UCLA-Colorado

[MrBug708]

Let's hear some takes

[JeeberD]

Take!

[MrBug708]

*slaps Jeeber upside the head*

[MrBug708]

I think both teams have advantages in this game


Colorado-
Benefit of playing a week early to gel and work on weaknesses
They found their QB in a barnburner against CSU, their in-state arch nemesis
Special Teams-Jeremy Blood is a speed freak. Not to say UCLA doesn't have a good ST, but Kluwe should kick the ball a good 5 yards OOB's on punts
Altitude favors Colorado because Westwood isn't exactly far from sea level



UCLA-
They know Colorado better then any other team in the nation. Embree and Beinemany were former Colorado coaches last year as well as our Strength and Development coach. Karl Dorrell also coached at Colorado, but I don't believe any current players were ever coached by him. Steve Kerr and Brian Schneider are former CSU defensive coaches, who know how to beat the Buffs because that was what CSU had done best the previous years. On top of this, there are no tapes of UCLA that Barnett and Co can analyze because Dorrell has never coached a game before.
UCLA's defense is considerably better and faster then CSU and won't give up quite so many yards
Discipline that the new coaches instilled. It's amazing to hear players talk this year about how the staff is making sure no mental mistakes will happen, which will cut down penalties

[Vegas Vic]

Watch out for the Buffs this year. Traditionally a slow starting team, they got a huge monkey off of their back last week in beating their perennial nemesis, Colorado State.

With momentum and home field advantage, I see CU getting a comfortable win this week against a good UCLA squad.

[MrBug708]

Indeed CU does have a good squad, but I'd be more convinced in them had they decided to stop CSU at all

[bertogarce]

I'll be at the game this weekend. I think the Buffs are truly going to be helped by the fact that we played a game last weekend. CU traditionally makes its biggest improvement from week 1 to week 2. Also, with UCLA breaking in a new coach and a new system, I think they'll show some major growing pains Saturday afternoon. CU won on this game on the road handily last year. I think it will be closer this weekend. CU wins by a TD. (If CU's D plays like it did last weekend, bet the over!)

[IMetTrentGreen]

final score: 56-54

can klatt repeat his awesome performance? i think he can, since everyone is so worried about CUs running game, it appears some teams don't even have a defender farther than 5 yeards down the field

other than that i have no idea about either one of these teams, so i'll shut up

[MrBug708]

Keep in mind UCLA returns a better defense then last year, a defense that had 44 sacks on the year, more then Oklahoma

[IMetTrentGreen]

colorado has an enviable OL. besides, the pac-10 is pass happy, thus more sack chances. next, ou's dl isn't that great. and finally, they don't award wins and losses based on most sacks

not that i know anything about the ucla defense

[Vegas Vic]

Originally posted by IMetTrentGreen
next, ou's dl isn't that great.

I'll take their seven man rotation of Jonathan Jackson, Tommie Harris, Kory Klein, Dusty Dvoracek, Lynn McGruder, Dan Cody and Larry Birdine against any other squad in the nation.

[IMetTrentGreen]

thats because you don't know what you're talking about

[TroyF]

bert,

I'll be at the game as well. Didn't know there was anyone else from CO on the board besides Buc.

My take on the game? CU's defense is better than what it showed against CSU. They have a REALLY young secondary that saw their first live bullets the other night. Sonny Lubick takes the Colorado game more seriously than he does any other. I think he starts preparing for CU before he even plays his bowl game. Colorado doesn't scheme against running QB's who can also throw worth a crap. Give them a straight drop back guy (Kingsbury) and they'll tear him up. Give them a straight running QB (Lord), they'll stop him. Give em the combo guy and they'll get torched. (which means if Roberson can throw the ball, CU is in for a long day against K-State) The strange thing was that the CU defense was pretty good on 3rd downs. (CSU went 5-14 against them there)

What to think of Klatt? Hell, I don't know. I predicted he'd be better than Hodge, but ANYONE could have pulled that off. I made the comment after last year's USC game that CU had WR open all over the field but nobody could get the ball to them. . . If Klatt plays well again, I think CU wins this football game.

