Stop Whining! It's the Turnovers, Stupid!

by uclahy on Sep 10, 2006 10:15 AM PDT Comment 8 comments

If we don't turn the ball over four times, three by BO himself, we win the Rice game 40+ to <10, easy. Against their 3-3-5 it was obvious they were giving us the run and they were covering the pass, ergo, BO was playing into their hands when he threw and we could run at will, which we did. For us to outgain them like 400-200 on a night we turned the ball over four times shows just how much we dominated a feisty, never quit team.

Look at the big picture, Bruins! Our offense is as good or better than last years and our defense is much, much better. They are swarming and attacking the ball constantly. Except for one option play late in the game they absolutely squashed the Owls. There is no question in my mind this defense is for real if you are at all objective. I have not seen a Bruin defense make this kind of attacking, swarming effort in years.

Our linebackers are actually making plays this year. Our angles are great. Our D line puts tremendous pressure the whole game with our talented revolving door of hungry linemen. Brown and Drago and company are just going to get better as everyone fights for playing time.

So, yeah, this was not the Utah game where they stacked the box and goaded BO to beat him. Yeah, we looked stumbling on offense when we didn't run Markey as much as we should have. But without the TO's we gain 600 yards and coast.

There's nothing wrong with our scheme on offense or defense. BO just has to learn to hold on to the damn ball, end of story. We are having and will have a great season, no question in my mind. Stop whining because our domination wasn't pretty and BO had a bad game. This is called growing pains for a new QB. Duh. Before the season is over he will be another Joe Montana. Count on it.

GO BRUINS!

PS: You KD haters should wake up. He is a classy guy who bleeds Bruin blue and gold who deserves your support and not instant criticism when BO screws up a game with stupid fumbles. If you can't see the obvious improvement, despite our turnovers, then your allowing your bile against KD overcome your judgment.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Interesting...

Saying that it's just the turnovers is akin to saying, "Well, we would have won the baseball game, if not for the fact that we gave up 17 hits." Yeah, it's kind of a big deal.

With respect to the offensive scheme, I don't think we were watching the same game. When you're pounding a team on the ground, you continue to do it. You don't sit your starting running back for most of the third quarter, for no apparent reason, and continue to toss the ball into nickel and dime coverages.

Defensively, I had no major qualms, except that we began to miss tackles and play reactively in the second half, which is exactly what our new defensive coordinator said was a thing of the past.

The special teams play was garbage. Kickoff coverage was decent, but that's about it. Punt returner by committee is a disaster (who thinks that ever works?).

Nobody hates Karl. We love Karl, and many of us have said as much. Many of us are just not sure that he's the coach to raise the program to an elite level. Fears of Terry Donahue redux, and happiness with 8-3 or 7-4.

Think that covers everything.

Go Bruins...F@#$% SC... UCLA Fight Fight Fight!

by HomeBruin on Sep 10, 2006 10:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not as concerned with the defense

It was difficult for me to find fault with a unit that was basically on the field the entire game because our O and special teams couldn't hold onto the ball. I figured they would begin to miss tackles on a prolonged drive, and except for that one big run, they pretty much held Rice down all game long. The playcalling is what I found to be absurd. If Rice wasn't going to change their defense because we were cramming the ball down their throats, then why should we help them out by throwing the ball? You do it until they prove they can stop it, and the indication was that the opposite was happening. Early in the game they were up against 2nd and 7s, late in the game, it would be 2nd and 3s, they were becoming weaker against the run as the game wore on.

by scittles on Sep 10, 2006 11:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There were five fumbles in the first game

Does this bother anyone?

by cv on Sep 10, 2006 11:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

I'm all for silver linings, and living in happyland. But, turnovers didn't force all those field goals in the red zone and the myriad of other problems evident in watching that game. You can try to gloss this all you want, but the Bruins have some serious issues. Sure the defense was pretty good, but they should be: Rice is an absolutely terrible team. We should dominate a team like this, on both sides of the ball, and didn't. I don't think that the sky is falling, or anything, but this does take the sheen off the apple a little bit. I was disappointed.

by Menelaus on Sep 10, 2006 12:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Right

The Killer instinct in the red zone seemed to be missing. Hell if we converted those all into touchdowns the spread would almost be covered. But for me, the Washington game will be a better indicator of what's happening with the program. The kids overlooked Rice, and the Coaches needed to call a better game, but will they learn from this and beat the holy hell out of Washington for it.

Man! I was getting hopeful for this season, and now I have to be skeptical again!

by isodore on Sep 10, 2006 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good point about the red-zone struggles

I think losing Marcedes really showed last night. Marcedes was such a matchup nightmare, and drew so much attention inside the 20 that Drew had so many other options opening up, everything from a wheel route underneath to Maurice, to corner routes to Everett or Breazell, or swing passes. We were a great offense last year because we were extremely efficient inside of the redzone.

I think Ketchum and Johnson, two bigger recievers should be used more in redzone situations. Every offense needs that bigger target. I was concerned that Ben ignored the TE's almost all game, either they were being covered well or Ben just wasn't finding them. I was dissapointed in that after they were such a key part of the Utah game.

by ucla21 on Sep 10, 2006 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs