Top Spring Ball Questions: Another New Offense
Once again, the Colorado Buffaloes will go into spring ball tweaking their offense. That sentence should cause a slight "hell yeah" comment to be whispered under your breath. It is no secret, the offense struggled mightily under the new spread style. I wish the weak offensive production was limited to just last year but has been a problem for the last few years for a variety of reasons. As the Big 12 continues to be a powerful juggernaut in putting up points and yards, the Buffs continue to rank in the bottom half of every single offensive category:
| 2005 - 2008 Colorado Offensive Production | ||||
| Stat | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 |
| Total Offense | 318 ypg | 378 ypg | 291 ypg | 333 ypg |
| National Rank | 95th | 72nd | 102nd | 88th |
| Big 12 Rank | 12th | 10th | 12th | 8th |
| Rushing Offense | 125 ypg | 144 ypg | 173 ypg | 110 ypg |
| National Rank | 87th | 69th | 22nd | 99th |
| Big 12 Rank | 10th | 8th | 5th | 9th |
| Passing Offense | 194 ypg | 234 ypg | 118 ypg | 223 ypg |
| National Rank | 80th | 53rd | 116th | 59th |
| Big 12 Rank | 11th | 10th | 12th | 6th |
| Scoring Offense | 20 ppg | 27 ppg | 16 ppg | 24 ppg |
| National Rank | 100th | 62nd | 107th | 78th |
| Big 12 Rank | 12th | 10th | 12th | 9th |
That chart is an eye sore. If you want to tell somebody without much words as the reason why the Buffs have struggled the last few years, just flash this and every thing else is self explanatory.
In 2008, Colorado got everyone relatively excited about the new phenomenon called the spread offense. We looked at Graham Harrell run it at Texas Tech and throw for unseen amounts of yards. We saw Sam Bradford run an offense that was like watching a fast break in basketball. Then Texas with Colt McCoy and Vince Young deploying a run/pass option to perfection. And then of course, we got a first hand showing of Chase Daniel and the Missouri Tigers put up over 100 points in the last two years against our Buffs and we said, "let's try that offense."
Well, we should have tempered the excitement. What were we thinking? The main flaw in the "let's try that offense statement" is the lack of said quarterbacks: Graham Harrell, Sam Bradford, Colt McCoy, Vince Young and Chase Daniel. Of course, the CU offense did not have playmakers like Jeremy Maclin and Michael Crabtree or the offensive line of Oklahoma and Texas Tech. But Colorado didn't have the quarterback that could keep a defense entirely honest with both his legs and his arm or his ability to sling it all over the field. Let's face it, we didn't have any of the tools needed to run a spread offense and then you throw inexperience and injuries on top of the lack of "spread worthy" talent, you get the 95th ranked offense in the nation.
A credit to the coaching
staff to make the quick change, though. Hopefully, it is the last major move for the next couple of years. Part of this whole continuity movement that Hawkins has been preaching the last couple of years only really works when you are coaching similar schemes with yearly modifications, not overhauls. Next year, according to many sources, Colorado will be running more pro-style sets but have reassured the spread is not dead. I still think the spread is where Colorado will end up one day but Helfrich, Hawkins and others realized that a spread is an animal that requires a lot of parts, many of which the Buffs lacked.
Most of us were calling for the "I" formation, two tight end set last year. We saw the Buffs run it against Iowa State after halftime and Darrell Scott had his most productive quarter of his collegiate career. Most of the time, Scott would get the ball seven yards deep out of the shotgun with no forward momentum and get tackled in the backfield. The reason: when Cody Hawkins was in there, no one needed to respect the his run option. The defense had two keys: a long developing run play to the running back and a long developing pass play that was going to be no longer than 15 yards down field. When Tyler Hansen was at the helm, Colorado, for the right reasons, didn't feed the freshman all the playbook and CU's passing offense struggled. When Hansen was in the game, it was either quarterback draw or running back draw. The result was a defense stacked in the box. As you can tell, the Colorado offense became predictable and were working with limited options.
Under the new pro-style offense, I think you are going to see the unit function in a rhythm, something we lacked last year. I am hoping come Colorado State, these are the things this offense will produce:
- A Quick Pass Game - nothing frustrates a defense more than pitch and catch football. Three step drops, with quick outs, quick slants, quick fades that get the ball out of the quarterbacks hands into the playmakers hands putting 1 - 2 defensive players on an island. Quarterbacks are helped immensely by being in a timing offense. When he gets on the fifth step of his five step drop, he knows that the ball needs to be out of his hands. Last year, the ball was in the hands of the quarterback far too much without timing and not in the hands of playmakers in space with favorable matchups. With the addition of WR Andre Simmons, an eligible WR Markques Simas and hopefully a rededicated WR Josh Smith, the pitch and catch offense could be fun to watch. It is all about rhythm with this one.
- A Forward Momentum Running Game - pretty self explanatory for any Buff fan watching the game last year. You snap the ball back to me 5 - 7 yards deep, I will hand the ball to my non moving running back, try and get through a defense with a banged up offensive line and a "limited optioned" quarterback. Teams were always keying on the running back who was at a standstill all game long. In the "I" formation, quarterback meets running back, who is in a forward motion, in the hole, you don't need me to explain that. This should allow Scott, Stewart, Lockridge to hit the hole quicker and get to the next level.
- A More Dynamic Run Offering - give me a pitch, give me a student body left, give me a pulling guard, give me back side lineman peeling off to the next leve for blocks 10 yards down field, give me a power attack with Demetrius Sumler that will get us that one yard on the third and short. Listen, I am all for the spread. I think, with the right quarterback, it instantly covers up shortcomings and makes you a big play offense. Ask Baylor how they liked the spread with Robert Griffin. But for this team right now, we don't have the quarterback. We have a stable of running backs and an offensive line that might grow into one of the best in the Big 12. Let's slow the game down and put our players in the best spot to be successful. I think that is what the coaching staff is doing with the switch to a more rhythm based, assignment-driven offense.
- An Actual Play Action Passing Attack - self explanatory. Get Speedy Stewart in the flats for progression passing, get the quarterbacks on the edge on a 93 attack with a tight end sideline route and an underneath from the running back. Simply put, a more dynamic offense than last year.
These four bullet points get me excited for next year. We have been reassured that the spread is not fully leaving but I would be surprised if we see a lot of it in 2009. It certainly might be good in that change of pace way, no huddle option but I believe once we see Darrell Scott with a lead blocker and pulling guard take him through the hole to the next level and then he gets to show off his tools, we aren't going to be needing that spread offense much.
0 recs |
42 comments
|
Comments
as long as the "quick passing attack"
includes exactly zero of those 2 yard sideline routes we ran almost exclusively 2 years ago. good lord that was brutal.
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 6, 2009 9:16 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
As long as....
we’re excluding plays from the playbook, I’d like to eliminate the short side option on 3rd and long from the Neuheisel era… I hate that fuc<
by Buff-in-IL on Mar 6, 2009 11:55 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
QB draws
I wonder how many QB draws the Hawk will call this year?
by CUhasnoQBs on Mar 6, 2009 9:54 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Im guessing 43.
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
by Jon Woods on Mar 6, 2009 10:30 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Im a big fan of
fake hand off, then roll out to run, get sacked. Especially on third down. That play was epic
"It's like an owl without a graduation cap; Heartbreaking!!" -Tracy Jordan
by 303buff on Mar 6, 2009 11:29 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I'ma big fan of (part 2)
not to be outdone by the 5-step drop, duck, get sacked by the 3 man rush (on third down)
by BuffnBigD on Mar 6, 2009 11:40 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha, I agree
Those long outs to the sideline drive me crazy! They would throw it all the way across the field to J-Fly and by the time the ball got there he would get blasted by the corner and/or safety.
by CleBUFFS on Mar 6, 2009 11:02 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
That's REALLY Bad!!!
Where we seriously 223rd in Passing Offense in 2005? Thats pretty bad considering there are only approximately 119 teams (I think the resulting message is pretty accurate though, passing game is horrible)
by BuffnBigD on Mar 6, 2009 11:30 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Could have something to do with
Coaching and QB’s
by CUhasnoQBs on Mar 6, 2009 11:41 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
yep, but he was talking about 2005 (and it was a joke)
so in that case:
Coach= Gary Barnett
QB= Joel Klatt
go away
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 6, 2009 11:43 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
good catch...we were really 53rd. accidentally took the 223 yards/game and put it in the rank.
it is now fixed
The Ralphie Report - Go Buffs!...All Colorado Buffaloes on SBNation - http://www.ralphiereport.com/
by irish1611 on Mar 6, 2009 11:50 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
No Problem
I obviously scrutinize spreadsheets way too much here at work. However I though it was a pretty funny typo..
by BuffnBigD on Mar 6, 2009 12:01 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
The Hawk
Yeah, you have seen lots of improvement with The Hawks offense and recruits.