Watch out for Brian Calhoun this game. He was a couple of slips from some BIG runs against CSU. On a good field, with an aggressive UCLA defense, he may break a long one.

TroyF

[MrBug708]

Where is Chief at to throw his $.02 around

[Chief Rum]

Some of us work in the day time, MrBug.

It's going to be a very interesting game, IMO.

I agree with Troy that Colorado's defense isn't all as bad as last week's showing, and I would throw out that, as usual, people put down UCLA's defense because they are a Pac-10 team (another faulty notion I put to bed in another thread a month or so ago about Pac-10 defenses in general being some of the best in the NCAA--I guess you guys missed it).

As a result, i think people who think it's going to be a 50-46 game or something like that are missing the boat. Only way that happens is if it's an overtime game--and a long overtime game.

Troy, I have no doubt Calhoun is a fine player, but I'll be honest with you, with Emmanuel and Page, a freshmen All-American and another well-regarded young stud as our safeties and speed throughout our back seven, I really think that shifty backs like him aren't going to have quite the success in breaking long runs that might have happened against the Rams. Big backs like Chris Brown (and like Purify now) are more likely to abuse the Bruins than guys like Calhoun, especially with a sophomore middle linebacker.

I don't know the Colorado receivers too well, so I don't really know how to handicap them against our secondary. Matt Ware is an elite and tall corner, and he's going to be tough to beat, but maybe the Buffs have the receivers to handle that. I don't know.

I do know I haven't heard too many great things about Colorado's line, and the kind of pressure UCLA will likely bring is going to be tough to handle. I don't know Klatt well enough to know if he can find the right spots quickly. I do think that playing a game before this one will help Colorado's passing game (particularly with Klatt's timing) and the young line as well, and that is an advantage for the Buffs.

Switching sides, I really don't know what to expect. If Troy thinks the secondary for the Buffs is young, the Bruins might have a mismatch, as their receivers are deep and skilled, and Craig Bragg is one of the more underrated receievrs most of you have never heard about. But quarterback will remain a huge question mark until Matt Moore proves he can do on the field what we have been hearing he does in practice. And that's be a leader in the huddle with a strong arm and a guy who can make all the throws. Until proven otherwise, I have to think Moore is in as bad a situation as Klatt was going into CSU (from the standpoint of experience). Will he step it up? I have no idea.

Tyler Ebell was not the Bruins running back when they played the Buffs last year, and he is a shifty, all-over-the-field type like Calhoun. Maurice Drew was playing high school ball. I don't know enough about the Buffs' front seven to say whether they match up well with the Bruins there. I know the line has some similar issues with new starters needing to grow into their game, although I think the Bruins return a bit more experience on the line than the Buffs do, IIRC.

So someone more knowledgeable than me about the Buffs' defense would be more credible to believe about how they would handle some backs that give you different looks (like Colorado itself actually).

I think Klatt will build on his experience last week and show some good things, but he won't be nearly as effective and will be hampered all day by his rush. I think the Buffs running game will be consistent, but not spectacular.

I think Moore will be just fine and the Bruins' passing game will thrive. I have no idea what the running game will do.

My best guess? Give it to the Buffs because of home field and an extra game of experience, but it will be close. 35-31.

BTW, every year the Bruins start their season a week or two after most everyone else, and every year we get bitten by it, it seems. I really wish someone would get off their ass and start scheduling a late August, first week game for us.

CR

[bertogarce]

Troy, I'm a big-time CU fan! Glad to hear there are some others on the board.

I think it'll be interesting to see how Sammy Joseph plays this weekend. He got torched for most of the CSU game, but was able to pull in a key interception in the 4th quarter. Joseph is definetely going to be tested this week. Hopefully Embree hasn't done too good a job teaching those UCLA receivers!

