Guerrero Expects Dorrell to Contend for Pac-10 Title (this year)
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 7:00 AM PDT
in Football
53 comments
Some interesting comments from Dan Guerrero in this morning's LA Times. Dan Guerrero acknowledges the obvious - last year's 10-2 didn't mean all that much:
"The success that we had last year is not translating into maybe the kind of respect that you may want to see in a program," Guerrero said. "If you go across the country and you come off a 10-2 year, people are dancing in the streets and talking up the program quite a bit. In the Southern California community, specifically Los Angeles, there is still a wait-and-see with this program.
Photo: Wally Skalij / LAT
DG then continues:
"We'll see how things unfold, because we're breaking in a new quarterback and we have so many other changes, we really don't know. But we're excited because there's a good foundation in place."
In other news, as expected, Dorrell has officially suspended John Hale and Jess Ward for the opener. But given our depth at DL, I don't expect this to be too much of an issue in our first game against Utah.
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
53 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Maurice Clarett!!!
I was watching this closely cause I thought that the pressure of beating UTAH would make him "pull a PETE CARROLL" and make them run a lap. Keeping the players in check is very important to me as a BRUIN fan. I don't want our former players to go out and do stupid things to embarrass the BRUINS like M. Clarett.
The worst thing about M. Clarrett is that you can trace his problems to Ohio State University!!
Oh yeah I feel confident in our linebackers and D-line to make up for it on Sep.2, none of our players are as bad as the Utes. They have a lack of depth and talent at their linebacker and D-line positions. (They aren't as good as they're being hyped)Dan G. has the heat burning under Karl D. the new contract was letting him know what we all expect 9 games and beat $C.
GO BRUINS!!!!!
by dodgers05 on Aug 9, 2006 7:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Our Maurice Clarett
by bruinzete on Aug 9, 2006 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great comments from DG
by bluestreet on Aug 9, 2006 10:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Again, we can thank Ben Howland
Now it's Dorrell's turn to step up.
by Ajax on Aug 9, 2006 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeap
No doubt Howland has up the ante. But so have all our other programs (except for Olivier's program) who are either winning the NC or putting up a legit competition for it.
This were great statements from DG and it shows he is aware of the frustrations of the Bruins Nation.
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just noticed something...hmmmm
Think about it he pushes all the buttons and takes all the heat for the program. When I think UCLA I find myself thinking "Dan G. will get it right" Joe Torre is Karl D. think long and hard about how New Yorkers didn't think fondly of him when he took over. Joe Torre is more bland than Karl Dorrell!!! Joe Torre doesn't say much and he is very soft-spoken. Sound familiar. Karl Dorrell doesn't make BOLD STATEMENTS ,but BOLD STATEMENTS get you fired in a hurry and or make you an instant legend like Joe Namath.
Dan G. is telling everyone one the UCLA sideline that I'll make the BOLD STATEMENTS and take all the heat for making those comments. Now you go out and WIN!! He did spend the money.
Sounds like "The Boss" to me. Whenever Joe Torre get reamed by the media you know that its nothing compared to what he hears from "The Boss" hopefully we can have the same success with Dan G. and Joe oops I mean Karl D.
Go Bruins!!!!
by dodgers05 on Aug 9, 2006 11:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Stupidest Post of the Year
Torre won the World Series in his first year. Dorrell got his ass kicked by USC and lost to Fresno State.
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing Dorrell to Torre
Hey looookey everyone. Pat Riley used hair gel. So does Lavin. Then Lavin must be a great coach.
by bluestreet on Aug 9, 2006 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
DG on KD
Regardless, I think Guerrero is doing the right thing by setting the bar high, particularly since if KD falls short (I'd say 7 wins is what we'll get) of expectations, it won't be so shocking if he gives him the axe. It would sure be a lot better than Pete Dalis firing Harrick over an expense report. Now, granted, Dalis had plenty of reasons to get rid of Harrick (putting aside that nice 11th banner), but the timing and excuse for firing him in '96 was lame. I think DG will do a much better job when (not if) he gives KD his pink slip.
Now, can I just say how much I WISH I could look forward to the upcoming football season with something other than dread and nervousness? It's such a contrast to the basketball program, where I can eagerly await a season with a team loaded with talent and a truly exceptional man at the helm.
by SactoBruin on Aug 9, 2006 12:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If we win 7 games
I think KD will be allright (in the eyes of UCLA) if he wins 7 games and beat SC.
But just winning 7 games w/ another loss to SC - he will be in the hottest seat in college football and who knows may even get fired particulary if UCLA finishes the season with 7 wins, after starting with a record of 4-1/5-0.
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's exactly what will happen.
And I know how I think that will turn out. I called it a year ago.
by McCloskey on Aug 9, 2006 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blogs helping our cause
Times are changing. And it just means we all got to keep up the discussion.
by bluestreet on Aug 9, 2006 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
by HomeBruin on Aug 9, 2006 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Torre comparison
Year League Team Age G W L WP Finish
+----+-----------+--------+---+-----+----+----+------+------+
1977 NL East NewYorkM 36 117 49 68 .419 6 Player/Manager
1978 NL East NewYorkM 37 162 66 96 .407 6
1979 NL East NewYorkM 38 163 63 99 .389 6
1980 NL East NewYorkM 39 162 67 95 .414 5
1981 NL East NewYorkM 40 52 17 34 .333 5 First half of season
1981 NL East NewYorkM 40 53 24 28 .462 4 Second half of season
1982 NL West Atlanta 41 162 89 73 .549 1
1983 NL West Atlanta 42 162 88 74 .543 2
1984 NL West Atlanta 43 162 80 82 .494 3
1990 NL East St.Louis 49 58 24 34 .414 6
1991 NL East St.Louis 50 162 84 78 .519 2
1992 NL East St.Louis 51 162 83 79 .512 3
1993 NL East St.Louis 52 162 87 75 .537 3
1994 NL Cent St.Louis 53 115 53 61 .465 3
1995 NL Cent St.Louis 54 47 20 27 .426 4
1996 AL East NewYorkY 55 162 92 70 .568 WS 1
So it was almost 20 years from the first time Joe Torre managed a team until his first World Series title. And if you really want to compare the two, Joe Torre never doing better than a 4th-place finish in five years managing the Mets wouldn't have placated many of the fans here on BruinsNation.
Dorrell was hired with the expectation that he would grow into being a championship-winning coach, and some of us were glad that we would get a chance to have a coach who would build a legacy entirely at UCLA. Until someone proves last year was a fluke, I'm not going to believe it was. I'll be one of the least forgiving people on this site if the team folds this season, but for now I think last season earned Karl the benefit of at least some optimism. (I should note that I was in the stands for the Stanford game and pledged then some sort of allegiance to this coaching regime somewhere in the middle of that amazing comeback win.)
by antipimp on Aug 9, 2006 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So you can look up some stats ...
What you just proved is that Torre was eminently qualified to take over the Yankees and he got it done.
He got started by being the player/manager for a shitty baseball team. In other words he was a manager in training.
So if you are going to compare Torre/Mets to Dorrell, then you just made the projection that Dorrell is going to be a loser for a while.
I am not in the mood to give this coach another 5 years to find out whether he can get us to the BCS while getting his ass kicked annually by USC.
Glad you enjoyed the miracle against Stanford. Tells you something when we had to keep reaching for those miracles against some of the shittiest teams in college football.
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apples to apples
So, in his time here, Dorrell, as a coach in training if you want to call it that, has already improved his team more than Torre did in his years with the Mets. Like I said, I'm optimistic going into next season, but that's where my loyalty is going to become provisional. Brian Dohn says that a new coach needs six years before his program can be fairly evaluated, and CFN in their projections posted in another diary entry say that UCLA is going to be a monster in 2007 even if they say that we're going to suck this year.
I'm not saying to give this coach another five years, I'm saying let's at least wait until he earns it before we start clamoring for him to be fired.
When Dorrell said that he wanted to build a team that could contend for the Pac-10 every year, I don't think he meant starting with his first year. Last year proved that Dorrell's team could put itself into position to win the Pac-10 before that hugely embarrassing day in South Central. 11 years from now, I want to be able to look back at 10 Pac-10 championships in a row, or at least teams that contended for them. I'll look at the previous few years as the years that UCLA was building up to that.