I’ll take Barnett anyday over this clown Hawkins.
by CUhasnoQBs on Mar 6, 2009 11:55 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
good for you
he currently hosts the BCS show on FSN, and does radio commentary. I think he also has some sort of foundation. Go play on their websites.
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 6, 2009 11:56 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just a concerned fan
The Hawk is not getting it done! Time to go.
by CUhasnoQBs on Mar 6, 2009 11:58 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
no you're not
you’re a sneering asshole. And you’re not a CU fan. One of your previous comments said something to the effect of: “You don’t have a QB.”
You, not we or they. You, which indicates a clear disconnect from the team.
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 6, 2009 12:00 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey clown
I said a concerned fan. I’m a fan of Big 12 Football. Didn’t say I’m a CU lover. I’m just concerned The Hawk is running you into the ground. Can’t recruit or Coach up his players.
Do you think, in the last three years CU has shown they play inspired football under Coach Hawkins?
by CUhasnoQBs on Mar 6, 2009 12:05 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Alrighty man,
Yes, the Hawkins era has not produced great results on the field. He has recruited pretty well in my book considering the results. I am pretty sure that if we can get to 8 or 9 wins, he will kill it on the recruiting trail. We fire Hawkins, you can expect another 3 – 4 years of rebuilding so right now, we need to beg, pray whatever that this staff can get it turned around.
There are parts of this team to be optimistic about like linebacker, running back, wide receiver, corner backs and offensive line. WR might be a stretch but I am pretty satisfied with the rest of the units. Yes, QB is a concern and we all know it. You aren’t bringing anything new to the table, just trying to spark controversy which is pretty much a waste of your time.
I am asking you to stop popping off the comments that are obviously not bringing anything new to the table. We are trying to run a site that is not like other message boards that don’t spark non-important conversation. We are all about raising concerns with the program in an intelligent way but this is comment #8 or 9 about the same thing. Just chill it man.
The Ralphie Report - Go Buffs!...All Colorado Buffaloes on SBNation - http://www.ralphiereport.com/
by irish1611 on Mar 6, 2009 12:12 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
+1
The reason I don’t bother to read the comments on Buffzone is that 80% of them are written by guys like CUhasnoQBs. The lack of BS like that on this site (at least up until now) is one of the reasons it’s so great.
by highlandsbuff on Mar 6, 2009 9:05 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
check the chart above, professor genius
compare 2007 to 2005. better in 2007 in ever category. 2008 we lost 120 games to injury. No one knows the trials and tribulations of our program better than CU fans, we don’t need your nonsense. If he’s running us into the ground, we’ll complain amongst ourselves.
If you want to just say “Hawk sucks, the end”- go to buffzone. They thrive on people like you. Or stick to “concerneing” yourself with a team of which you are actually a fan.
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 6, 2009 12:10 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
and funny that you're just a little old "concerned Big XII fan"
but you’re screen name is pretty centered on ragging on CU
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 6, 2009 12:12 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
So it doesn't get lost in the chain I thought I's repost here as well.....
See, here’s the problem….
As someone who has questioned our QB play all year and is concerned about it for the upcoming season I will defend this guy in so far as that he has a valid question. We should be questioning how our QB play is going to be and we should be questioning whether Coach Hawkins is the right fit. We owe that much to ourselves after the last 3 season.
BUT…. there are 2 problems with CU has no QB’s:
1) He makes the assumption that we are all Hawk defenders, which multiple prior commentaries have proven isn’t the case; and
2) The way he’s asking his questions is intentionally inflamatory.
For the second reason, he should go – unless he changes his tune.
CUhasnoQB’s, we (on this blog and at CU) don’t play into your useless and non value add games. We’re willing to have realistic/grounded discussions about our teams, our coaches, our school, our students and our faculty. In fact, we welcome it and enjoy it. Clearly that isn’t the case with you as you refuse to declare your allegiances and simply wish to pick fights. So – go back to fucking Lincoln.
by Buff-in-IL on Mar 6, 2009 12:11 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
I don't want to fight....
I just want to know why there is not more talk about booting this Coach out when clearly he can’t get the job done! 3 years! Look at what he has done in 3 years!? I would say his biggest win was getting a 5star recruit that probably won’t even start at CU!
It’s clear the Hawk predicted a 10-2 season because he knew it would just get everyone to forget about last season and focus on this one.
Let me ask this "valid" question. After you don’t go 10-2 this year, how many games does The Hawk have to win to save his job? Can you tell me your opinion? And, I’m not from Nebraska.
by CUhasnoQBs on Mar 6, 2009 12:20 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
the coach hawkins talk has been discussed for a long time now
it is the offseason, he obviously is getting another year. We have to realize that he will be here. I am definitely a fan of giving him another year for the reasons I stated above.