[TroyF]

Chief,

I think Calhoun is a special back. He outran Terrance Newman for a TD in last year's KSU game. He had a couple of very long runs against Oklahoma and their back 4 as well. UCLA may indeed stop him if the Buff line doesn't open holes. If they do open up a couple of slivers, your DB's may run him down. . . 50 yards down the field.

TroyF

[VPI97]

There's college football west of the Mississippi?

[MrBug708]

Indeed there is. They had the best player and best team last year at the end of the year

[TroyF]

UCLA/Colorado game report. . .

Colorado offense vs. UCLA defense:

I heard all week about the improved UCLA defnesive line. The reports were accurate. The UCLA defensive line if quick and physical. CU had no answer for #43. HE was in the backfield all day. The LB's are terrific at not overrunning plays. They stay in position and react to the ball well. I also heard about how great the UCLA defensive backfield was. The reports were dead wrong. CU had open WR all over the field. Two UCLA pass interference penalties saved CU TD's. The UCLA pass rush saved the UCLA defensive backfield to many times to count. I'm not talking about underneath routes being open either, I'm talking about CU WR and backs getting well behind the UCLA DB's.

UCLA offense vs. Colorado defense:

If the UCLA DB's were poor, there is simply no adjective to describe the Colorado DB's performence. They were horrible. Some of the lowlights included giving up a 3rd and 30, a roughing the QB penalty on 3rd and 10, and UCLA dropping a wide open TD pass. (they dropped another one later in the game, but there was a UCLA penalty on the play anyway.) The UCLA offensive line? Horrible. Simply horrible. The final stats don't show how bad they really were. UCLA rushed for 38 yards on 26 carries. Tyler Ibell and Maurice Drew combined for 19 carries. Ibell had two carries which went for over 3 yards. (a 7 yard run and a 25 yard run) The other 17 carries between the two backs went for a total of 13 yards. If the line doesn't gel together quickly, this UCLA team is in trouble. If the CU defensive backs don't learn to cover better, they'll be in trouble.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some random thoughts about the game:

Klatt is the real deal. He throws a pretty deep ball. He also doesn't make bad decisions. He is smart enough to take a sack or throw the ball away. He also has the "it" factor. If the game is close, he'll find a way to get it done. He has led CU on two fourth quarter game winning drives in two weeks. If CU can give him time to throw the ball, we actually have a real live QB.

UCLA got a major break late in the fourth quarter. Their kick returner bobbled the ball at the one and picked it up with his knee on the ground. The ball should have been spotted at the 1/2 yard line. Instead it was spotted at the 10. It could have been a major difference.

There were two major injuries in the ball game. UCLA's first QB and Marcus Harris (DE from CU) both suffered what appeared to be season ending injuries. Olson played well. I think UCLA is still going to be OK at the QB position. It happened early enough in the game where I think the kid can get a medical redshirt.

Who deserved the win in this game? Nobody. It was sloppy and poorly played from start to finish. Stupid plays highlighted the game. Dropped passes, missed line assignments, blown coverages, dumb penalties, questionable play calling. . . this game had it all.

UCLA has a chance to be a good team. That offensive line has to come up with a major improvement for them to reach their potential. They have more talent than I gave them credit for.

I figured CU would have 4 or 5 losses this year. They still might. Yet this team has shown that it improves as the season goes along. They've shown they can win close games. The O-Line and the DB's must improve, but if Barnett's history is any indicator the team will get better. The fact they've been able to escape 2-0 and have found a QB is important.

TroyF

[Chief Rum]

I wasn't at the game, of course, and had viewing problems all day. I was working for most of the first quarter (so didn't see one bit of it), watched the rest of the game on mute because I was in a restaurant, had to divide my attention between the game and some of my co-workers (who didn't have the same interest in the game that I did), saw the game get moved off our satellite for a bit because of a stupid bartender with a remote control, and then watched as ABC dropped the ball big time, losing the game feed and never restoring it, while UCLA was taking their last two shots to move the ball at the end of the fourth quarter.

