a commitment to running, they will see a substantial increase. That, and I think they have more talent in the backfield than last year and OL is supposedly one of their strongest position groups this year, no?
I think one distinction I would make is commitment to running and running identity. I think/hope the coaches want to run the ball more, but what does that running game look like? The RBs do not really have similar skill types. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does beg the question of how the coaches would ultimately like to run the ball.
I didn't say it was a definitive correlation, but I don't think it's a stretch to say the teams that put an emphasis on the running game are the ones that have success running the football, right?
Out of the 87 teams who had more rushing attempts than CU in 2014, only 19 of them (21%) had worse per carry averages. So again, while not definitive, there is precedent for what I've been saying.
Powell can't keep his head healthy and Adkins can't keep his ankles healthy. Just don't see either one being the main man. Lindsay looks like a nice change of pace guy and I hope he can turn into a quality 3rd down threat and KO return specialist for us.
This leaves us with the necomers if we are going to have a guy stand out.
Snow is definitely onto something though. When and where the yards are gained means more that how many total yards.
If we can be effective enough on first down running the ball it will take a large amount of pressure off Sefo and the passing game making them much more effective even if it means fewer passing attempts. If we can start being consistent picking up short yardage again we can replace some of those lousy bubble screens and increase our percentage on third down.
A better running game should also mean some more sustained drives keeping the defense on the sideline for some better rest, make the whole team more effective.
This leaves us with the necomers if we are going to have a guy stand out.
Snow is definitely onto something though. When and where the yards are gained means more that how many total yards.
If we can be effective enough on first down running the ball it will take a large amount of pressure off Sefo and the passing game making them much more effective even if it means fewer passing attempts. If we can start being consistent picking up short yardage again we can replace some of those lousy bubble screens and increase our percentage on third down.
A better running game should also mean some more sustained drives keeping the defense on the sideline for some better rest, make the whole team more effective.
That's an interesting point and hopefully they have an idea about this going into Fall camp, so they don't spend the OOC schedule trying to figure out what works best.
95 BUFF
Member
I think AB at about 802. Either Powell or Adkins will get knocked out in fall camp due to an injury and be in the dog house most of the year. Lindsay will beat out the other and be the opening day starter. He will be pretty effective the OOC schedule against guys he can physically hold up against. The Adkins/Powell survivor will be the backup while Baltazar learned the offense. The 2nd half of the Nichols St game will be AB's coming out party. Lindsay will start the Oregon game but the upgrade in competition will be noticeable and Lindsay will struggle. Baltazar will come in and play up to the competition and start the rest of the year.
Each back will have their moments and contribute throughout the year. Carr will make about 4 plays that will drop your jar but will mainly contribute on special teams.
Each back will have their moments and contribute throughout the year. Carr will make about 4 plays that will drop your jar but will mainly contribute on special teams.
Ahahhahahahahaha
What argument?
Sure, teams that emphasize running the ball are usually more successful doing so. Now onto my point, are we one of those teams? Is simply calling for more running plays emphasizing the run? Are we running the triple option like some of those teams? Are we capable of successfully executing some read options? Has this staff ever really emphasized the running game? It has been my observation that this staff definitely puts passing the ball ahead of the running game. We have a TE coach as our RB coach, RB recruiting took a turn for the better at the end of last year, but was pretty lackluster and an afterthought for most of their tenure. They love going with the hot hand thing without trying to establish a pecking order. I think all of those things tell me that running the ball well isn't really at the top of their list.
Basically, I think we both agree that running the ball more successfully is a great plan. I think it just goes far beyond, "Yo Lindgren, call a few more running plays a game dawg, Wisconsin runs a bunch and they're totally good at it, we can be Wisconsin without their OL factory or 1st round draft pick RB if you just called a few more runs."
I completely agree, and that's why I said it needs to be a complete mindset change if they want to be successful. I believe they need to be more balanced on offense and not rely on Sefo to throw 42+ passes/game if they want to go to a bowl game. However, just simply calling more running plays isn't the answer (and maybe I failed to convey that in my previous posts) as doing so with the same mindset as 2014 will just result in empty plays (the only point of Darth's that I agree with). There has to be a commitment by the coaches to instill a mentality in the offense that they can and will run the ball effectively. That means spending more time on it in practice and individual periods. Pitting OL vs DL in "Oklahoma" type 1 on 1 drills, doing more 9 v 9 short yardage drills with the pads on, focusing on RBs breaking tackles in the open field. Basically, anything that gets them into more of a hard-nosed state of mind.
Again, this is just my opinion of where the offense needs to head in 2015 to be a bowl team. They aren't going to beat a lot of the Pac 12 teams by trying to out finesse them and throwing the ball all over the yard. They need to limit the time the defense is on the field and work the clock. Nothing I've seen from this staff has shown me that they are willing to do this, but that's what I believe needs to happen. Adapt or die, right?
Last edited:
I can agree with this. Two points I'd add, though.
1. We throw a lot of screens and lateral passes which are basically running plays in this day and age, so I'm not sure the balance we're looking for is really all that far off.
2. I just have to wonder if we'll see big gains made in the running game without either A) someone steps up at RB and is a legit really good player capable of breaking some long runs (Carr may be that guy but kind of a lot to ask of a true freshman) or B) Sefo graduates and one of the guys we have in the pipeline steps up as the guy that can actually run the ball. Not that this is the staff's or Sefo's fault, obviously having Sefo is better than not having Sefo, but a team like CU needs a running threat at QB imo.
So true and Duff's point earlier was spot on. Along with a mentality change, they need a running identity. Do they want to do be a zone read team and focus primarily on that or do they want to be more of a base and power running team? Most of the zone stuff just doesn't work without the QB being a threat to run, so a DT QB would be needed.
As to your first point... This was something I was actually thinking about bringing up yesterday. To me, their constant barrage of WR screens last year showed their complete lack of faith in their run game. Instead of running the ball in running situations they sling it out to Spruce or Shay on a screen and hope the blocking on the perimeter is good enough to pick up the 4-5 yards that they wish they could get on the ground. Every once in a while, the WR screen is a solid play that gets playmakers in space and catches a defense off guard. When it's done as often as CU did it last year, it almost becomes a finesse way of running the ball that teams literally gameplan to stop. Need to see less of those this year.
Yeah I'm not sold on WR screens being all that. You have the risk of having to complete a pass that running the ball doesn't have. WRs are generally ****ty blockers and as the season wore on I thought we became pretty predicable with them and opposing teams were blowing them up. I would like to see some more middle screens to the WR, they look scary but seem to have more big plays associated with them.
TE, too, if Keeney is as good as advertised.