Again, this topic has been covered and isn’t pertinent information to any of the posts that you have commented on. Many agree that 7, 8 or 9 wins would be a success and will keep the program moving in the right direction.
Let’s move on…
The Ralphie Report - Go Buffs!...All Colorado Buffaloes on SBNation - http://www.ralphiereport.com/
by irish1611 on Mar 6, 2009 12:27 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
As long as we start looking at our strength (RB) then I am happy as hell
I totaly agree with the analysis, anything to get the ball in Stewart and scott with some blockers will be great. I definately don’t want to see Scott get frustrated by not having an offense that can utilize his strength which is attacking the line of scimmage and making a cut and going. Again, I do give some of a pass for lats years QB problems due to injuries, suspensions, departures, etc.. on the O-line, if we get continuity on the O-line, the play will be better all around.
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"McDaniels must go!" - Broncoman
by Broncoman on Mar 6, 2009 3:50 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Hopelessly optimistic, I guess
but all those charts said to me is,
wow! we can move up in just about every category this year.
Seriously, there is a difference between explanations and excuses. Look at how beat up the buffs were, even ones still on the field, and it HAS to get better in 2009.
Passey Vouz the koolaid, por favor. I’m swigging straight from the pitcher and I think 10 wins is more than possible.
by JustmyOp on Mar 6, 2009 6:09 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Looking forward to the new offense....
How bout D Scott and Speedy pounding the defense behind an improved O line. And give the QB spot a chance…I think Tyler Hansen has some tools…..the kid was thrown into the starting lineup with no notice at all. His entire mindset last year was to get ready for 2009…..I think he did OK considering. This year his entire mental outlook will be different……..he know’s he’s most likely the man. He’s very athletic, with his running game giving us another option that we don’t get with Cody…..and I’ve seen enough of his arm strength to know that he can keep the defense offense and respect the pass (I’m praying Simas is eligible!!).
by Plooch75 on Mar 7, 2009 11:20 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Hope you're right about Hansen
He would definitely be my choice if I was head coach. Let’s hope he performs well in spring ball.
by nebraskasux on Mar 7, 2009 11:40 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I still think it's Cody
Of all of the candidates, he is the most accurate passer and knows the playbook the best. Even though he’s not mobile nor has the strongest arm, I’ll bet they go with him. A lot of what happened last year wasn’t totally his fault, but as a result of a young and injured O line. I think he and the rest of the offense will be much improved.
by MDBuff on Mar 7, 2009 6:32 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
well mdbuff...
If Cody ends up the starter this year I hope he’s successful and I’ll root just as hard for the team, but I pray to god you’re wrong :-)
by nebraskasux on Mar 8, 2009 4:22 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
we'll see how the spring game goes
but I think the offense has a strong enough running game that they would need more of an accurate passer who can keep defenses honest, rather than a QB who can take off and run. Hence, Cody.
by MDBuff on Mar 8, 2009 12:12 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think
the running game becomes a lot less effective if the line backers and secondaries can play downhill on the balls of their feet, rather than having to be on point in case they get beat. Cody is by far our most accurate passer. Unfortunately, that doesn’t matter if he can only throw 10 to 15 yards down field. The corners and linebackers can key on the run with the understanding that the safeties have their back should Cody actually try to throw a 12 yard pass.
For J-Fly and Darrell’s sake I hope we go with someone other than Cody.
by Buff-in-IL on Mar 8, 2009 1:54 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would just say this
Hansen is not another Bernard Jackson, he did show last year that he could throw downfield and he has a better arm than Cody. If he can run the passing offense effectively and has a grasp of the playbook that is even close to what Cody’s is then you HAVE to play him because he is SO much more athletic and brings SO much more to the table.
I think Cody’s “accuracy” is way over-rated. How many wide open receivers did he miss lass year? A lot, and I can remember a handful of sure TDs passes that he short-armed. He is a great kid who knows the playbook inside and out and I wish him all the best in his life, but he is short, slow, and weak-armed. Also, please no 2 QB system this year. As much as I am against Cody being the starter next year, if he ends up with the job just stick with him.
by nebraskasux on Mar 8, 2009 3:16 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hawk v. Hansen
I think the turning point was the Iowa St game where C-Hawk took over for Hansen in the second half to win, and the coaches mostly stuck with him after that. Unless Hansen or Ballenger have made huge strides since last fall in understanding the offense and being able to read and react to defensive schemes, (and we’ll just have to wait and see what happens in spring practices and games), then Cody is still the starting QB. Just my take. I agree that the Buffs should stick with one guy, whomever he is.
by MDBuff on Mar 8, 2009 4:26 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll lay my cards on the table
I am a Cody fan, but I also think that I can recognize his limitations. I am not a Hansen fan. I didn’t see a lot of running ability after the KSU game, when the opponent was expecting it. And he was absolutely lost in the passing game. Obviously, that’ll improve, but I still feel that while Hansen is the “athletic” QB, that says more about Cody’s athleticism than it does Hansen’s. I don’t think he’s good enough to be a Big XII dual threat QB. If Hansen can (roughly) match Cody’s intangibles, I’ll change my tune, but until then, I’m in favor of Cody/ Evans being CU’s Leak/ Tebow.
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 8, 2009 8:31 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, but tell me this
you say that Hansen was “lost in the passing game” but I say he was not allowed to throw. After the K-State game where he threw a little bit (with a couple of absolute laser-beam passes I might add) CU did not run passing plays when Hansen was in the game. Period. The coaches obviously did not feel comfortable with Hansen using the whole playbook so they just gave him a couple of running plays and then brought in Cody to throw, which made for a horribly predictable offense, except the Nebraska game (I think?) where Cody ran about 10 QB draws to “mix it up” where he probably made a total of -20 yards.
Anywayz… I couldn’t agree more with your final statement. Now tell me if you (and MD) will give me this point: if Hansen IS able to roughly match Cody’s intangibles of knowledge of the offense and passing accuracy (which I believe he should be able to) then he HAS to be the starter, right? That’s all I’m saying.
I like the Cody/Evans Leak/Tebow analogy, but I’m talking about this year and I really doubt Evans will get on the field this season. I can’t see burning another QB’s redshirt season when we have 1 junior and 2 sophs on the roster and a guy like Hansen who has already proven he can be a change of pace runner if needed.
by nebraskasux on Mar 8, 2009 10:49 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that's true
Hansen threw 65 times in 5 games, so “CU did not run passing plays when Hansen was in the game. Period” is either very flatly false or he was making his own decision to throw when a running play was called (which would account for some of his throws, I suppose). Obviously he has a lot of time to grow, but from what I’ve seen, I just don’t have a lot of faith that he’ll improve to where we need him to be. So sure, IF that happens, he should probably be the starter. The same as IF Cody suddenly gets faster and stronger, he should be. In my mind, both are equally likely to happen
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 9, 2009 12:19 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok
maybe I shouldn’t of phrased it like that, of course I know that he did throw some passes but CU ran a VERY limited passing offense when Hansen was in the game and I don’t believe we got to see what he could do passing-wise. Now, while in my last post I ended with how I agreed with you, now I will say how much I disagree with your last statement :-) There’s a thing called “upside.” Hansen has it. He will improve as a passer as will his grasp of the offense (let’s not forget he was a true freshman who had no idea he would be playing and was thrown into the fire). Cody will not get faster, his arm will not get stronger, and he will not suddenly grow 5 inches. He does not have much (or any) upside in my opinion.
by nebraskasux on Mar 9, 2009 12:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, my last was an overstatement
Obviously, what we see is what we get with Cody, and Hansen certinly has years to get better. He hasn’t played enough to where I’m willing to dismiss him out of hand, but at the same time, he’s played enough to where I’m not holiding out hope that he’s the answer. If he is, and I am pleasantly surprised, then I will giddily admit to being wrong.
by Hallux Valgus on Mar 9, 2009 1:04 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hear ya
just like if Cody ends up the starter and leads us to that magical 10 win season I will be ecstatic and be the first to admit I was wrong about him too. I just want the starter to be the guy who gives us the best chance to win, whoever that is.
by nebraskasux on Mar 9, 2009 1:36 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
NebSux - I agree
But that’s a pretty big if. We won’t know until spring practices how much Hansen has picked up of the playbook and how well he makes decisions. Based on the buffzone profile of Ballenger today, it looks like a race between Hawkins and Hansen.
by MDBuff on Mar 9, 2009 12:11 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope Ballenger isn't just completely out of the running
Like the article said and based on the video maybe he is a little too nice. When they asked him what his goals were this year he shouldn’t of said “move up from 3rd on the depth chart” but “be starting QB!” He needs to know that the race should be wide open and this might be his last chance.
by nebraskasux on Mar 9, 2009 1:03 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 











