Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Headbutt

  • Rank
    King of the World poster

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Team
    Colorado State
  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Seeing Craig Thompson get fired.

Recent Profile Visitors

26,754 profile views
  1. Way better than "pretty good". Just sayin'. @ole blu dude, you should be in good shape as there are plenty of clinics along the way if you're not up on your vaccinations. Just be sure to take care of that up front.
  2. Pretty much the same video every year of the freshmen learning the fight song. Pretty much gets me pumped up every year.
  3. I am hoping that was the beginning of a turnaround. Bobo seemed to discover the need for a defense that night.
  4. BTW, did you all see it? CSU = WRU. Just sayin'.
  5. I liked that video, right up until they brought Brian Roth in as the "expert". Brian, if you're on this board, a 6 win season with a bowl game is not a successful season in Fort Collins anymore. It's an acceptable season to some, but shouldn't be a "successful" season for any of us. I'm the biggest Bobo apologist on this board, only because I feel fate has dealt him a bad hand since Summers left. However, he's got the ship righted. Six wins is not safe harbor IMO. We may have to live with that as "success" this year for a lot of reasons, but it's not success. Nine needs to be the new normal, with 12 being a realistic goal. This has to happen. Oh, and the video.... Wide Receiver U? Every year I hear about the best WR group in the conference being somewhere other than CSU in the pre-season prognostication. Every year, 20-20 hindsight says CSU. It's time y'all learned. It didn't leave with Whittted either. Hell, Jeremiah Pruitte just got here.
  6. It is. We'll be a very good team. If not this year under Bobo, then soon under someone else. I'm hoping it's Bobo. That's the safest path if he can get it done.
  7. I'm sure they'd want the same amount of weeks in training camp without the preseason games. I'm also sure they'd arrange some scrimmages. This way they get paid for doing it. Waste of time for the fans. Probably helpful for the coaches, and very helpful for the owners and some of the rookies though.
  8. Actually, not at all. CSU has a pressbox and our scoreboard is in the endzone. Canvas functions as the day to day operations and training center for football. This one appears to be gameday only. Tons of SRO, but it appears all of it is upper deck type stuff. Kind of "JerryWorldesque". Nice use of the gaps between 1st and 2nd, and 2nd and 3rd levels for suites. Unless one of those is the missing press box. Good looking stadium though.
  9. OK, I'm not totally sure how to answer because as I read what you write, you and I are looking at things completely differently. I get that it's a different way of judging the value of a returning squad. It's based on factors beyond just showing up for the game, getting a chance to be in the huddle. It's attempting to measure what actually happened when a player was on the field and then attempts to forecast that value so you can look at that measurement on a returning roster. I'm not looking to argue with you, you seem like a good guy. I'm just saying that while you find that interesting, I think it's a waste of time. I don't think most coaches would spend much time looking at it either. It is an innovative way to find a certain value. I just think that value becomes meaningless in a hurry when all of the other relevant factors are applied.
  10. This is pretty weird. UL has an athletic budget over $32,500,000.00. This little stunt would net them around $5 grand. Clearly a case of Napier trying to impress (shame?) the scholarship players into understanding how fortunate they are. I guess . Maybe it's his version of tithing? @rudolro is right. This ain't gonna' boost recruiting. Probably ain't gonna' keep Billy employed either.
  11. Nice work! I wouldn't settle for a $20. Just sayin'.
  12. OK, I'll give you that. Here's the deal. If returning production is high, then that bodes well for the team. If it is low, it has likely been changed to address deficiencies. So, you're comparing apples to oranges. On one team the formula will be a good predictor, on another it will be working with intentionally bad data. Here's one example. Probably not the best, but it's one I'm very familiar with. CSU's D line ranks very low, but is expected to be a strength of the team this year. They added a Grad Transfer D-End from ASU that put up very good numbers in the P12, and return a kid that led the DL in tackles in 2016 but has been out hurt for two years. Both have already worked their way into the starting lineup. We had a weak DL last year, and adjusted the talent. That changes the data. I'm not saying its a bad formula, I'm saying that the results probably don't have near the weight across the board that the article seems to indicate. One other problem with the article. It's from January. Not one team in the country likely has the same talent returning that they thought they would have back in January. It's a cool formula I guess if you're deep into analytics, but I wouldn't put much weight on it if I'm playing Pick 10. I think there are bigger inputs than what that table comes up with.
  13. Got it. You're appreciating the metric. I don't see any value in it, regardless of how well it derives returning production. I'm not calling you out, just saying that we see it differently. That's all.