So take everything that follows appropriately. I did what I could to catch it all.

Troy is dead on that this was a very sloppy game, and in truth, neither team deserved to win it. Colorado, of course, had a huge hand in winning this game. But, IMHO, if you were to break down the respoinsibility for this game's final score by percentage, UCLA miscues takes the day. I hate to say that UCLA "gave the game away" as the cliche goes, because that dishonestly spurns a brilliant performance by Klatt and a fine job by the Buffs' front seven on the running game, but it's simply the truth.

The Bruins looked bigger and faster. They were all over the line of scrimmage on D, and Klatt didn't seem to have a prayer to complete a pass longer than 12 yards, and was running from the pass rush or on his back all day. The few times the Bruins' offense clicked, it looked brilliant (the on-the-mark pass to Bragg, the over-the-middle shot to Lewis are good examples).

But, OMG, the miscues!

1) Penalties! The team was utterly undisciplined on the field. The defensive backs had to resort to a couple shady plays when klatt finally got free long enough to get a ball downfield, although I am not of the opinion they saved surefire CU TDs like Troy is (they did stop the Buffs from advancing much closer to a score). The offensive line brought back a play or two with some bad penalties, as they tried to overcome generally being mismatched, and that roughing penalty on the final drive was absolutely the stupidest play I have seen in some time and was a key to the Buffs' final scoring drive.

2) Drops. Taylor's drop was the obvious one, and I didn't even see it--I only heard about it later. Bruin QBs missed 14 passes today--I think only 4 or 5 were off the mark, and that's including the desperate throws at the end of the game (that I saw). Lewis was brilliant, and so was Bragg. The other receivers were less than fantastic by a good margin.

3) No clutch. These Bruins were great until they needed to be, when they fell apart. Until that last drive, it seemed like the Buffs wouldn't ever score on the Bruins' D again. But then the Bruins needed to keep them out of the end zone and the Buffs had a long way to go. So, of course, the Bruins kept forcing the Buffs to go to third downs to keep the drive going, and kept allowing them to convert, in a design that can only be described as maddening to any Bruin fan watching the game. Toss in the roughing penalty and you have a winner.

4) Playcalling. For most of the game, you could bet your life savings that Ebell or Drew was going to get a hand off for a two yard gain up the middle. Never mind that the Buffs' front seven were controlling the Bruins' O-line when they ran the ball. Or that Ebell is a mighty mite who is best used as an outside runner. Or that huge Manuel White was on the sideline, probably wondering why the only Jerome-Bettis-shaped back we had wasn't getting the calls for the runs up the gut. By the time the fourth quarter came around, the Bruins had abandoned the running game altogether without ever giving White a touch, and the Buffs were able to settle back and dare Olson to beat them--which he still would have done, had it not been for the defense deciding to take third downs off in the fourth quarter. Don't get me started on the last aborted attempt at a drive. There is no reason to be sending receivers on fly patterns with over two minutes left in the game. That's why they call it a two-minute offense.

5) Just dumb mistakes. There were a lot of them. They all just added up. The penalties. Taylor's drop in the end zone, and the other drops. Drew misreading the kickoff near the end of the game (I would argue with Troy that it didn't matter one bit that Drew might have been down at the half-yard line, considering what followed and the fact that being ten yards into the field is hardly much better than being on your own zone line with two minutes to go). Ware putting hits on people, but not tackling them. Page being out there when he was obviously hurt. Bad pass protection getting our starting quarterback hurt. Missing a key field (and easy) field goal. Losing a stocky tight end in the end zone on the critical play.

I am torn on Klatt. I don't like rinky-dink passing games--they remind me of the damn Niners and the West Coast offense, and I hate that stuff for reasons that goes back to my LA-Rams-loving childhood. But when you consider what Klatt achieved, it is truly amazing.

After the first quarter or so, the Buffs had no running game. None. That first scoring drive featured a solid running game with Purify, and he had a couple good runs early int he second quarter as well. But after that, the Bruins' D said no more and pretty much shut it down.

Then there was the pass rush. Klatt didn't have a Bruin in his face every single pass, but it sometimes seemed like it. Sacked six times, forced out of the pocket and into runs more often than he stayed in the pocket, hurried, harassed, knocked down. Klatt was ont e run almost all day (and especially after the Bruins shut down the running game).

Klatt also faced a combination of good deep coverage (contrary to what Troy was saying) and a lack of time to hold onto the ball, thanks to the pass rush.

Despite the fact he couldn't find a receiver deep, despite the fact he had at best about 2-3 seconds each play to get a throw off, despite the fact the Bruins knew a pass was coming because the Buffs couldn't run anymore, this guy--a sophomore--still picked apart the Bruins' pass defense, killing them with quick outs and tight crosses and an uncanny ability to find the first open receiver underneath, and with accuracy. Toss on the fact that Klatt was so huge on third downs, never seemed fazed (even when he got hit hard enough to knock him out of the game for a bit), had the swagger of a born-confident leader, and ran a near perfect misdirection playf or the key winning score, and you, my friends, have one hell of a quarterback.

Klatt's not a physically gifted quarterback, or special in any way that shows in the zip on his throws or the strength of his body--he's just quite clearly a winner. And that will often trump everything else.

It will be very interesting to see if Colorado can use that or if their problems in other areas (the horrible pass D, little pass rush, an unspectacular rushing attack) will prove too much. It hasn't seemed to bother them too much so far. Klatt seems willing and able to fill in wherever the team needs it, and is just enough to get them the W.

BTW, rumors of Coloroado's demise on defense was, as expected, severely overstated, as their run defense, at least remains as strong as ever.

As for UCLA, at this point, you don't know what you have. The kinds of things shown today says they can develop into a special team, but also possibly go 3-9. That's not going to do a lot of good for Bruins' fans with heart conditions. This team needs to learn some discipline fast, better mix in their running plays and play to their strengths, and, as Troy, suggested, they really need the offensive line to step up, especially on run plays.

Until they do that, you can't do anything but assume a .500 at best season for the Bruins, which is very disappointing, because they have so much more talent than that.

Chief Rum

[TroyF]

I am torn on Klatt. I don't like rinky-dink passing games]

Klatt isn't a rinky dinky passer. In fact, the biggest reason CU had trouble moving the ball without the running game is that a majority of the pass routes were being ran 15 yards + down the field. The last drive, Klatt had 3 huge 3rd down throws, all over 9 yards. CU called 2 screen passes and 2 swing passes the entire game. They SHOULD have been calling for shorter routes. The WR were getting seperation, they were just doing it to far down the field of play.

Klatt also faced a combination of good deep coverage (contrary to what Troy was saying) and a lack of time to hold onto the ball, thanks to the pass rush.

Chief, trust me, there was NOT good deep coverage on the CU WR's. It was horrible. Maybe Bert can help me out and confirm this. I'm sure they showed Klatt running for his life on the TV. What they didn't show was how wide open the CU WR and backs were down the field. Klatt simply didn't have the time to find them. Had your DB not grabbed the back of Bloom's helmut, Klatt would have thrown for over 200 yards and averaged over 7 yards per pass attempt as it was. There was one play in particular where #43 ran right through the tackle AND Purify to chase Klatt from the pocket. The crowd let out a huge groan because Jeremy Bloom was running UNCOVERED down the left sideline. Klatt was flushed right and never had time to find him. This was one of many examples I could give you.

Don't get me wrong. . . UCLA created those chances with their pass rush. The fact their pass rush was so good let them use a lot of man coverage schemes. Yet, if he gets just a fraction more time, he lights up your secondary like he did CSU's. One of the reasons CU kept calling deep routes in the face of the pass rush is because they kept getting open.