You were implying that Joe Torre is untouchable because he proved in his first year that he could win the Series, and I was just saying it didn't work that way for Joe Torre, either. I wonder if you can even bring yourself to hope that Karl Dorrell can achieve that kind of untouchable status if we're looking for his replacement 20 years from now and he's brought us multiple national championships, or if you're still trying to prove your point from when this website was called firekarldorrell.com.
by antipimp on Aug 9, 2006 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"UCLA was a team quickly going down the tubes
- 6-6
- 7-4
- 8-5
- 6-7
- 6-6
- 10-2
by McCloskey on Aug 9, 2006 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop being unreasonable
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Being reasonable
by antipimp on Aug 9, 2006 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I wanted to go by won/loss records...
I'm talking about the players who refused to attend voluntary workouts.
And the fact that Bob Toledo had pretty much written off recruiting linemen.
And the perception that the team had quit paying attention to all the coaches.
And more that I wish I could think of right now, but don't want to spend the time researching.
Like I said, the problems are documented elsewhere. I'm just pointing out that this isn't Phil Jackson taking over the Lakers because they had Shaq and Kobe but still couldn't win the title, this was a team deciding to start from scratch and build to something better. And outside of this website there seems to be a consensus that by 2007 Dorrell will have built a better team than we've seen in Westwood in a long time.
I think it's started already.
by antipimp on Aug 9, 2006 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Conventional wisdom
No one was expecting Karl Dorrell to be Phil Jackson and certainly no one had the take that UCLA had the talent level of LA Lakers (guess when one analogy doesn't work, you switch to others).
But just because Dohn said Dorrell deserves 6 years, that doesn't mean Dorrell will get 6 years. Dohn is not a UCLA alum and is not emotionally invested in this program like the Bruin community beyond the message boards.
And if you spent a little time researching, you'd fine that Dorrell had more than enough talent to win 8-9 games his first two years, bring in top-20 recruiting classes, and close the gap with USC. But he didn't.
And here you are spouting conventional wisdom that we shouldn't expect anything this year, but in 2007.
Even the Cubs fans don't sound this pathetic giving up before the season starts.
They usually start singing "next year" after the All Star break.
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never claimed wisdom...
And I've never conceded this season. I've said several times now that I'm ready to be extremely critical if this season proves me wrong. You can keep ripping on the come-from-behind wins last year but 1) they were wins and 2) the team was capable of doing the things necessary to make them happen. This proves to me that Dorrell has done a lot right.
As for the first two seasons, I'll reiterate that this program decided to start from scratch. Yes, it's possible they could have kept doing what they were doing for a few more years and stayed in the 8-9 win range. But Dorrell was committed to installing and running an entirely new offense for the future. I wasn't into the blogosphere at all a couple years ago, but I'm willing to bet that many of the same people now saying Dorrell should be fired were saying then that his west coast offense would never work. Few people now are critical of the offense, but rather than admit that they were wrong they have decided to be critical of other things.
As for the recruiting classes, I don't think they're as bad as some other people do. The traditional powerhouse schools often don't have highly ranked recruiting classes, but they win because they know how to recruit to the needs of their own teams. An example (as I know that you and I are both Niners fans, Nestor) would be Bobb McKittrick. He had a particular plan that involved linemen who didn't play the same way that other teams' lines did. He signed offensive linemen who were poorly ranked by other teams because he knew they would work within his system, and all he did was help his team win five Super Bowls.
I assume a switch to a football analogy won't draw criticism? I only switched from Joe Torre to Phil Jackson because I hate the Yankees and don't even know who was managing for them before Joe Torre did; the point was that I knew that Phil Jackson had been the type of coach who got a team over the last hump after the team had been built by someone else. That's not the model UCLA chose to pursue, and at the time few would have argued that the team had deep-seeded problems that made that impossible, so they (to repeat) built from scratch.
And please don't think I'm as bad as a Cubs fan. (I'm a Giants fan, for the record, which I'm sure will only get me in more trouble here.)
I've got to think that somewhere out there is a high school football player reading these posts and deciding whether or not he should consider UCLA, or some writer on the East Coast using this as his one example of how the UCLA fan base feels about their coach. If this site is really supposed to be a forum for all Bruins fans - and anyone who knows me will tell you I qualify the next time I miss a wedding because they had the audacity to schedule it on the same day as a UCLA home game - I just think it's counter-productive that the people who post here often denigrate any opinion other than their own. Calling dodgers05 an idiot and deleting his posts to the comment board as he's trying to say that UCLA is on its way to building a Yankees-like dynasty (again, I hate the Yankees, so I have my own misgivings about this picture) because it counters the BruinsNation orthodoxy doesn't seem to help the school in any way I can think of.
The funny thing is that I actually buy into the 9-games-including-beating-SC argument here. I don't think it makes me an idiot or any less of a UCLA fan that I actually think Karl Dorrell is going to do it - he's built the team to be that consistently good. I'm afraid half the people here will just find another reason why they want him gone.
by antipimp on Aug 9, 2006 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
Well Dorrell ultimately bares the responsibility of offense being botched up in his first two years considering it was him who hired Axeman and it was him who screwed up handling up the QB mess involving Moore/Olson. And who says we have been muted our criticisms of Cable. Cable was all right. But the improvement under him was not all that dramatic consider how our offense was sputtering in the games that actually matter. More than few times it was our offense sputtering in the first 3Qs, and then was jump started in last Q because of the heroics of MJD and Drew Olson. We will see what happens this year.
As for recruiting goes no one is saying they are "bad." All we are saying they are not as great as some Dorrell supporters have hyping them to be. And as we have broken down before it is pretty clear Dorrell has not closed the talent game with USC and in fact has fallen behind Cal.
It was Buck Shoewalter who was the manager before Torre.
No one was asking for a Phil Jackson type of coach to be brought in to revive UCLA football. That's the tragedy. If the UCLA athletic department did some basic research they would have been able to assemble a final list of candidates lot more impressive then the troika of losers we had in Dorrell, Robinson, and Riley. Oh well. That's over and done with. But it is a fact UCLA could have hired Urban Meyer at a salary less than what it ultimately paid for Dorrell.
As for this comment:
As for dodger05 - when you hurl obscene epithets towards the site moderator, it will get you banned. No questions asked.
And there is no evidence yet that Karl Dorrell has built a team that is consistently good. If there was UCLA would not be such an afterthought in all the preseason rankings across the nation.
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
"You did bring up how everyone else is pointing to the 2007 season."
Actually, he said there was "a consensus that by 2007 Dorrell will have built a better team than we've seen in Westwood in a long time [emphasis mine]", which doesn't really infer giving up on this season at all.
"As for the wins from last season even DG acknowledged in his today's comments there is a reason for UCLA not getting any respect around the country. Because when you take in the big picture those wins do not look all that impressive."
Actually, it's because you have to perform at that level for more than one year at a time to earn that respect. Everyone involved in the UCLA football program appears to be aware of that. A few consecutive seasons in the 8+ or 9+ win-range would put us more permanently on the map.
"Well Dorrell ultimately bares the responsibility of offense being botched up in his first two years considering it was him who hired Axeman and it was him who screwed up handling up the QB mess involving Moore/Olson."
Dorrell does bear responsibility for the offense his first two seasons; he also deserves credit for the offense that developed. He recognized a mistake in Axman and corrected it immediately -- that's a good thing, a sign of learning and development. And it worked.
I don't see how he screwed up Moore/Olson -- we clearly ended up with the right guy taking snaps for us.
"More than few times it was our offense sputtering in the first 3Qs, and then was jump started in last Q because of the heroics of MJD and Drew Olson."
And Dorrell and his staff, as I just alluded to, deserve credit for that. Olson seemed a great kid and a hard worker, but he needed the coaching and system behind him to pull those wins out of his hat.
"If the UCLA athletic department did some basic research they would have been able to assemble a final list of candidates lot more impressive then the troika of losers we had in Dorrell, Robinson, and Riley. Oh well. That's over and done with. But it is a fact UCLA could have hired Urban Meyer at a salary less than what it ultimately paid for Dorrell."
