ESPN Summarizes the Pac-10

by njbruin on Dec 14, 2007 12:46 PM PST

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3152283&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab4pos2

The word that sums up the Pac-10 is "disappointment", which really does describe it perfectly. It was a really bum year for the Pac-10. It's also a good word for UCLA football, which was supposed to be the year the team finally rose up and took its rightful spot among the Pac-10 elite. Instead, it was more miserable, boring, and sloppy football. I am sad to say I bought the hype.

Anyway, they have an all-Pac-10 team on the page. While its no surprise that there are no offensive players from Karl Dorrell and Coordinator #whatever, you would think there would be tons of players on the defensive side. After all, they were led onto the field by God's Gift to UCLA and Defense, DeWayne Walker, and no other team can say that.

Here it is!
Defense
DL Lawrence Jackson, Sr., USC
DL Sedrick Ellis, Sr., USC
DL Nick Reed, Jr., Oregon
DL Dexter Davis, So, Arizona State
LB Keith Rivers, Sr., USC
LB Robert James, Sr., Arizona State
LB Spencer Larson, Sr., Arizona
DB Antoine Cason, Sr., Arizona
DB Terrell Thomas, Sr., USC
DB Patrick Chung, Jr., Oregon
DB Kevin Ellison, Jr., USC
P Keenyn Crier, Fr., Arizona

Wait, what? If God's Gift to UCLA and Defense couldn't lead any players to the All-Pac-10 team, what does that make the guy that led Arizona State's defense? And Arizona's?

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 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

No safeties?

I thought Horton was an All-American...but that definitely does not take away from your point.

by tasser10 on Dec 14, 2007 1:15 PM PST reply actions

I am not surprised

The only player I'm sort of surprised by is Bruce Davis not being on the list, but he had a couple of games he wasn't great in.

I don't think many of our players were highly recruited out of high school or were expected to be all conference players

If you have a unit that succeeds despite the fact that the individuals are limited in talent, than I think that says a lot about the job a coach is doing.

SUC's defense is awesome, and it should be, its full of 5 star recruits at every position. Ours isn't full of 5 star recruits. Or even 4 star recruits. I think that makes the job Walker has done with them to be productive as a unit, while limited in talent individually, very good.

Remember last year was Walker's first year of recruiting on defense. So, I look forward to how much better this unit will be if he continues to attract more talented recruits into the program.

Mandatory disclaimer: the fact that I think he is a very good defensive coordinator doesn't mean I think he should be HC. He shouldn't, and he won't. He's more than likely not ready.

But I do think he is a good defensive coordinator. You can think he is a good DC and not the right candidate for the job.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Dec 14, 2007 1:30 PM PST reply actions

I'm generally with you

except that I don't really know if he's done a great job yet. There just isn't enough information in my opinion. He has done poorly against the spread offense and I think he has not done a very good job of motivating at times. As for the recruits, be careful what you say...it is very similar to what the Dorrellistas were saying in order to retain him (just wait till you see how great his recruits will do in 3 years, bla bla bla). I know you mean well, and perhaps DW was held back by the lackluster talent...but it's just too early to tell, which is why I have my reservations about him.

by tasser10 on Dec 14, 2007 1:56 PM PST up reply actions

agreed

the problem with Dorrell is his recruing was crap his first three years, and got better his fourth, but he had almost no scholarships to give his fourth year.

Walkers first year of recruiting was good, and if he holds on to the defensive guys he has committed, he will move into a top class recruiter.

You are right though, it is too early to make a definitive statement, but I do like what I have seen thus far. This year was tiny step back though, so I am curious as to what will happen if we retain him next year.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Dec 14, 2007 2:50 PM PST up reply actions

he has potential

But the thing about potential is that it really means nothing practically.

If someone displays potential at the office, being successful at the job they are doing, it doesn't mean they are promoted instantly or that hiring decisions about their superiors are run through them. It also doesn't mean they are untouchable. The whole idea is ludicrous.

DeWayne Walker exhibits potential, potential that means he should keep his nose to the grindstone. When he fields every week or almost every week that displays the same fire and tenacity that held USC last year to 9 points. Not a single game in 12 this year had defense like that.

It's all potential.

by njbruin on Dec 14, 2007 3:30 PM PST up reply actions

All Pac 10 Team

The ESPN site shows the All Pac 10 team which the Seattle reporter would have selected. The actual All Pac 10 team did include Chris Horton as a 1st team selection, and Bruce Davis as a 2nd team selection. This means the other 8 returning starters did not make 1st or 2nd team all conference. Bruce Davis also did not improve from 2nd team all conference in his junior year. How this results in Walker being a very good DC is not immediately obvious. I would suggest that the better job was done by the ASU DC, who in his 1st year at ASU (33rd in coaching) had 3 all conference performers vs. -0- in 2006, or the Oregon St DC, who had 5 all conference performers vs. 1 in 2006. If the players don't improve, that is the sign of less than very good coaching.

by islandbruin on Dec 14, 2007 7:20 PM PST reply actions