Osaar betrayed by "a coach"

by dustball on Oct 16, 2007 11:34 PM PDT

Ok... so i wont say which of Osaar's nuclear family said this, but they are family friends and have expressed frustration with the coaching staff. According to a member of Osaar's family, he believes that one coach is responsible for his being kept out of the QB picture despite injuries to Ben and Pat. He has already considered transferring, but stayed because he felt a loyalty to the staff. I'm sure everyone else has read about players families liking dorrell, but if this is a trend we may not end up losing just recruits if we hold onto this fool. We may see talented players transfer out of the program.

I will continue to keep my ears open for names, but for now they are referring to the betrayer only as "a coach."

In any case... Osaar's family seems to think he will be the starting QB this weekend.... hopefully its not just wishful thinking.

As for the news that Walker may have been spoken to about taking over as head coach, i'm not sure what to think. Despite the assertions of critics of our defense on this site, holding any team (including ND) to 140 yards of total offense in a game in which your offense turned the ball over 7 times is the definition of dominant. Walker isn't the problem, but i don't think he is the solution either. Although, to his credit, he is much tougher and seemingly coherent than dorrell. We'll see where it all goes, but i'm holding out for that big fish at the end of the year.

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.

Tweet Comment 35 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The problem with DW

Is that his defenses are only good against pro style offenses. His defense can dominate a pro style team like USC and Notre Dame but the defense hemorrhages yards and points to a good spread attack. Oregon and Cal will be good tests of DW. We know that he is a good motivator and can stop a pro offense, hopefully he will show the ability to adapt and will find a way to stop Oregon and Cal.

by Rhapsode on Oct 17, 2007 12:26 AM PDT reply actions

Then again

has anyone stopped Cal or Oregon? There isn't a defense out there who has consistantly stopped good spread offenses.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 17, 2007 12:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Very True

Kentucky showed that a good spread attack can score points on anybody, even a dominant SEC defense.

Maybe the only way to hold a good spread offense to less than 20 points is to keep the offense off of the field.

by Rhapsode on Oct 17, 2007 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions

There is one way to stop a spread offense

and CTS has found it. He has stopped our offense from using it.

by Fox 71 on Oct 17, 2007 6:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Haha...absolutely correct

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 17, 2007 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Cal and the spread

It seems to me Cal really doesn't run a spread offense-Longshore is no threat to run at all, so clearly there is no spread-option a la Oregon, and IIRC they really don't operate out of the shotgun too frequently, so I don't see them as a spread offense a la Texas Tech. What they do have is excellent RB and WR, plus a solid QB, and Tedford is a good play-caller and coach, which gives Cal a very solid offense. Now I could be wrong, maybe somebody with more knowledge of Cal than me can comment, but they did try a spread look last year with Crowton as their offensive coordinator, but they let him go.

Cal has scored a lot of points on us recently, even in their losses, because we have had some truly bad defenses most of Dorrell's tenure. Last year's game was one of our "lapses" that left me puzzled for a while, but my final conclusion warning: your opinion may differ! was that the offensive show Cal put up was due in large part to our defense being a good one but not a great one, and simply being beaten by a very good offensive team-especially when you consider DeSean Jackson just killed us.

Rye's point is entirely apt-no defense has really stopped a first-rate spread offense when it has been run by elite level talent. Texas Tech has been stopped when it faces elite-level defenses and Tech does not have elite-level offensive talent. Ask anyone who has played Oregon this year if their offense has been stopped.

by ucladj89 on Oct 17, 2007 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions

Gary Crowton

He was Oregon's Offensive Coordinator last year before leaving for LSU.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 17, 2007 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions

tedford...

hired an OC last year that had a background in the spread so thats why last year they a combination of pro and spread attack. this year however with tedford calling the plays i think he's stayed more towards his pro style

by redsand514 on Oct 17, 2007 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions

USF has done it twice

Stopping or limiting West Virginia's offense in wins at WVU and at home. I think it is safe to say that WVU features the most effective spread offense in the country.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Oct 17, 2007 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions

DW's defenses

DW is certainly a big upgrade over Larry Kerr, but it's not like he's running some kind of elite defense.
Currently the D is ranked 30th in total defense, and 43rd in scoring defense (ranked 4th in the Pac-10 in both categories). Those aren't awesome numbers. And that's without having yet played the top 4 Pac-10 teams in total offense and scoring offense (in order; Oregon, ASU, Cal, & USC)

by McCloskey on Oct 17, 2007 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Hmmm

30th in total D out of 118 IIRC programs? That is very good, and that is being done with just a couple of guys who have any realistic chance of playing on Sundays. Scoring D numbers are IMHO a little misleading, given how miserable the O has been in sustaining drives and giving the D a chance to rest as well as the sheer number of turnovers giving the opposing O very short fields to work with.

I am not saying that our D is overpowering-it's not like LSU's, or any of the other truly elite defenses-but it is very good. I think the numbers will drop as we face some great offenses in Cal, Oregon, etc., but I think Walker has done a great job with the resources he has available to him. Obviously, we match up better against some offenses than others, but I don't see our D getting torched by anyone down the road, except perhaps Oregon, who hasn't been stopped (and hardly even slowed) by anyone this year.

by ucladj89 on Oct 17, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Uh no

As McCloskey noted we haven't played any good teams yet this year. And last year Walker still got clowned by Oregon, Florida State, Washington State and UDub in the second half.

Walker may be an above average defensive coordinator. But to me he is just a guy who is 4-5 years from being a HC. He needs to have real head coaching experience. We need a proven program builder in our next coach, not some dude who earned his name by getting above average results under a shitty head coach.

by bluestreet on Oct 17, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions

Well...

I don't think you can reasonably argue that Walker "may be" an above-average defensive coordinator given the turn around with nearly identical personnel from the God-awful 2005 defense to the 2006 defense, and carrying forward into 2007 so far. I think the evidence is clear that he is certainly above-average and more fairly categorized as "very good." Great? Maybe it's a hyperbole to assert that, but I do believe his coaching has been great given that we are hardly bursting with elite talent throughout the defense.

As for the defense's performance against the teams you mentioned, I agree that they collectively got worked against WSU and Oregon (at least in the first quarter.) I disagree with your assessment of us getting clowned against Washington in the second half-the clowning was the direct result of our ghastly offensive performance. The defense held Washington to 249 total yards (49 yards rushing) and let's not forget Olson's pick 6 to give Washington their final score. FSU-they did run up some good yardage (430), but UCLA had three turnovers in that game and FSU had a pick 6 for one TD as well as a blocked punt for a TD. I'd call it a mediocre game by the D. Yeah, FSU had a bad offense that year, but they had very good skill players and a departing OC who made sure in his last game that he got the ball to those playmakers. I think a fairer assessment would be that the D got beat soundly by Cal, soundly by Oregon, soundly by FSU, and worked by WSU. Of these, the WSU game is the real head-scratcher, with FSU coming in close behind. The other teams-Oregon and Cal-both had excellent personnel and coaching that would have made them tough to stop even with 5-star personnel.

And yes, I am aware that we have not yet played the better teams in conference-that's why I said in my post I expect our numbers to get worse from here on out. Still, 30th in total D out of 119 programs is very good. We are 4th in the Pac-10 in total D behind USC, ASU, and Oregon State, and all these teams still have to play the tougher part of their conference schedule. Still, do you, or anyone else, believe that his D will get lit up like it was in 2005, even against Oregon? I don't buy it. Could happen, but it doesn't seem likely.

I do agree that regardless of how well Walker has coached, he should not be the next head coach if Dorrell is canned. I would like him to stay as D coordinator, but I do not want a guy with no HC experience, no matter how well he has performed as a coordinator.

by ucladj89 on Oct 17, 2007 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions

That is all nice

But to me anyone who was willing to take work under a doofus like Karl Dorrell should be immediately disqualified for being a tool.