While that may be, that ship has sailed. I think we have to focus on what Dorrell is doing now -- and this season is crucial in determining that.
"If there are concerns about the way Karl Dorrell is running this program, then we are going to discuss. We will discuss it out in the open backed up by well researched stats and figures."
And that is certainly fair. But I think the previous post did have a fair point about the tone of that criticism. It can be a bit off-putting to come to a Bruin site and witness non-constructive mockery of the football program, from mocking Karl Dorrell dancing with his wife, to inferring that he's lying about having received interest from NFL teams, to non sequitur comparisons to Ben Howland.
As with most things, the truth is found between the extremes. Karl Dorrell has proved neither a football genius nor a misguided fool. He has performed well in some respects and poorly in others. The question is: has he improved where he needs to in ways that demonstrate that he's the man to lead this program to the glory its university and its fans deserve?
The jury is still out on that question. This is a huge season for Karl and the program. A competent defense, an offense that reloads instead of rebuilds -- these would be the hallmarks of our program moving to the next tier. Dorrell deserves the opportunity from open minds to show he can make that happen.
Will he be able to do it? I'll confess I'm more optimistic about that some here, but the honest truth is that I don't know. But come September 2, I'll be cheering as fervently as anyone to hope he can.
by 3South on Aug 9, 2006 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben Howland
If you have a tough time with our caustic tone towards a football head coach who is 0-3 against USC, hasn't come close to competing for the Pac-10 title or gone (much less won) a major bowl game, then you need to go visit somewhere else.
And yes we are all going to be cheering for the Bruins on September 2 as well.
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 5:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
by 3South on Aug 9, 2006 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In that case
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fascinating strawman
by 3South on Aug 10, 2006 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Let it go dude. This discussion ended a while ago. All it looks like right now is putting up useless information to defend Dorrell.
by bluestreet on Aug 10, 2006 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Name one
Nestor just implied that people are upset with his criticism of Dorrell because they think Dorrell is bothered by it, an argument I've seen no one make here or anywhere else.
by 3South on Aug 10, 2006 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep parcing
I've got to think that somewhere out there is a high school football player reading these posts and deciding whether or not he should consider UCLA, or some writer on the East Coast using this as his one example of how the UCLA fan base feels about their coach.Dunno. It comes across to me is something is bothered about the idea that critcisms of Dorrell on this site may hurt the UCLA coach. Not sure if Dorrell is bothered with it personally but it certainly getting enough of Pimp and your nerve that you are engaging in a ridiculously long/moot discussion about it. So I am not sure whats wrong with N pointing out that peopple are upset with criticism because somehow Dorrell is bothered by it.
This whole thing started with the moronic comparisons between Dorrell and Torre and you and Pimp ran with it.
by bluestreet on Aug 10, 2006 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Parsing
'I've got to think that somewhere out there is a high school football player reading these posts and deciding whether or not he should consider UCLA, or some writer on the East Coast using this as his one example of how the UCLA fan base feels about their coach.'
Dunno. It comes across to me is something is bothered about the idea that critcisms of Dorrell on this site may hurt the UCLA coach."
Well, that's a pretty creative reading of that statement, but as neither you nor I wrote it, well ... I guess we'll never know.
"This whole thing started with the moronic comparisons between Dorrell and Torre and you and Pimp ran with it."
I'm one of the people that called the comparison silly, and gave reasons as to why it was.
by 3South on Aug 10, 2006 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
May bad on the typo
Just to wrap it up just thought taking that comment from Pimp and putting it in context with his posts elsewhere in this thread, I don't think it is a stretch to make the assertion that people (in this case Pimp and perhaps other Dorrell supporters lurking in this blog) get bothered that criticisms of the coach on a UCLA related blog hurts the coach. Gotta get back to work. Moving on. Good you thought the comparsion was silly. That's how this silly thread started.
by bluestreet on Aug 10, 2006 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I have a point, I guess it's this
This has already gone on longer than I'd intended in the middle of a workday, but I just wanted to say that I think it's healthier for this site to have this debate than to try to present a united front. My overall point is that it doesn't make someone less intelligent or insightful to think positively. And it certainly doesn't make them less of a UCLA fan. I was very vocally against Steve Lavin, and I knew it was time for Bob Toledo to go, but at this point the UCLA cart is attached to Karl Dorrell, like it or not.
If you're trying to inject politics into this discussion, I'd rather be on the side of the people who don't want to be critical of the war than on the side of Michael Moore, who seemed to almost wish thousands of Americans would die during the invasion. Wishing for Karl Dorrell to be fired necessarily entails hoping UCLA goes through at least two more seasons you would see as failures, and nobody on this site except for the Trojan fan lurkers benefits from that.
by antipimp on Aug 9, 2006 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and that's where you are off
as for injecting politics into the discussin you certainly were implicitly pushing the ole Anne Coulter argument that somehow being critical or pointing out what's wrong with our current administration (head coach) s benefiting the enemy (Trojans).
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seriously?
She certainly wasn't the first person to come up with the idea that criticism of the government gives solace to the enemy. And I never said that what you're doing is helping USC, who has barely if at all been mentioned in this thread. Besides the fact that they obviously have to be defeated, they're irrelevant to everything I've said. Beating them regularly is a byproduct of building a strong program.
I just hope that your comment was made at least partially in jest. I'm not comparing you to Jane Fonda or making any other ridiculous analogies.
I can only assure you that, living far outside the Beltway as I do, Anne Coulter was nowhere near my thoughts.
by antipimp on Aug 10, 2006 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
It's your comment that somehow being critical of UCLA is impacting our recruiting, and is negatively effecting our coaching staff (which can be interpreted that you implying we are aiding UCLA's competition) came across as the kind of straw man argument Coulters of the world make day in and day out.
And even though you mention that you are not suggesting what we are writing is helping USC yet you mentioned up thread:
Again this is not going to be a rah rah site. We are going to call it as we see it. We are not going to worry about what Trojan lurkers are thinking or how it may be impacting Karl Dorrell. If Karl Dorrell is a coach who is as good as Ben Howland, then he has no reasons to worry.
If he has to worry about what some bloggers are saying then it should be the UCLA alums who should be worried about what kind of thin skinned head coach is leading our program.
Anyways, no one here (none of the front-pagers) is wishing for Dorrell to get fired. If win 9 games and beat SC, we will be more than happy to give him his due praise.
by Nestor on Aug 10, 2006 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is at least 4,000 degrees off the subject ...
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.
...
"I'm sorry, but the majority of Americans supported this war once it began and, sadly, that majority must now sacrifice their children until enough blood has been let that maybe -- just maybe -- God and the Iraqi people will forgive us in the end."
Just FYI.
by 3South on Aug 10, 2006 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey Newbie
Were you around during the basketball season?
by bluestreet on Aug 10, 2006 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was here
I'm trying to get away from this discussion for now, too, but since you asked a question I thought it appropriate to answer it.
I found this site during basketball season, and started checking it every day. And I think I might have made one or two posts about this then, but mostly stayed away to try to enjoy Howland's season and try not to pick any fights. I found it amazing how often an article would end with one or two sentences along the lines of, "Too bad our football coach can't do this." The name might have changed, but far too often this site still seems obsessed with the fact that they've been calling for the ouster of Dorrell since day one. Nobody enjoyed the basketball season more than I did, and it's too bad that some of the people here couldn't just enjoy it for what it was without their bitterness toward the football coach so obviously bleeding through.
I've discussed my opinion more than I'd intended when I first replied, and trust me when I say I'd like to stop beating my chest and arguing now. If Nestor's sincere in his assertion that he'll be happy for Dorrell and start rooting for him if the team meets his expectations this year, then we all hope we'll be on the same side in a few months, anyway. If we all end up on "my" side, we'll all be happy, and if we all end up on "your" side, we'll all be very pissed. So I don't know why almost everything I say here results in a flame of some kind.
by antipimp on Aug 10, 2006 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like you have an agenda
We don't really care about "your side" v. "my side" nonsense. You can engage in endless blue v. crank nonsense threads on other boards.
