Wednesday Buff Bites
by irish1611 on May 27, 2009 9:20 AM MDT
10 comments
Bruce Feldman of ESPN likes the Buffs. He has gone from mentioning OT Nate Solder as a workout warrior in one of his recent columns to now suggesting that Colorado will be one of the more improved teams in terms of wins this year:
Colorado (5-7): I'm not ready to go as far as coach Dan Hawkins did in December when he predicted 10 wins this season, but CU has a lot of impressive athletes on both sides of the ball. You would think the Buffs, who were 100th in the country in scoring last season, would be due for a major leap in production. (Wait, a Big 12 team was that far down in the country in scoring last season?!?) Special teams also need to make big improvements. The best news on the schedule front is they won't have to face Oklahoma, but they will have to go to Texas and Oklahoma State. They have a good chance to be favored in all six of their home games, although the season finale against Nebraska is very iffy. It should be noted that the home team has won the previous three meetings between the schools.
Baylor was also on the top ten list.
Tim Griffin of ESPN gives the Buffs some quarterback love...I mean some BACKUP quarterback love. Griffin ranks the Buffs first in regards to who has the best BACKUP quarterback in the Big 12. Considering we don't have a starter, that is probably a proper ranking:
1. Colorado: The conference's most fluid starting quarterback situation results in the Buffaloes having the top backup. With Cody Hawkins appearing to be nosing ahead at the end of spring practice, Tyler Hansen earns the nod because of his recent experience as a winning quarterback in the Big 12 -- even considering he is recovering from a broken thumb suffered in Colorado's spring game.
I had to pipe up over a recent post on the Nebraska SBNation blog, Corn Nation, last night. I think you will get as much of a kick out of it as I did, not necessarily about his opinions on the Buffs but the fact that the post thinks switching offenses and offensive coordinators is a "train wreck" (they think we should stick with the spread), our running backs are too small to be a success in a pro-style offense and well, just read it for yourself and see my comment. Don't flame or make worthless comments but I got a kick out of the football knowledge displayed and asked myself at least five times during the post whether this was a joke or not?
Greg Biggins, the west region recruiting analyst for ESPN, says the commitment of Colorado prep QB Austin Hinder should shake things up when it comes to quarterback recruiting. He mentions the Buffs as a team that will have to look elsewhere but like most of us, he doesn't know about a plan B right now.
The Omaha World Herald has an informative article talking about the current financial state of the Big 12 and the revenue sharing that goes on among the teams.
That latest jump of 10.3 percent (in year over year revenue growth to $103 million), however, couldn't move the Big 12 out of the middle of the pack in comparison with the five other Bowl Championship Series conferences.
The Big 12 still trails the Big Ten ($154.2 million), the Atlantic Coast ($137.6 million) and the Southeastern ($135 million) Conferences in revenue generated to share with members.
The University of Colorado received $8 of the $103 million, good for 10th overall in the conference. In a nut shell, here is how the Big 12's revenue sharing works:
In the Big 12, all money is shared except for that gained from television.
Half of the TV money is divided evenly. The other half goes into an appearance pool. Schools earn credits for football TV games and basketball nonconference TV games. Credits also are issued for NCAA basketball tournament appearances.
Texas received the largest payout of $10.2 million. The rich get richer.
You can come back to Colorado whenever you want Mr. Diante Jackson:
And finally on the (Oregon) wide receiver front. Before we get into all the hand wringing, blame games and everything else (and I'm sure we will), let's note that Oregon's wide receiver corps currently consists of: Maehl, Davis, Holland, Gaines, Cantu, Tuinei, Embry and Diante Jackson. And that's before you get to Nick Cole and Braxton Lane. Eight guys, plus two more possible if Lane opts for football over baseball this year.
I think I count 10 receivers. The Buffs current roster three scholarship guys plus a potential of three more, two true freshmen.
0 recs |
10 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Those guys really don't know anything other than "Ndamukong Suh"
let’s count, shall we?
Pro-style offense to me says a heavy emphasis on the passing game, not run the ball. Very few teams in the NFL emphasize the running game
a quarter of the league ran the ball more than they passed last year. The league average was 4.68 more passes than runs per game on 60 plays. That’s about 8% more, on average. In no way, shape, or form is that a “heavy emphasis.” The fact is that every team emphasizes the run. That doesn’t mean they have to do it more. The only teams that “heavily” emphasized the pass were the Saints (injuries, crappy Reggie Bush), Colts (Edgerrin James), Colts (Peyton Manning), and Broncos (grumble). So when he says, “Pro-style offense to me says a heavy emphasis on the passing game” what he’s really saying is, a pro style offense, to me, means something other than what a pro style offense actually is. want more proof- Graham Harrell. No one ran a more pass heavy offense, and no one was thought less worthy of “pro style.”
Maybe "pro-style" offense is a misnomer for what Kiesau is actually planning;
no, it’s a misnomer for the thing you think it is. Like “zebra” is a misnomer for a Zubaz horse if you don’t know what a zebra is.
Sure, Colorado has a nice stable of running backs, but they tend to be undersized: 5’7" 175 lb Brian Lockridge, 5’7" 170 lb Rodney Stewart, 5’10" 215 lb Demetrius Sumler, and 6’1" 200 lb Darrell Scott give the Buffaloes depth.
last year’s 1 and 2 were Peterson and turner- fine, sure. After that?