I don't want my next head coach to be that tool who thought Dorrell was a credible "coach" to work for.

by bluestreet on Oct 17, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions

So then

why attack his resume if you want him gone simply because he's a tool for working for Dorrell?

And once again, I don't want him as HC, so why do you keep raising this point as if I am arguing in favor of it?

by ucladj89 on Oct 17, 2007 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions

I think

Given UCLA's history on coaching "searches" one cannot repeat enough how Walker is not qualified to be the next HC of this program.

by bluestreet on Oct 17, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Daily Bruin runs piece saying Osaar should play

People outside of BN are starting to take notice, wondering why Osaar Rasshan hasn't been given a chance to play at QB.

The The Daily Bruin ran an article which said:

"On Tuesday, he practiced with the first unit for the first time in his UCLA career. The term "career" is used loosely, because the mismanagement of Rasshan's talent reflects a lot about the chaotic direction of the UCLA football program."

I know the DB isn't as highly read or regarded here as the local papers who cover UCLA, but keep in mind that the players and people in the Morgan Center do see the Daily Bruin -- that's the easiest paper to find on campus.

by gilbert on Oct 17, 2007 9:42 AM PDT reply actions

Interesting indeed

I didn't like the kid's characterization of UCLA being a "midlevel program" (sure Dorrell has turned UCLA into a "midlevel program" but that is due to his incompetence. The history of UCLA football and its potential suggest it is anything but a high profile top-20 program).

You should diary it gilbert.

by bluestreet on Oct 17, 2007 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions

The kid isn't incorrect

by characterizing our team as "midlevel". History aside, kd has made sure that we are at our absolute best, midlevel. Sure, we're undefeated in the Pac-10, but I think it'll cause more of a stir at the Morgan Center to see their students writing that the program has devolved to "midlevel" status.
To me, it looks like the students are finally getting the point: kd needs to go.

by bruinbunz on Oct 17, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions

I don't disagree with that

However, I do have a problem with dismissing UCLA as a generic "midlevel" program without noting how its midlevel because of the coach's incompetence. As I noted UCLA wasn't midlevel before Dorrell took over. Under the previous coaching regime UCLA had set public goal of competing for NCs, which the current doofus downgraded to just being a "factor" in the Pac-10 race. I think a UCLA student writing in the Daily Bruin should always note at every opportunity he or she gets of the potential of UCLA football, before pointing out how Dorrell has turned into "midlevel." I am asking our student writers to be more nuances than the jackasses in the MSM and tools in message board.

by bluestreet on Oct 17, 2007 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions

We are a midlevel program at best

We're certainly not in anyone's top 25. But we're not 0-6. We're somewhere in the middle - which makes us midlevel.

I think the author of that article was spot on.

Part two of the article ought to be an analysis of how we went from being a contender for the NC to a midlevel program. And at center stage for that discussion is CTS.

by Fox 71 on Oct 17, 2007 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions

This is a Good Article

Better than the stuff the MSM is writing.

Get past the ambiguity created by the use of the "midlevel" phrase, and there's a very good presentation of where we are with insight on why we are there.

As to the "midlevel" reference, I see it as a statement of where we are now, not where we've been or where we are going.

And, this is the first article to deviate from the spoon fed party line on OR.

Interesting, isn't it , this campus "voice" is not intimidated and not fearful of stepping on toes or destroying "special relationships."

Good job, kid. Watch out all you journalistic posers. This kid has obviously gone past Journalism 101.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 17, 2007 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions

Gilbert or someone

Please diary the article in a separate diary. That's the least you can do for the greater community of BN. Who is going to step up?

by Nestor on Oct 17, 2007 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions

I just got done with work

I'll do it now ... you're going to have to show me how to blockquote.

by gilbert on Oct 17, 2007 8:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Osaar Rashan

should definitely start this weekend and then bring in Cowan if they are desperate. I've never seen him play, but he's put his time in and deserves a shot. Cowan just injured that knee 3 or 4 weeks ago. He needs more time to heal and we can have him for the last 2 or 3 games of the season. Unless Pat has miraculously recovered from that mcl tear and is healthy.

by bruin95 on Oct 17, 2007 11:04 AM PDT reply actions

Hilarous

You've never seen him, but he should DEFINITELY play. Thanks for the insight, good argument.

by Nars on Oct 17, 2007 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions

who else is going to play, Nars, you?

our #1 and #2 are injured, MBT sucked and we shouldn't burn CF's redshirt. Who's left?

by bruin95 on Oct 17, 2007 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions

First of all

Cowan's been cleared by the doctors. He was last week so our #2 is healthy and you've decided MBT is worse than Osaar because...MBT was bad. You're not going to make a persuasive, let alone intelligent, arguement commenting on a guy you've never seen or have notes on his performance from others who have seen him. I've made my feelings on Osaar at QB clear, but I have no problem with those who feel differently...if they have at least seen the kid or have reliable people who have seen the kid to speak of. Come on now. Don't just throw things out there without intelligent reasoning.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 17, 2007 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions

He deserves a chance to play

unless Dorrell has made a huge error in recruiting him in which case that would be a waste. And that's possible with Dorrell. He knows this supposed complicated Dorrell WCO, I want to see him play.

by bruin95 on Oct 17, 2007 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions

The Daily Bruin summed it up

when it said, "Programs that climb the ranks don't usually do it instantly by recruiting well. They do it by recruiting gifted athletes, and coaching them into better football players."

That is exactly what this coach hasn't done. How many of the gifted athletes that we recruited in the past few years not been "coached" into better players? Osaar, Shawn Oatis, Aaron Ware, Jake Dean, Jeff Miller, Darius Savage, Ben Olson, Kyle Morgan?

I mean these guys all had offers to other programs, so they were "gifted" enough to play ball. Why haven't their talents been maximized?

by hspigskinfan on Oct 17, 2007 2:47 PM PDT reply actions

Yup

Personally I don't see a future for Rasshan at QB, but I didn't see a future for him there when I got access to a practice during his redshirt season. The kid is a hell of an athlete (and really nice as well), but QB isn't his thing. No shame there, but he should have been moved to WR 2 years ago and if they had done that he could be using his ridiculous talent on the field this season ("not learning the offense"). The fact that Rasshan isn't at QB doesn't bother me, what does is it took KD and his staff 2 1/2 years to figure out he wasn't very good at the position. He should be an experienced WR right now giving us one of the better 1-2 punches at the position in the conference with BB.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 17, 2007 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions

DW and the defense

Look, if UCLA had a comparable offense in terms of stats to DW's defense, we would be in good shape recordwise, and DW would get the credit he deserves. The issue is his defense has to be #1 in the country to make up for the awful offense, and be on the field all day to boot.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Oct 17, 2007 4:45 PM PDT reply actions

The UCLA offense

This offense has had zero progression in 5 seasons. Its the same thing every year with no improvement. The 10-2 season with Drew was a fluke for the offense, and MJD was the only reason we won like 4 of those games. Take away MJD and Dorrell's entire tenure would be nothing but crap.

by joeb @ Bruins Nation on Oct 18, 2007 10:44 PM PDT reply actions

The 10-2 season

and if it wasn't for FOUR improbable comebacks led by the two Drews we would have been 5-6 that year and not even bowl eligible!

by bornagainbruin on Oct 19, 2007 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions

It's Norvell

He's the one keeping OR out of the QB rotation. Why? Simply because all he "knows" is the WCO and he just doesn't have the capacity to design plays and blocking schemes for a player like OR.

by tasser10 on Oct 19, 2007 10:37 AM PDT reply actions