I'm not saying this to puff up the Buffs or put down the Bruins. Maybe next week, they'll show a sharp improvement and be everything they are reported to be. All I can tell you is what I saw. They weren't that good. The line was amazing, 25X better than I expected it would be. Your front seven make the CSU front seven look like a division 2 team. Your DB's looked exactly like the CSU ones I saw last week.

TroyF

[Chief Rum]

Well, kudos to the pass rush then. Yeah, watching on TV it's harder to get a sense of what's going on downfield.

That said, you should probably read my post more closely. I know there's a lot of it.

First off, I called Klatt's game today a rinky-dinky passing game, which is exactly what it was. I didn't say Klatt was doomed to be a rinky-dinky passer for the rest of his life, and the fact he threw for 400 yards last week against CSU is plenty proof he can air it out when he wants to.

Those third downs longer than nine yards you saw in the last drive was an eight-yarder to McCoy and a ten-yarder to Hackett. One didn't even meet the level you suppose, and the other beat it by just one yard. I don't have a pass-by-pass breakdown, but it seems the longest pass Klatt completed might have been a 14-yarder to Hackett in the first scoring drive. Not exactly a lengthy passing attack.

The Buffs had the ball for 35 minutes, far more than the Bruins. Klatt went back to pass about 40 times today, completed 21 passes, and his longest pass might have been 14 yards. I do believe the coverage wasn't all that great out there, but the way you guys are talking, it's like they were blitzing by our guys all day. If there wasn't some modicum of coverage out there, wouldn't have the Buffs a few times just stepped back and launched a few after a quick three step drop, with racing receivers on fly patterns?

Klatt completed 21 passes for 157 yards. That's just 7.5 yards per completion. With 30 total passes attempted, the average pass play went 5.2 yards. Yes, a well-placed PI and a strong pass rush no doubt helped this. But you just don't end up with averages this low unless you try. Barnett aimed for the short passing game the second he figured out it could work. So, yes, it was a rinky-dink passing game (and good coaching).

Also, you mention swings and screens. Not once do I mention those, yet you note only four such plays were made. I never made any claim those plays were plentiful, or even mentioned them at all. What I mentioned were outs and tight crosses. I'm guessing you'll find an awful lot of those, because that's exactly what Klatt was doing the entire game I was watching.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into how you are saying receivers were open, but while Klatt was definitely harassed, he definitely had plenty of time on his rollouts to hit these wide open receivers, if they were truly open down the field all day. I can't match your visual evidence of such, and I have no doubt there were problems out there today. I knwo you saw something.

But the facts otherwise seem to support a conscious effort on the part of Colorado to keep the passing game short for some reason. If those receivers are open as you say, and Klatt can reach them, as you also say, why is he throwing to the closer receivers. If the pass rush is so fierce the longer receivers can't get out there in time, you won't ever see that, because Klatt has already unloaded the ball. If the receivers are visibly able to get open, though, then that means Klatt has the ball long enough for them to get open. Why doesn't he throw to them?

Some things just don't fit to me.

Chief Rum

[TroyF]

Chief,

The WR were getting open just as Klatt was getting flushed from the pocket. The example I gave on the Bloom play was one of many like it. There was another play where Klatt was pressured from the left and had Calhoun streaking down the sideline with the UCLA LB 5 yards behind. Klatt never saw him because of the pressure and had to avoid a couple of UCLA linemen before throwing a 5 yard completion to Klop. Klatt's longest completion was actually an 18 yarder to Hackett later on in the game. (this was on a 3rd and 13 play and one of the few times Klatt had time to throw the ball) Bloom had the UCLA secondary beat badly on both PI calls in the end zone. One was a 50+ yard pass play, the second was around a 20 yard pass play. The 50 yarder was a sure, sure thing. That's completed, those stats you throw out change big time. (in fact, they are nearly identical to the UCLA stats for the game)