DeAngelo Williams (5’8" 210 lbs)
Clinton Portis (5’11 205 lbs)
also in the top 10 were Steve Slaton and Chris Johnson, neither of whom are particularly big, all of whom are going up against dudes way bigger than what a college back will face.
Hawkins is going to have a problem if he just sits in the pocket and tries to peek over the giants in front of him to find open receivers.
Yes, yes he is. Which is why he won’t do that. He doesn’t have to be Peyton Manning to run a pro style offense. Hell, Jake Plummer never ever STAYED in the pocket, even when taking snaps under center. Taking a snap from center doesn’t mean you’re only allowed to trot 5 or 7 steps straight back.
A “pro style” offense doesn’t mean anything more static than a “spread” offense does. It’s a simple and often times lazy term for huge generalities. Scott and Stewart have both said that they like running from the I, and they’ll get that. The end.
by Hallux Valgus on May 27, 2009 10:46 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Your point?
You agree that a “pro-style” offense means more passing than rushing, and considering that the Buffs ran the ball more than they threw the ball last season, the terms “pro style” offense implies a greater reliance on the passing game. Something that I think we all agree would not be a good thing for the Buffs in 2009.
Now, that being said, I lack the perspective of the Buff fan, who are interpreting this change as a move towards a two-back, power rushing game that may have been in the works before spring practice. If that’s the case, I’ll admit the error. The idea that the Buffs were going to try to revamp their offense in fall practice is what triggered my post.
by Husker Mike on May 27, 2009 7:58 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I thought I made that fairly clear.
A pro style offense has nothing to do with play calling tendencies. The term “pro style offense” does not imply anything to do with throwing the ball more. If you think that, then you infer it, which is not the same. Does Texas Tech run a pro style offense? It’s about formations, not run vs. pass. I do not agree that pro style means passing more than throwing. Whenever a QB comes out of a pass happy offense in college, he’s questioned for the ability to run a pro style offense. That’s the exact opposite of what you said. Harrell, Ty Detmer, Timmy Chang, Colt Brennan, Andre Ware, David Klinger, Tim Couch… all pass happy offenses, none suited for the pro game.
USC passed the ball 387 times and ran the ball 497 times last year, yet are regarded as running the most “pro style” system in the country.
You only think that pro style= passing because you’re a Nebraska fan and watched your QB’s throw 5 times a year since the dawn of time.
What triggered your post was that you needed an excuse to write the words “Ndamukong Suh.” In this day and age, pro style seemingly refers simply to under center vs. shotgun. If you really want to stick with your rationale for posting, then you might want to do just a modicum of research. Here’s a start- watch the draft coverage next year and count how many college QB’s are scrutinized for not enough film of their footwork, because they always start out in the shotgun.
by Hallux Valgus on May 27, 2009 8:45 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's funny...
…I’m writing up the post, and I’m thinking to myself as I’m finishing it up “How do I tie this back to Nebraska somehow?” So I recall Hawkins failed attempt to be a speed bump on his pick-6, and run with that.
What the NFL abhors is a one-dimensional offense. They don’t want a run-centric offense or a pass-centric offense. That’s why a Graham Harrell or an Eric Crouch doesn’t get much consideration as an NFL quarterback. NFL offenses typically throw the ball more than they run the ball, but it’s nothing like Tech’s offense, where they throw the ball 85% of the time. It’s usually closer to a 45-55 run/pass ratio, though there are some teams that will throw the ball 70%. The classic Shanahan teams with the Broncos might actually run the ball more.
So how does that infer “more throwing”? Well, it depends on what you are comparing it to. It’s certainly “more throwing” compared to 1995 Nebraska. It’s not “more throwing” compared to Mike Leach’s Tech offense. I pointed out that it’s slightly more throwing than 2008 CU, who actually ran the ball more than they threw the ball.
You are correct on one thing: I have a different interpretation of “pro-style” offense than you do. You seem to be fixated on formation. But if you’ve watched much NFL football over the last decade, you’ve probably noticed that the fullback has become a specialty player. Two back sets aren’t as common anymore. Not extinct, mind you. Just not the norm in the NFL.
by Husker Mike on May 28, 2009 6:00 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's just not true
First: we obviously disagree on what “heavy emphasis” means. I don’t consider 8% more per game a heavy emphasis.
Second: once again- follow the scouting combine. QBs don’t drop back so you can’t see their footwork. OTs line up almost exclusively in a 2 point stance. RBs take handoffs going sideways instead of going forward. TEs split out wide, don’t block, and don’t line up in the 3 point stance. WRs don’t run disciplined routes and don’t face bump coverage. These are the major complaints of pro scouts in trying to evaluate college talent coming out of the spread offenses, whether it’s Texas Tech or West Virginia. And it’s because of the shotgun and wide OL splits.
No college scout ever says, “I’m worried because I didn’t get to see Graham Harrell hand off enough.” They’re worried because he didn’t drop back and didn’t throw deep. I believe Oklahoma ran the ball more than pass, and Sam Bradford is going to have the same questions as every other spread QB. He’s going to have better answers than, say, Chase Daniel, but they’ll be coming from the same place. And it won’t have anything to do with run vs. pass emphasis or how big his RBs are.
by Hallux Valgus on May 29, 2009 6:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice,
"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman
"Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun" - Ash from Army of Darkness
"H.I., you're young and you got your health, what you want with a job?" - Evelle from Raising Arizona
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz from Repoman
by Broncoman on May 28, 2009 1:07 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