All of us are rooting for UCLA football to win and beat SC. If you think we are somehow wishing we have a bad season so that we can have a new coach you clearly have some other agenda you are trying to push.
by Nestor on Aug 10, 2006 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You caught me
And I suspect that Dick Cheney put her up to it when he saw your comments about "(right)wing-nuts" after they were flagged by Homeland Security.
(As nobody seems to have any sense of humor about the football team, I should mention that I'm kidding.)
If I had any agenda, it was to side with someone who was saying something good about the football team and say that he's not less of a fan just because he decides not to decide to be negative about everything he can regarding his football team. I don't know him, the guy might be an idiot - a name like dodgers05 doesn't impress a Giants fan like me - but it is possible to see that he might have been trying to make a point that winning coaches aren't necessarily the loud, bombastic types, and that Dorrell's usually mild demeanor is not necessarily a liability.
But you guys are right. The only serious fans are the ones who grumble constantly and keep saying, "I told you so," even in the face of a winning season (don't remind me, I know we lost two very important games, but we did win 10 others) and growing optimism among the fan base.
My mistake.
And it's a shame. I love just about everything about this site except for this need to bash Dorrell at every turn.
by antipimp on Aug 10, 2006 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well it's too bad
by Nestor on Aug 11, 2006 5:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's nice
You chose to get into a post specifically discussing on DG's comments re. the current coach who like it or not has not proven himself. Not just N, poll afte polls on BN at least shows, majority of visitors/commenters in this blog is not sold on him. So if you are going to show a thin skin about deserved cricticisms of the coach, then you can expect to be called out.
And lot of us thought references to Howland were appropriate. Like it or not everyone else seeing the drastic difference in how two programs have come along in last three years.
Anyways ... lets get back to the season. Sure hope Dorrell proves himself this year so we can put this all behind. But if the season starts off on the wrong foot and see we indications of another 6/7 win season coming, like it or not it will get even more painful as a UCLA football fan.
And that's not Nestor's fault. The buck stops with Dorrell.
by bluestreet on Aug 10, 2006 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Torre/Dorrell comparison
When the Yankees hired Torre, there was a realistic expectation of going to the World Series in his first year. When we hired Karl, there was a realistic understanding that it would take him a few years to build up a program. Last year marked progress in several regards; obviously there's more work to be done, and this year is critical in judging the direction of Dorrell's program. I don't think anyone here (or anywhere else) is denying that last part.
by 3South on Aug 9, 2006 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
by Nestor on Aug 10, 2006 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you insist
Looks like DG was expecting a building process to occur.
by 3South on Aug 10, 2006 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh
"Fire out," he says. "I like to see them fire out."
On a day the Bruins rushed for only 79 yards and committed four turnovers, about the only time anybody really fired out was when senior tackle Mike Saffer blatantly hammered a Cougar defender about five seconds after the whistle, leading to a personal foul and brief benching.
[...]
It might seem silly to fire an engaging coach and smooth recruiter whose team is young and whose only crime may be that he is too nice.
Then again, it's football.
by Nestor on Aug 10, 2006 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh
And of course the incoming coach is going to say he thinks his team can win. That's his job.
Every new coach has to be given time to build a program his way. Guerrero seemed very aware of this when he hired Dorrell. This season will be the key indicator in learning whether or not DG bet on the right horse.
by 3South on Aug 10, 2006 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh no
And as for the comments of Dorrell his statement only confirmed the expectations UCLA had fans at that time. And he was taking over a team which was certainly had lot more talent than a 6-7 team losing a bowl game to Fresno State.
And yes this season we are going to find out whehter DG bet on the right horse. And we are not going to have to wait 20 years ala Torre to find out whether Dorrell is going to win 3 BCS titles in a row.
by Nestor on Aug 10, 2006 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh by the way ...
Just scroll back or do some research and you can find those KD quotes on how he expects to win the Pac-10 and beat SC. Still waiting.
by Nestor on Aug 9, 2006 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Okay and Lance Bass is gay...
by bruinelder on Aug 9, 2006 3:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
