Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

RG needs to move quickly.

ZandiBuff said:
Perhaps if we took 6-8 OL per class instead of 9+ DBs
Click to expand...
I can show the logic and math if anyone is actually interested*, but if you want to have a consistently good line, you need to average 4.5 OL every single class.

*general rule of thumb is however many of position x you have on the field in your base defense or base offense = how many you should take in every class. So if your base offense is 5 OL, 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 TE & 3 receivers, that's generally how many of each you need to take every single year.
 
CUAviator said:
Every time someone says this, I’m going to point out it’s why we don’t need Babers.
Click to expand...
Maybe those are just the best jobs he could get as a HC, so he took them. Couldn't it be that he's just a damn good HC and, therefore, he's even able to quickly develop a winner in tough situations?

No one knows the answer because he's never stayed anywhere after he got them winning. It's a risk that maybe we're not willing to take, but I think we have to be careful of making a "rebuilder only" assumption with anyone. Fact is that very few coaches get their first HC gig or two at places that are humming along. Those who do get their 1st jobs that way and do well seem to be the biggest risks & failures, though. Hawkins following what Koetter built, for example.
 
Last edited:
skibum said:
I can show the logic and math if anyone is actually interested*, but if you want to have a consistently good line, you need to average 4.5 OL every single class.

*general rule of thumb is however many of position x you have on the field in your base defense or base offense = how many you should take in every class. So if your base offense is 5 OL, 1 QB, 1 RB, 1 TE & 3 receivers, that's generally how many of each you need to take every single year.
Click to expand...
so like the man said we should be taking 8 olineman every year until the problem is fixed!....lol
 
MtnBuff said:
Take a very good look at the top ten teams this year, last year, year before. What did they all have in common?

I will tell you it is not schemes. We see a wide variety of different schemes on both sides of the ball. It isn't in game adjustments or halftime speeches or some magic drill used in practices. Coaching matters but in the end a lot of the top teams don't have "great" coaching.

What they have in common is talent, especially talent on the lines. Amazing how when a team can protect the passer a whole variety of different passing schemes work. Amazing how when a team can consistently create holes for the runner their running game works leading to effective drives.

On defense you see teams that run 3 man lines, 4 man lines, some that are very aggressive, others that play low risk schemes. Again if they have the horses up front consistently stopping the running game and pressuring the passer they win.

Point of all this is I want a coach who will place a priority on recruiting. CU has a lot to offer kids, let's find somebody who will bring in the talent we need to compete, especially on the line of scrimmage then we can worry about schemes and all the rest of the "coaching" factors.

Recruiting is a long term process. You don't get one top class and sit back and celebrate. Those top teams I mentioned above can look back and show how their winning teams are a compilation of contributors from multiple recruiting classes. They not only have talent on the field but they also have talent they are developing as depth. Their seasons don't fall apart when a couple key guys go down with injuries. They aren't scrambling when they lose guys to graduation, injury, early entry into the draft.

Our current staff, a couple of more recent additions excepted, never got that concept. I don't think JL emphasizes that concept either.

Give me a coach who is willing to go big and make recruiting the talent needed to win against the best teams in the PAC a priority instead of settling for guys we can "develop" which is code for they aren't good enough but maybe they will be.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Just look at USC, if you have the talent you will win, regardless of how inept your coaches may be.

Or not
 
brettden said:
Exactly. Just look at USC, if you have the talent you will win, regardless of how inept your coaches may be.

Or not
Click to expand...
And yet as inept as SCs coaches have been they are in a bowl most years and more often than not are going to a fairly decent one.

There are always some teams that under perform their talent. For years that was Texas and Notre Dame among some others. On the other side of it though it's hard to find a team that for more than one lucky year once in a while is able to consistently win with below average talent.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
There are exceptions to every rule.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is an exception. Bad coaching, poor player development, bad recruiting are all issues for a college football program. Bama is Bama bc they have top talent, top player development and top coaches. Agree that CU needs better talent but we aren't taking guys away from SC,ND, Bama, Georgia, Clemson etc. Doesn't mean we won't have top talent, but we aren't going to be top 5-10 every year. I just think that is more of a pipe dream than getting a top coaching staff and player development.
 
8Jah said:
Well I didn’t know secondaries were supposed to pressure the QB. If you are lamenting the absence of the corner blitz, well I’d say that is on Elliot as a coordinator for not calling that.
Click to expand...


No slingblade, I was talking about our front 7 in regards to pressure on QB.
 