Colorado did try a couple of the three step drop launches down near their own goal line. UCLA had both well covered. Of course, CU had a couple of times they covered great down the field as well. It doesn't exactly mean they did a good job over the course of the game. As for the time Klatt had on the rollouts, he missed Hackett by a few inches on another 15 yard+ ball on the sidelines. The others were all misdirections that were set up to have Klop one on one with the LB. The idea was to fake out the D so Klop could run after the catch. It's a CU staple that they used to love to run with Daniel Graham a couple of years ago. There was no deep receiver on these routes. Of course, without a running game and without UCLA having to blitz LB's to get pressure on the QB, the plays were virtually worthless. Why didn't they TRY to have a couple of roll outs sending some WR deep? Don't ask me, I'm still busy trying to figure out why you guys kept lining up only 2 WR on second down.

My mentioning of the screens and swings was not to imply that you said they had many of those. It was to say it was my opinion they should have had MORE of them. I think it would have slowed down that pass rush a little so Klatt could have stayed in the pocket to look downfield.

As for the pass rush getting there so fast that the WR couldn't have made it down the field. . . if you'll look at your replays, you'll see Klatt rarely gets dragged down by the first man. He is usually able to move up in the pocket or slide away from the rush before getting sacked. The WR had plenty of time to get down the field as he was doing this.

It's funny, because I think both of our coaching staffs called very poor games. Yours should have went to a 3WR set 95% of the time and opened it up. They threw for about 8.3 yards per pass attempt (11 yards per completion) but easily could have attacked down the field more. UCLA easily should have had a 300 yard passing day. CU wasn't putting on a severe pass rush and the DB's were missing assignments all over the place. (3rd and 30? I still can't believe that one) Instead of confusing the CU secondary and trying to create havoc, you kept trying to establish a running game that was going nowhere and sending out 2 WR into the pattern letting CU have fewer reads and fewer miscommunications.

CU, on the other hand, used the strategy YOU should have been using. Line em up and send 3 guys down the field. See which one comes open and throw him the ball. Well, that doesn't work real well when you try to double team a defensive end that still comes through untouched. You have to throw some screens, use some reverses (plays which worked wonderfully on the long TD drive and then were almost non-existent the rest of the game), and some draws to slow up the pass rush. CU didn't do any of that and it resulted in a myriad of sacks, pressures and missed chances down the field.

All in all, a dissapointing day for both clubs. You SHOULD have won the game. I'm not denying that for a second. It just should have been by a score of 35-30 instead of 17-16.

TroyF

[Chief Rum]

Very interesting, Troy. Thanks for a good read. Yes, I can see those scenarios playing out the way they did, and looking the way they did to me (through my limited view anyway).

I actually don't know if we should have won, beyond the simple fact of having a late lead we should have kept. I'll tell you this, a team that makes as many mistakes as ours did (listed in all in my first post-game post) doesn't desevre to win jack shit. They don't deserve to even be mentioned as being the team that should have won.

I could see the same argument for Colorado, though. It's a football game--someone had to win, even if neither team played well enough to do so.

Agreed on the coaching. Just horrible on both sides (although I, of course, have special dislike for what UCLA did). It was obvious to anyone watching that by halftime, neither team was going to run much. It took Colorado another quarter to figure out and stop running Purify and Calhoun. UCLA never seemed to figure it out at all.

I will say this about our coverage. Perhaps it was downright horrible today, but I know we have quality players in that secondary. There are three starters returning to that secondary, and they all performed well last season. We lost Ricky Manning to the pros--maybe that meant more than it seemed. Just as your defense was obviously unfairly maligned for its performance against CSU, I think our secondary is receiving a lot of unwarranted flack from a bad day, and that they will prove to be much better in the future.

BTW, #43 was Dave Ball, if you want to keep an eye out for him. He is our leading returning pass rusher and defensive end, and the steps he has taken since he started getting regular time in 2001 has been phenomenal. For trivia purposes, you may also note his twin brother Mat starts at the opposite end and lacks only starting experience by comparison, or so I understand. It would be fun to have them both be dominant ends byt he end fo the year.

