Gameday roundup and open thread

by Odysseus on Oct 15, 2005 8:04 AM PDT in Football

The Bruins won't be getting too much attention, as SC-ND is center stage. But the Bruins were the #2 story on Gameday, with a lot of talk about the Pullman curse. However, it's now pretty much Conventional Wisdom that UCLA will be 10-0 going into a "de facto Pac 10 Championship Game."

Here's Lonnie White's gameday offering, again focusing on the story of the Bruins' struggles in Pullman (and I agree that this really is the story of the week). Another huge storyline is the Bruins' recent unfortunate tradition of letting down against inferior competition. The Bruins can't fall into that trap:

"The coaches have been telling us all week about all the bad things about the trip. The two-hour drive from Spokane to Pullman and how that could affect us. But we know that has nothing to do with what goes on [today]. What happens between the white lines is what matters."

Coach Karl Dorrell did not have to raise his voice to remind his players to stay focused for Washington State, which has defeated UCLA in their last four meetings, and in seven of the last nine.

[snip, according to Dorrell,]

"This is our first airplane trip and this is Game 6 of the season. We've explained the whole process of getting there and getting back.... It's all about staying focused."

In 2003, the last time UCLA played at Martin Stadium, Washington State jumped on top of the Bruins early, scoring 14 points within the first seven minutes of the game in a 31-13 victory.

[snip]

A year ago, the Cougars won, 31-29, in what many UCLA players considered their worst defeat of the season. The Bruins would have become bowl eligible with a victory but instead played poorly in front of Holiday Bowl representatives at the Rose Bowl.

White also picks up on the storyline of Cougars star running back Jerome Harrision and his workmanlike performance last year leading the Cougars to victory on our home turf. If the sieve-like Bruins running defense can shut down Harrison, this would be a huge confidence builder.

White also has a story on the noise in Pullman, explaining the lengths to which teams go in order to simulate the hostile road atmosphere. This is the Bruins first true road game, as Qualcomm had a heavy Bruin presence, and it was a short trip down the Golden State Freeway.

Dohn talks about the logistics, the rowdy fans, and the poor locker room situation. Dohn has another story about Harrison.

Finally, Kuwada focuses on the travel aspect as well:

UCLA's football team woke up this morning in somewhere other than Southern California for the first time this season, and if they peered out the windows of their tiny hotel that fact had to be painfully obvious to them.

Washington State is not the most favored of destinations in the Pac-10, and Martin Stadium is not the easiest place to play for a visiting team. No matter where the trip starts, the travel to this town is not easy. The weather can be a factor at this time of year, particularly for teams from Southern California.

The fans are close to the sidelines and can be unruly -- extra security measures have been put in place this week to try to prevent fans from heckling opposing players on the long walk from the visiting locker room to the stadium.

Hopefully, the Bruins will be able to overcome the distractions and focus on stopping Harrison and the rest of the Cougs. That in itself is no small task, especially since the Cougs have had the Bruins' number for so long. Basically, the Bruins have to keep proving their toughness and character every game, or the MSM, and pretty much everyone esle, quite frankly, will be saying it's the same old soft Bruins again, unable to handle success or beat an inferior team on the road.

The Bruins must win this game.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Welcome to 2001

Completely dominated on both sides of the ball.

by LA Seitz on Oct 15, 2005 4:18 PM PDT reply actions

angry and depressed about this

but NOT surprised.

Also nice job to the Trojans, NOT, they were outplayed and outcoached, but luckilly Carroll made the biggest decision to not have instant replay, because the officials bad calls gave them the game

I HATE $CUM

by Odysseus on Oct 15, 2005 5:23 PM PDT reply actions

Dorrell must go

The SC/ND game showed two things. One, we have a long way to go to play with the Trojans. Two, look what a good coach can do with basically the same personnel, I mean Weis is the man. Too bad we could never get anyone with his mind and vision. I can realistically see us losing the rest of the games this year with maybe a win over Stanford. Dorrell and Kerr just stink. Did it ever occur to them to move some OLineman to DT just to give then some size and presence. Also don't they the OLBs and CB to hold the sidelines, how many times do you see the sidelines wide open because everyone dives toward the ball. It's great if you can tackle, but you miss and it's a big gain everytime. Right now we are just a run of the mill team and next year will be worse unless we get a real coaching staff.

by drillerdoc on Oct 15, 2005 5:42 PM PDT reply actions

Won't work

Did it ever occur to them to move some OLineman to DT just to give then some size and presence.

The O-line is practically just as bad.

by LA Seitz on Oct 15, 2005 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Exactly

I was thinking the same thing. Even though we pulled out this game, it was easy to see the difference between a Karl Dorrell and a Charlie Weis. Dorrell continues to mismanage games (poor use of timeouts, bad clock management, inability to read and react quickly). After watching both games, I was very impressed with Weis, and very depressed about Dorrell.

It is fun to win-but at what cost? Our schedule is so weak this year that it looks like we are playing okay. Unfortunately, we will be exposed when we play against SC, and maybe even before that (ASU).

Karl must go. I know we are winning, but he really does have to go.

by Koach Karl I on Oct 15, 2005 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions

FIRE DORRELL NOW

fire this clown

www.royalsreview.com

by RoyalsReview @ Bruins Nation on Oct 15, 2005 6:37 PM PDT reply actions

Great win

A great win by the Bruins. Great heart and resolve by the players, but it is ridiculous we should be down 21 to WSU at any point in the game.

by drillerdoc on Oct 15, 2005 7:24 PM PDT reply actions

Holy Cow.

What a comeback.

My two favorite teams are the Bruins and whoever's playing USC.

by El Payo on Oct 15, 2005 7:28 PM PDT reply actions

Imagine how good this team would be...

if they would stop spotting teams 2-3 TD's.

Why isn't Maurice Drew returning kicks? Bush does it, why can't Maurice?

Well, 6-0 and #6 came at WSU.

You can't help but to think that we are living on borrowed time at this point.

Oh, nice job Cal.

by Ajax on Oct 15, 2005 7:28 PM PDT reply actions

Why do I get the distinct feeling ...

That people on this board WANT UCLA to lose? I'm serious. They finish off a brilliant comeback win, and all I hear is that people here are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

"Why can't Dorrell be like Charlie Weis?" Well, Weis lost today. He's a great coach, but meanwhile, UCLA is 6-0.

APPRECIATE THAT.

You guys don't deserve a winner if you can't appreciate wins like this.

This ain't FireDorrell.com anymore.

This kind of crap is absurd.

by Quickhands on Oct 15, 2005 7:33 PM PDT reply actions

No one wants UCLA to lose

It's great that we overcame a 3 TD deficit, but the fact is WSU is a mediocre team that won't even get a sniff at a bowl game. That fact that we are eeking out victories is fine, but I don't see any foundation for the future. What happens when Drew Olson and Lewis are gone? Or Havner and London? Or God forbid Maurice Drew leaves early? We are being carried by outstanding offense. The defense has been terrible the past two years, nothing has been done to address this problem. Granted the D in the second half was much better, but why do they need to wait at the half to make any adjustments? I just don't have any confidence that this is an up and coming team regardless of our record. We can easily lose to any team on our schedule in the next few weeks.

by drillerdoc on Oct 15, 2005 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes

You COULD lose to any team on your remaining schedule, but wouldn't you rather BELIEVE?

I just don't sense any optimism here from a blog supposedly supporting a 6-0 team.

There's so much negativity. Yes, today's win and last week's win were close ones that might have gone the other way ... but would you rather be Cal?

They actually lost last week and then gave a piss-poor showing against a mediocre Oregon State team at HOME.

In that span, UCLA is 2-0 with 2 amazing wins, and Cal is 0-2 with two disheartening losses. Does this mean Cal should talk about firing Jeff Tedford?

by Quickhands on Oct 15, 2005 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions

6-0 is wonderful...

...and I for one, am very excited about that.

However, the annals of college football hstory are littered with teams that opened up 5-0 or 6-0 only to finish 8-3 or 7-4--or even 6-5.

Based on the past several seasons of watching UCLA football, I'm taking a cautious approach.