Buffnik said:
Why would you prefer Leavitt over Schiano? I compare the 2 and Schiano is just a bit stronger on all the things I like about Leavitt -- and he's a decade younger.
Click to expand...
JL knows the AD, a lot of the staff(some of which we should try to keep) and a lot of the players. He’d run a 3-4 on defense that would use the same players we have recruited to. I think he would hit the ground running.

I love Schiano and that would be a good get. The problem is he runs his own version of a 4-3 tampa-2 like D. We haven’t recruited for that kind of D and I think it would be two years of recruiting and rework. I also don’t think those types of Ds work as well in the p12 cause of all the different types of offenses we see.
 
MtnBuff said:
Take a very good look at the top ten teams this year, last year, year before. What did they all have in common?

I will tell you it is not schemes. We see a wide variety of different schemes on both sides of the ball. It isn't in game adjustments or halftime speeches or some magic drill used in practices. Coaching matters but in the end a lot of the top teams don't have "great" coaching.

What they have in common is talent, especially talent on the lines. Amazing how when a team can protect the passer a whole variety of different passing schemes work. Amazing how when a team can consistently create holes for the runner their running game works leading to effective drives.

On defense you see teams that run 3 man lines, 4 man lines, some that are very aggressive, others that play low risk schemes. Again if they have the horses up front consistently stopping the running game and pressuring the passer they win.

Point of all this is I want a coach who will place a priority on recruiting. CU has a lot to offer kids, let's find somebody who will bring in the talent we need to compete, especially on the line of scrimmage then we can worry about schemes and all the rest of the "coaching" factors.

Recruiting is a long term process. You don't get one top class and sit back and celebrate. Those top teams I mentioned above can look back and show how their winning teams are a compilation of contributors from multiple recruiting classes. They not only have talent on the field but they also have talent they are developing as depth. Their seasons don't fall apart when a couple key guys go down with injuries. They aren't scrambling when they lose guys to graduation, injury, early entry into the draft.

Our current staff, a couple of more recent additions excepted, never got that concept. I don't think JL emphasizes that concept either.

Give me a coach who is willing to go big and make recruiting the talent needed to win against the best teams in the PAC a priority instead of settling for guys we can "develop" which is code for they aren't good enough but maybe they will be.
Click to expand...

Well you should have loved Jim Mora then.

You look at all the perinially top ten teams and they also have great coaches.
 
Sykobuff said:
No slingblade, I was talking about our front 7 in regards to pressure on QB.
Click to expand...

You wouldn’t call me slingblade if you knew who you were talking to. You said secondary, not front 7...maybe you mis-spoke.
 
Last edited:
GawainBuff said:
I’m all for getting the best talent in here; obviously, we all are. But this is a “if wishes were horses, we all would ride” sort of deal. Everyone wants the monster DL. Everyone prioritizes the best OL out of H.S. Problem is, there aren’t enough to go around.

Of course, we need better recruiting, especially on the lines. I’m pretty sure that’s not a snap-your-fingers and this next hire will solve that problem immediately thing.

I think part of the problem may have been assessment of talent. No question MM had an eye for DB recruiting. We appear to have been mis-assessing a bunch of OL (along with taking injured players) and flat out not bringing in enough DL. But I am sure we got the best we could “get.” We weren’t turning away 4* Road-graters that I read about.

I absolutely agree the next coach needs to be a DL and OL whisperer, but that is not an overnight fix.
Click to expand...
^^this. Nice to see some sound reason.
 
Last edited:
8Jah said:
Well you should have loved Jim Mora then.

You look at all the perinially top ten teams and they also have great coaches.
Click to expand...

Devils advocate. Do they have great coaches or great players? Do the coaches make the player or do the players make the coach. I won’t belittle what someone like Saban has done but it’s not exactly been a struggle for him...

Look at how many coaches fail after people think they’re so great. It’s easy in college to stay on top when you always have the best players. People are quick to label coaches as ‘great’ when their teams win and kick them to the curb the next day. Sean McVay is the latest genius, flavor of the week.
 
Buffsrock85 said:
Devils advocate. Do they have great coaches or great players? Do the coaches make the player or do the players make the coach. I won’t belittle what someone like Saban has done but it’s not exactly been a struggle for him...

Look at how many coaches fail after people think they’re so great. It’s easy in college to stay on top when you always have the best players. People are quick to label coaches as ‘great’ when their teams win and kick them to the curb the next day. Sean McVay is the latest genius, flavor of the week.
Click to expand...

If it were easy to stay on top simply with great recruits, USC would win the P12 every year. College IMO is 60-40 Talent Acquisition-Coaching. I think Alabama excels because they convince the most talented players to buy into the team concept and be coachable. Alabama’s coaches are generally quite strong.

This is why many of us don’t want USC to hire James Franklin...
 
Buffsrock85 said:
Devils advocate. Do they have great coaches or great players? Do the coaches make the player or do the players make the coach. I won’t belittle what someone like Saban has done but it’s not exactly been a struggle for him...

Look at how many coaches fail after people think they’re so great. It’s easy in college to stay on top when you always have the best players. People are quick to label coaches as ‘great’ when their teams win and kick them to the curb the next day. Sean McVay is the latest genius, flavor of the week.
Click to expand...

This, it's a lot easier to look like a quality coach when you can run the same play as the next guy but your talent gets you an extra 3 yards on the same play.

I'm not saying we have to recruit in the top 5 or top 10 but how about we win more battles for kids with Oregon and Washington.

Saban develops players but he also recruits players who start at a fairly high level and have high ceilings. All those guys getting drafted into the NFL aren't because they try hard.
 
brettden said:
I don't think it is an exception. Bad coaching, poor player development, bad recruiting are all issues for a college football program. Bama is Bama bc they have top talent, top player development and top coaches. Agree that CU needs better talent but we aren't taking guys away from SC,ND, Bama, Georgia, Clemson etc. Doesn't mean we won't have top talent, but we aren't going to be top 5-10 every year. I just think that is more of a pipe dream than getting a top coaching staff and player development.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying we’re going to get that level of talent, and I think we’re interpreting the original meaning differently. The “rule” I was referring to is if you have a bunch of stud Jimmys and Joes, you’re going to win the majority of your football games more often than not. I’m not saying CU’s only shot at being nationally relevant is getting top 5 talent and I’m also not saying that great coaching can’t take top 20-25 talent and make it a top 5-10 team.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
I’m not saying we’re going to get that level of talent, and I think we’re interpreting the original meaning differently. The “rule” I was referring to is if you have a bunch of stud Jimmys and Joes, you’re going to win the majority of your football games more often than not. I’m not saying CU’s only shot at being nationally relevant is getting top 5 talent and I’m also not saying that great coaching can’t take top 20-25 talent and make it a top 5-10 team.
Click to expand...
^^this

But you have to consistently recruit in that 10-25 range over the course of at least 3 classes to have a legitimate chance of beating a Top 5 type team and not have it be a major upset.
 
BerkeleyBuff said:
I’m not saying we’re going to get that level of talent, and I think we’re interpreting the original meaning differently. The “rule” I was referring to is if you have a bunch of stud Jimmys and Joes, you’re going to win the majority of your football games more often than not. I’m not saying CU’s only shot at being nationally relevant is getting top 5 talent and I’m also not saying that great coaching can’t take top 20-25 talent and make it a top 5-10 team.
Click to expand...

A quality coach can coach his team up. There is a limit though to how much you can coach a team up over a season.

We have all seen individual games where the less talented team won. In the long run though coaching may move you up a couple spots in your league standings but it won't make a team lacking in talent a winner.

And in the case of USC it almost seems as if they manage to coach down their team. They in many years have a culture in which players are more about themselves and their NFL futures than they are about winning games right now.
 
manhattanbuf said:
If it were easy to stay on top simply with great recruits, USC would win the P12 every year. College IMO is 60-40 Talent Acquisition-Coaching. I think Alabama excels because they convince the most talented players to buy into the team concept and be coachable. Alabama’s coaches are generally quite strong.

This is why many of us don’t want USC to hire James Franklin...
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree about Alabama’s coaches one bit! But do you think many staffs would fail there if their recruiting were the same?
 
Buffsrock85 said:
I don’t disagree about Alabama’s coaches one bit! But do you think many staffs would fail there if their recruiting were the same?
Click to expand...
USC and Florida State are two great examples of teams that recruit almost to the level of Alabama but underperform like crazy.
 
Buffsrock85 said:
I don’t disagree about Alabama’s coaches one bit! But do you think many staffs would fail there if their recruiting were the same?
Click to expand...

Failure and producing the same results are two different items.

tOSU recruits at a similar level with not quite as good of coaching. Their results have not been at the same level. My suspicion is that an Alabama staff that recruits similarly with inferior coaching would be a consistent winner. They just may not be the best team in the nation every other season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top