Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by sliderNcider, Apr 23, 2009.
No. See big 10.
not if they aren't on the field. however, give up an early lead and it becomes much much tougher to come back with a smash mouth running game and little passing game.
That's what I was thinking. I guess the hope would be to get the high powered offense out of it's rhythm by slowing the game down (see Texas Tech). It would be frustrating to watch us have a nice long drive end up in a touchdown just to see the opponent throw the ball and score in 30 seconds. Georgia Tech did pretty well last yr with the option but got exposed by a good but not great LSU team in their bowl game. Either way we need to play to our strengths and running the ball is definitely that.
Having a good, power running attack does not mean you don't throw the ball. Power running is an attitude of moving the defense out of the way to run the ball rather than tricking them with misdirection and formations.
If you have the right players to run a smashmouth game, no question it would work. There are things that will never change about football no matter how much the spread is used. If you can run the ball, stop the run, and be solid on special teams, you can win at any level including the NFL. The Big 10's problem isnt style of play imho, it is more about athleticism and speed. Im not really talking about at wr, rb, cb, and safety. The biggest difference, imho, between the big 10 and teams like Florida is how the lb's, dl, and olinemen are just flat out better athletically and they just move better. Someone brought up GTech as well, I think this was Johnson's first season right? Give him some time to get his type of players in there. Ask yourself this, if GT had somebody the caliber of a Tommy Frazier and the talent he had around him at Nebraska in GT's system, would they be able to win these days? Imho, I would say yes everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.
Well, I think that the CU staff believes that if they can establish the running game it'll open up the pass. I believe that the attitude you develop by playing "smashmouth" develops a team personality that you need to win the tough games.
So they can throw to our walk on receivers?
You absolutely can be successful with a run-oriented offense. The spread is kind of like the 3 point shot in basketball, it can be a great equalizer for teams with lesser talent, imho. It is more about misdirection and exploiting areas. There are plenty of top-level programs that don't run the spread - USC, LSU, UGa. Even some that do run the ball plenty out of the spread.
i am really hoping our passing game comes around, but i just think back to the nub game last year. they knew we had to throw in the fourth, brought the house, and we couldn't do **** against it. frustrating as hell and i pray i wont have to see it again.
smash mouth CAN have success if you have a strong defense....
C.U. 62 The corn 36, power football can win. If you have the O-Line..and the running backs. I think C.U. is very close.
CU does not and will not have the personnel to run the spread offense. Our receivers are mediocre at best (to put it mildly), as are our quarterbacks.
Who on our coaching staff has experience running a successful spread? Did either of our QB's likely to play next season use it in high school?
If this team will be successful in the near future it will be a result of playing the style of football that the Pittsburgh Steelers do: running the football, playing great defense, minimizing mistakes, and putting the QB in a situation to play well by asking him to throw 20 times a game rather than 35-45.
Running the spread for CU would be kind of like doing it at Arkansas a few years ago with a questionable QB situation and two great backs. Arkansas focused on the running game, and had two great years in a tough conference. Think they would have been winning all those SEC games with an offense that featured Mitch Mustain running the spread and McFadden/Jones sitting around wondering when they are going to touch the ball?
Spread isn't going to work here with these coaches and it isn't going to work here with these players.
Separate names with a comma.