Chief Rum

[TroyF]

I actually don't know if we should have won

Yeah, neither one of these teams DESERVED to win. I think you could make a case that either team could win the game were they to replay in 5 weeks from now.

Agreed on the coaching. Just horrible on both sides

As pissed off as we both are we do have to keep a couple of things in mind. For UCLA, you had a coach making his debut. I expect he'll get better. For CU on the offensive side of the ball (I'm not going to even touch on our secondary and defensive coaching staff) they are just learning what a passing game really is. We haven't had a QB who could make good decisions and throw the ball downfield sinse Gary Barnett became coach. The offensive line hasn't exactly had to do a lot of pass protecting the past few years. It will take time for the line to adjust and the CU coaches to find the happy medium of trying to stretch the field and be smart at the same time.

I will say this about our coverage. Perhaps it was downright horrible today, but I know we have quality players in that secondary.

I don't doubt that for a bit. One thing to keep in mind is that CU has some pretty darned good WR. (did you see the catch that Hackett made on his back the final drive? amazing) It was UCLA's first game. I expect they will improve. If they can get D-Line play all season like they did tonight, it won't matter how good the secondary is. Bloom is also the fastest WR you'll see in the slot position this year.

BTW, #43 was Dave Ball, if you want to keep an eye out for him. He is our leading returning pass rusher and defensive end, and the steps he has taken since he started getting regular time in 2001 has been phenomenal.

He's an incredible player. I think he made about every pass rush move there was. Swim moves, bull rushes, even a couple of spins. He had an LT/Pat Swilling/Charles Haley type day yesterday. It got to the point where CU knew it couldn't control him with a tackle and an RB, so they slid the guard over to help. Simply an incredible performence. He has NFL written all over him.

TroyF

[IMetTrentGreen]

get a room you two

btw, ucla blows, and cu is the best team in the big 12 north. watching cu vs. ou again will be fun

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by IMetTrentGreen
get a room you two

btw, ucla blows, and cu is the best team in the big 12 north. watching cu vs. ou again will be fun

Got it. So UCLA blows, and yet they go into Boulder and almost take a game from your proposed best team in the Big 12 North? Got it. I should take you to Vegas.

The reality is UCLA could be quite good, and probably will not blow, while Colorado will be solid but fall short to Kansas State in the North race.

I love that Colorado actually schedules a good non-conference slate, unlike a certain team a far to the south and a bit east of them.

CR

[MrBug708]

Matt Ware had one pass thrown his way and it was defended. I didn't see too many plays where CU had a receiver open down the field. In the middle they did and Havner did a crappy job IMO for the game

[TroyF]

MrBug,

With all due respect, you watched the game on TV. You simply cannot see all of the pass patterns on TV. If you think I have two eyes and respect my opinion even a little bit, you'll just take my word that CU had open guys all over the field.

Chief,

K-State may end up having the same problem they've had against CU the past couple of years:

1) Our O-Line has been better than their d-line two years in a row. After watching the Cal game, that may end up coming into play yet again.

2) Their QB can't complete passes consistently. They can move the ball on CU, but they have problems sustaining long drives. If CU stops the big play, they usually stop KSU.

3) In previous years, CU has been the first real test for KSU. This year, KSU may end up being emotionally drained by the time the game gets there. They have road games against Texas and Oklahoma State right before the CU game.

Having said all that, I do think K-State will win the ball game. I think they'll also lose to Texas, which means the Big 12 North will be decided by how each team does against the Big12 south. Should be fun to watch.

TroyF

[Chief Rum]

Oh yeah, Troy, I know. My conention wasn't with IMTG's appraisal of Colorado and its chances in the Big 12 North, but with his opinion of UCLA (of course). Since the results don't fit with what he was saying, I thought I would point that out.

CR

[MrBug708]

No offense Troy, but reading post game reviews by a lot of other people, our secondary is not a concern of mine nor of them either. Outside of Clark deciding to play 10 yards off of his receiver, but we all knew that the CB spot opposite of Ware was a little suspect