But don't make assinine comments that we are hoping that UCLA will lose.

by Ajax on Oct 15, 2005 7:55 PM PDT reply actions

Hoping?

I wouldn't necessarily say that you are consciously HOPING that UCLA loses, but deep down, it would make you happy because it would validate your belief that Dorrell is a terrible coach. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You talk about 7-5 and then when it happens, you can say, "See? I told you so."

I shouldn't say that you WANT it to happen, because you DO want UCLA to be national champs. But every loss is going to be a validation, of sorts, of what you've been saying about Karl Dorrell from Day 1.

by Quickhands on Oct 15, 2005 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions

This is the sort of talk that kept Lavin around

This kind of talk, saying that look we are going to the tourny, make sweet 16s now and then, kept Lavin around for 7 years when he was clearly in over his head. UCLA is basically winning because of 3 players, all of which could be gone after the season. Where does that leave the program, with 2 seasons of .500 and one where we win 8 or 9 games. Lavin had NBA talent and his problem was consistently performing under expectations. I don't care that he made sweet 16s when he should have made final fours. The same goes for Dorrell, there is NFL material on both sides of the ball. The DL is an embarassment. These players are all 2-3 star players, there are many D1 programs that have DL of no stars but show much better performance. That fact that we shut WSU down in the fourth shows that the talent is there if given the proper coaching. My question is why does it take three quarters to figure things out?

by drillerdoc on Oct 15, 2005 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Wrong again my friend

You obviously haven't been reading the blog for very long. I encourage you to check out this offering by Odysseus.

Despite what you may think, we have the best interests of the UCLA football program at heart. If Dorrell turns out to be the man to return UCLA football to national prominence, all of us would have no problem admitting that we have been wrong the whole time about Dorrell.

In other words, the UCLA football program is bigger than any one man.

If you take some time to read some of our recent posts, you'll find that while we have been cautious, we have also been very complimentary of the job that Dorrell and his staff have done so far this year.

So far so good. However, recent history does not support your seemingly undying faith that Karl Dorrell is above reproach. Based on the fiascos of years 1 and 2, he has not yet earned the benefit of the doubt.

Now a 9-10 win season with a solid bowl showing may go a long way in helping to convince the Bruin Nation that Dorrell may be the man for the job.

by Ajax on Oct 15, 2005 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions

Lavin?!? Get Real. . .

I am on the fence with KD but thought the game went according to expectations. Before you dismiss Wahzoo, consider that Harrison was leading the PAC-10 in rushing and that Wahzoo was scoring a great deal. Dismissing WSU as "mediocre" on the offensive end, especially at home, is just not being fair or intellectually honest.

Also our talent is not that great. Even our best player is undersized. I guess the KD haters (who twist and turn every fact or assertion against KD) don't remember what Fouts said during the OU game "no one would take UCLA's talent over Oklahoma." I realize Oklahoma and Cal both look weaker now then when we played them but keep in mind SI named as the biggest surprise this year.

Thus while Lavin had great talent, that often/usually under achieved; KD does not have that same talent. Shoot Drew Olson can't throw a spiral more than 14 yards and his bombs are painful and scary to watch. Maurice Drew is awesome but unlike Baron Davis who was a lock for the pros, Drew may be a Punt Return Specialist only in the pros.

So this UCLA is "so talented" stuff is crap. A better criticism is why hasn't KD made recruiting a DL his number one priority considering all the problems we have had the last few years. I am not sold on KD but I am happy with the way the team is playing and not filled with irrational hatred for him.

As Nestor says and I think we can all agree with him, GO BRUINS!

by moralvictorydean on Oct 15, 2005 9:38 PM PDT reply actions

So You Agree That KD Must Go

If we have such poor talent, whose fault is that? Dorrell has had plenty of time to recruit his "own" guys and he has done a piss-poor job of it.

Then, when the schedule maker gives him a break and he actually wins the games he is supposed to, KD goes and hands out almost all of his scholies before he can sell his "winning" record with recruits.

I am sorry, but Dorrell is just an overmatched coach going through an incedibly lucky win streak. It is fun while it lasts, but when it is over, it is bad.

by Koach Karl I on Oct 15, 2005 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions