Spring Game Glass Half Empty Thread

[BlackNGold]

by what standard we played 57 freshmen last year, so we'll be playing 50 ish sophomores this year, thats young to me.

Here is Plati's write up on the 2007 season...only 16 Freshmen played last year.

"Making things challenging at times has been the fact that 29 of the 59
players who lettered were underclassmen, including 16 freshmen (seven
true). Quite often on offense, CU would have up to eight first-year players in
the game at the same time on offense, and were quite likely the only team
in the nation starting two true freshmen on the offensive line. Playing so
many rookies offered up some memorable moments, as some times they
looked great, other times, like freshmen."

 

[Junction]

I hate it when people make "facts" up.

Studies have shown that 87% of all statistics quoted on the internet have been made up...

 

[DBT]

that was suazo

I prefer Cuervo.

 

[absinthe]

Come on...there were not even 57 freshmen on the team last year and most of the true Frosh redshirted. Where do you come up with a number like that....

I hate it when people make "facts" up.

you are right sorry about that I miss-read what I googled

 

[absinthe]

Here is Plati's write up on the 2007 season...only 16 Freshmen played last year.

"Making things challenging at times has been the fact that 29 of the 59
players who lettered were underclassmen, including 16 freshmen (seven
true). Quite often on offense, CU would have up to eight first-year players in
the game at the same time on offense, and were quite likely the only team
in the nation starting two true freshmen on the offensive line. Playing so
many rookies offered up some memorable moments, as some times they
looked great, other times, like freshmen."

8 of 11 frosh/red shirt frosh is still young.

 

[BlackNGold]

8 of 11 frosh/red shirt frosh is still young.

From a statistical standpoint, all college teams can be shown to be young.

On average teams will sign an incoming class of 22-23 Freshmen and will redshirt a majority of them. So the class of Freshmen including RS Freshmen will always be about 40 players (half of the roster) --add to that the fact that attrition will take the senior class down to ~15 scholarship players. I would say that other then teams that focus on Jucos that most teams will have 55 players on the roster that are Freshmen and sophomores, allowing the coaches to alway use the "we are young" defense.

Hawkins will be in his 3rd year and I believe the team needs to start showing the effects of his leadership on game day.

 

[SanDiegoBuff]

From a statistical standpoint, all college teams can be shown to be young.

On average teams will sign an incoming class of 22-23 Freshmen and will redshirt a majority of them. So the class of Freshmen including RS Freshmen will always be about 40 players (half of the roster) --add to that the fact that attrition will take the senior class down to ~15 scholarship players. I would say that other then teams that focus on Jucos that most teams will have 55 players on the roster that are Freshmen and sophomores, allowing the coaches to alway use the "we are young" defense.

Hawkins will be in his 3rd year and I believe the team needs to start showing the effects of his leadership on game day.

I agree.

We may be playing a lot of sophomores, and on a lot of teams, that would be a young team, but they ALL played last year, they ALL have at least a season of playing experience under their belts, they may be young age wise, but this should be an experienced team when it comes to the little things and knowing the system and the scheme. Even the young sophomores are still veterans. The 'young team' crap doesn't fly anymore for the bad snaps and the missed blocks and the bad routes and the dropped passes (most of which came from a certain senior anyway).

It's one thing to have a bunch of first year starters in place like the last two years, but that's not going to be the case this year.

 

[sackman]

I think you guys are neglecting an important factor, which is that the recruiting classes are steadily improving. While that's great, it also means that the most talented guys might be Freshmen. That lends itself to a lot of turnover just because the new guys (in many cases) have more ability, yet lack the experience of the older guys. The coaches are wanting to get the new guys as much game experience as they can, so we are left with a young-ish team. We saw that last year and we'll see it again a lot this year.

This remains a very young team.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

While it may be true that this will be a young team- that's still just an excuse.

As this is now his third season in Boulder, I don't think Hawkins gets many more excuses.

We wouldn't have accepted the "youth" excuse from Barnett, so we shouldn't accept it from Hawkins. This team and these coaches need to start producing, regardless of the excuses.

 

[Unleash Hell]

While it may be true that this will be a young team- that's still just an excuse.

As this is now his third season in Boulder, I don't think Hawkins gets many more excuses.

We wouldn't have accepted the "youth" excuse from Barnett, so we shouldn't accept it from Hawkins. This team and these coaches need to start producing, regardless of the excuses.

Need to start? I think they have started.


Think back to where we were 3 years ago, getting beat by Texas 70-3.

The next year, we went 2-10

Last year we made a bowl, beat our rivals CSU and Nebraska (I know they weren't great teams, but we still beat them, something the 2006 team wouldn't have done), we beat a good Oklahoma team, we almost beat Florida state and Alabama, where under the Barnett years we would have probably been blown out.

I think this team has started to produce and it's been proven on the field, and should only get better as we get more mature and our better talent that we have recruited the last couple years gets more experience.

Colorado football has made great strides since the Barnett final years both with play on field and talent.

 

[Junction]

While it may be true that this will be a young team- that's still just an excuse.

As this is now his third season in Boulder, I don't think Hawkins gets many more excuses.

We wouldn't have accepted the "youth" excuse from Barnett, so we shouldn't accept it from Hawkins. This team and these coaches need to start producing, regardless of the excuses.

Let's be honest. You wouldn't have accepted the "every player on the team had to have a leg amputated" "excuse" from GB.

As Sacky points out, part of the reason the players on the field are young is because the recruiting classes are steadily improving. Considering the fact that Hawk is steadily upgrading the talent on the field, I don't look at the fact that this will still be a young team as a license to fail, especially since many of them have experience under their belt. I look at it as a cause for optimism that the future will look brighter than what we see on the field this year.

Since I'm sure you are unfamiliar with the term, I took the liberty of looking it up for you...

op·ti·mism

Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[op-tuh-miz-uh

m]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.a disposition or tendency to look on the more favorable side of events or conditions and to expect the most favorable outcome. 2.the belief that good ultimately predominates over evil in the world. 3.the belief that goodness pervades reality.

:wink2:

 

[Duff Man]

While it may be true that this will be a young team- that's still just an excuse.

As this is now his third season in Boulder, I don't think Hawkins gets many more excuses.

We wouldn't have accepted the "youth" excuse from Barnett, so we shouldn't accept it from Hawkins. This team and these coaches need to start producing, regardless of the excuses.

:yeahthat:

While I'm happy with the progress made thus far, I get tired of hearing "wait until 2009 or 2010."

 

[Unleash Hell]

Let's be honest. You wouldn't have accepted the "every player on the team had to have a leg amputated" "excuse" from GB.

As Sacky points out, part of the reason the players on the field are young is because the recruiting classes are steadily improving. Considering the fact that Hawk is steadily upgrading the talent on the field, I don't look at the fact that this will still be a young team as a license to fail, especially since many of them have experience under their belt. I look at it as a cause for optimism that the future will look brighter than what we see on the field this year.

Since I'm sure you are unfamiliar with the term, I took the liberty of looking it up for you...

:wink2:

And with the talent upgrade we are seeing these buffs be more competetive with good programs. Under Barnett we got blown out by almost every good team we faced home or away. Last year save for Mizzou and KSU, we basically were competitive enough to win every other game we played.

 

[Unleash Hell]

:yeahthat:

While I'm happy with the progress made thus far, I get tired of hearing "wait until 2009 or 2010."

I don't think you people realize what kind of talent we had when Hawk got here. Coach Mac even said himself, "Give Hawk 4 years". Everybody was ready to run coach Mac out after 3 years in Boulder, and Hawk basically stepped into an almost identical situation as Mac did. You guys have to be patient and celebrate what these buffs have already accomplished the last couple years.

 

[Duff Man]

I don't think you people realize what kind of talent we had when Hawk got here. Coach Mac even said himself, "Give Hawk 4 years". Everybody was ready to run coach Mac out after 3 years in Boulder, and Hawk basically stepped into an almost identical situation as Mac did. You guys have to be patient and celebrate what these buffs have already accomplished the last couple years.

Thanks for talking down to me. Much appreciated.

I am well aware of where the program was when Hawk took over. I will be patient with Hawk, but that does not mean he gets a free pass.

 

[Unleash Hell]

Thanks for talking down to me. Much appreciated.

I am well aware of where the program was when Hawk took over. I will be patient with Hawk, but that does not mean he gets a free pass.

It just seems that some people aren't recognizing what he has done already, that is what irks me.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

If you can find me a single post where I have even hinted that Hawkins should be "run" please show it to me. I have never said anything of the type.

Given the 2008 schedule, I think the Buffs will be VERY hard pressed to find a winning season, let alone a major bowl game. Another trip to Shreveport would be a fantastic season, IMO.

 

[jjbuffs13]

If you can find me a single post where I have even hinted that Hawkins should be "run" please show it to me. I have never said anything of the type.

Given the 2008 schedule, I think the Buffs will be VERY hard pressed to find a winning season, let alone a major bowl game. Another trip to Shreveport would be a fantastic season, IMO.

I see a winning season next year. The team is going to produce a winning season mark my word. We will suprise some people, just wait and see. I dont see us competing for the Big 12 title this year but I see us in the top tier of the big 12. This team is going in the right direction, and I see the effort that was put in this spring paying off in the fall.

I hate the negativity around here. The defense gave up x amount of yards in the scrimmage, they suck. The offense didnt gain x amount of yards in the scrimmage, they suck. We have kids struggling with their grades and getting in trouble, we are now a thug team. People around here need to start being more positive and having faith in this program.

 

[Unleash Hell]

If you can find me a single post where I have even hinted that Hawkins should be "run" please show it to me. I have never said anything of the type.

Given the 2008 schedule, I think the Buffs will be VERY hard pressed to find a winning season, let alone a major bowl game. Another trip to Shreveport would be a fantastic season, IMO.

I know how you roll

 

[RalphieMalph]

Given the 2008 schedule, I think the Buffs will be VERY hard pressed to find a winning season, let alone a major bowl game. Another trip to Shreveport would be a fantastic season, IMO.

1. Colorado State
2. Eastern Washington
3. Kansas
4. Kansas State
5. TAMU
6. Iowa State
7. Oklahoma State
8. Knebraska

I believe Colorado will be favored to win all of these games with the possible exceptions of Okie Lite and Kansas, but I feel that both of these teams (particularly Kansas) are headed for disappointing seasons this year. Regardless, that's 8 wins on the schedule that are well within reach. Even if you operate under the assumption (which I believe would be a foolish one) that CU will lose by default to Texas, WVU, FSU and Missouri, a winning season isn't at all difficult to find on the 2008 schedule.

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

1. Colorado State
2. Eastern Washington
3. Kansas
4. Kansas State
5. TAMU
6. Iowa State
7. Oklahoma State
8. Knebraska

I believe Colorado will be favored to win all of these games with the possible exceptions of Okie Lite and Kansas, but I feel that both of these teams (particularly Kansas) are headed for disappointing seasons this year. Regardless, that's 8 wins on the schedule that are well within reach. Even if you operate under the assumption (which I believe would be a foolish one) that CU will lose by default to Texas, WVU, FSU and Missouri, a winning season isn't at all difficult to find on the 2008 schedule.

Anything is certainly possible. Just see last year's OU game for that.

I see the Buffs losing to West Virginia, Florida State, Texas, Kansas and Missouri. I see the Buffs beating Colorado State and Eastern Washington. Every other game is a tossup, imo.

 

[jjbuffs13]

Anything is certainly possible. Just see last year's OU game for that.

I see the Buffs losing to West Virginia, Florida State, Texas, Kansas and Missouri. I see the Buffs beating Colorado State and Eastern Washington. Every other game is a tossup, imo.

Why do you see them losing to WVU, FSU, UT and KU?

WVU- all they do is run, that would be the idea time for a 3-4 blitz package.
FSU- somewhat fast, no QB, very winable IMO
UT- Colt Mcoy is all they have, no RB, no bigtime WR
KU- Reesing is their only weapon, can be very easily contained.

I see Mizzou as the only one where I have almost no confidence as the Tigers will be very, very good this year.

 

[Duff Man]

Anything is certainly possible. Just see last year's OU game for that.

I see the Buffs losing to West Virginia, Florida State, Texas, Kansas and Missouri. I see the Buffs beating Colorado State and Eastern Washington. Every other game is a tossup, imo.

ISU at home should be a win as well.

 

[Duff Man]

Why do you see them losing to WVU, FSU, UT and KU?

WVU- all they do is run, that would be the idea time for a 3-4 blitz package.
FSU- somewhat fast, no QB, very winable IMO
UT- Colt Mcoy is all they have, no RB, no bigtime WR
KU- Reesing is their only weapon, can be very easily contained.

I see Mizzou as the only one where I have almost no confidence as the Tigers will be very, very good this year.

WVU-Might be the fastest team we face all year. They might run a whole lot, but that doesn't mean they're easy to stop.
FSU-This team hasn't proven much on the road and this will be the first true road game.
UT-Still among the more talented teams in college football. Will be a tough game.
KU-We always play like dog**** in Lawrence.

 

[absinthe]

Why do you see them losing to WVU, FSU, UT and KU?

WVU- all they do is run, that would be the idea time for a 3-4 blitz package.
FSU- somewhat fast, no QB, very winable IMO
UT- Colt Mcoy is all they have, no RB, no bigtime WR
KU- Reesing is their only weapon, can be very easily contained.

I see Mizzou as the only one where I have almost no confidence as the Tigers will be very, very good this year.

WVU- yeah they looked real ****ty in their bowl game
KU- lost pretty much no one and we are on the road this year
UT- yeah they have no weapons just 5 star players at every position
FSU- they beat us in our house last year, what makes you think we can beat them in theirs?

 

[buf]

While it may be true that this will be a young team- that's still just an excuse.

As this is now his third season in Boulder, I don't think Hawkins gets many more excuses.

We wouldn't have accepted the "youth" excuse from Barnett, so we shouldn't accept it from Hawkins. This team and these coaches need to start producing, regardless of the excuses.

What do you think Frank? Maybe it's time to get someone else?

 

[jjbuffs13]

WVU- yeah they looked real ****ty in their bowl game
KU- lost pretty much no one and we are on the road this year
UT- yeah they have no weapons just 5 star players at every position
FSU- they beat us in our house last year, what makes you think we can beat them in theirs?

WV- First of all I didnt say they looked bad in there bowl game, what did they do to beat OU? Run. What did OU have trouble defending all year? The run. Just ask Pitt how their game went? What did they do to win, they slowed the game down, they played Pitt ball, not WV ball

Texas-They honestly wont be as good as in the past, this game is in Folsom, I seriously see us with a chance at this one, we have to play mistake free for 4 quarters on both sides of the ball. If we come in to this game after beating WV or FSU or both, we stand a slight chance.

FSU- We wont be playing them in their house first of all, and secondly, FSU will be in the middle of the ACC this year, which is nothing to call home about.

 

[Unleash Hell]

I bet Phil Steele picks us 2nd or 3rd in the north this year.

 

[Duff Man]

WV- First of all I didnt say they looked bad in there bowl game, what did they do to beat OU? Run. What did OU have trouble defending all year? The run. Just ask Pitt how their game went? What did they do to win, they slowed the game down, they played Pitt ball, not WV ball

Texas-They honestly wont be as good as in the past, this game is in Folsom, I seriously see us with a chance at this one, we have to play mistake free for 4 quarters on both sides of the ball. If we come in to this game after beating WV or FSU or both, we stand a slight chance.

FSU- We wont be playing them in their house first of all, and secondly, FSU will be in the middle of the ACC this year, which is nothing to call home about.

Pitt also got helped with Pat White being out most of the game with an injury. If Pat White is healthy for the game in Folsom, the defense is going to have the nearly impossible task of trying to slow them down. Seriously, WVU might be the fastest team we play all year.

Texas is sort of an enigma right now. Muschamp could really have that defense dramatically improved by the time conference play starts.

FSU is a road game. I believe they can keep it close, but outside of the Texas Tech game last season, the Buffs have been pretty bad on the road under Hawkins.

 

[Unleash Hell]

Pitt also got helped with Pat White being out most of the game with an injury. If Pat White is healthy for the game in Folsom, the defense is going to have the nearly impossible task of trying to slow them down. Seriously, WVU might be the fastest team we play all year.

Texas is sort of an enigma right now. Muschamp could really have that defense dramatically improved by the time conference play starts.

FSU is a road game. I believe they can keep it close, but outside of the Texas Tech game last season, the Buffs have been pretty bad on the road under Hawkins.

I agree about WV and Tex. I do have to say the buffs played pretty well on the road in Athens two years ago (should have shut Georgia out let alone should have beat them in their backyard). But yes, for the most part, Hawk doesn't have a great road record.