Dog and Pony Show
by Nestor on Apr 8, 2007 10:04 AM PDT
in Football
Email
PrintWho is in control?
Brian Dohn writes how there is not going to be any more dog and pony show wrt our wide receiver rotation this year:
The hockey-esque changes included shuttling players in and out on nearly every play, with three distinct groups of receivers often on the field for only a play, be it run or pass, before coming off. It meant proven veterans and playmakers such as Junior Taylor and Marcus Everett were on the field as often as walk-on Andrew Baumgartner and freshman Terrence Austin.
UCLA's new receivers coach, Eric Scott, said he will not employ the same philosophy as his predecessor, D.J. McCarthy, who left for LSU after oneseason in Westwood.
"It's going to be a single receiver rotation, one guy coming out at a time," said Scott, aformer UCLA receiver. "We need guys to get rhythm. That's a normal rotation. It's just like a running back. A receiver has to be in there."
McCarthy's philosophy didn't take into consideration down or distance, or the game's situation. On several key third downs in the Emerald Bowl loss to Florida State, Taylor and Everett were on the sideline while Baumgartner and freshmen Jeremy McGee and Austin were in the game.
"You watch any football game, you watch a running back, and the No. 2 guy, he gets a couple of plays," Scott said. "But the No. 1s get more than the No. 2s, the 2s get more than the 3s. Not everybody is going to get the same amount of plays."
Last year's fiasco wrt the wide receiver rotation might have been an indictment on the former WR coach, but IMHO it was a more damning indictment of the (lack of) leadership from the team's head coach, who supposedly got his bread buttered because of his experience as a player and coach at the position of WR. If KD is indeed a leader, why didn't he exercise leadership, step in, and correct the rotation problems at WR?
WTF was KD doing last year? Was he waiting till the season was over, not caring at all whether we would end up playing in some shitty bowl in San Francisco? Is he afraid of hurting his assistant coach's feelings, or is it that he doesn't have any clue what is going on with various units in his program?
To me, Dohn's story once again points to the story of a head coach, who is a hapless "CEO type" of leader (a bull shit phrase I heard a lot about during the 2000 Presidential campaign when the blowhards in the so called liberal liberal media were talking about a hands off type of leader who is not obsessed over details ... but I digress) who is out of touch, aloof, and clueless about various parts of our program. It paints the picture of a head coach who has no sense of leadership and is always dependent on the visions of his assistant coaches. No wonder when you see people talking up Dorrell, they are not talking up his qualities as a head coach, they are talking up his assistant coaches.
Case in point. Check out this ranking of Pac-10 coaches from TSN's Todd Dienhart. No Dorrell is not in the top-3 of Pac-10 coaches. He gets slotted in the 6th position not because of the kind of leadership he shows on the field, but because of the assistants he has hired at Westwood:
Once again, the question any reality-based UCLA football fan should ask is who exactly is in control of our football program?
Anyways, for more notes on spring football, here are the notes from LAT. Olson strained his right hamstring. He sat out during the practices this weekend, but he should be ready to go Monday. The sixth best head coach in the Pac-10 says the problem should affect BO since they are still installing the new offense. He and his new brilliant staff will be doing their evaluations based on the first scrimmages which will be on next Saturday.
They know they will have to get things right. Their margin of error is closing. And if they don't bring home the Pac-10 title next season, they will probably have to take their dog and pony show (if the same shit happens this year what we have seen in last four mediocre years) somewhere else besides Westwood.
GO BRUINS.
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That is great news
That is a sure improvement.
Good point about Dorrell. This should have been corrected mid season. Not sure how much of this was the OC as well as the WR coach, but in any case KD should have corrected it.
Now, I am glad the new OC and WR coach were smart enough to recognize it. Lets hope everything else gets better too.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 8, 2007 10:33 AM PDT reply actions
ditto...
Karl Dorrell
That said, as a loyal bruins fan and bruinsnation reader, i find the tone of some of these posts absurd. Im not sure why 1) you guys dont give ANY credit to dorrell no matter what he does, and explain away his qualities by pointing to his flaws (i.e win over usc because it was followed by florida state game),
- refuse to report objectively on the team's progress or even the scouting report. I understand this is a blog and that there will be editorial pieces, but for those who just want the facts i think we would be better served by an objective analysis of our football team.
- and maybe the most important, im not sure why there is this extreme double standard when it comes to basketball vs. football. If a columnist calls our basketball team out on something, you guys call them an "asshat" or "clueless" , and praise any columnist who writes positively about bruins basketball. But if you're going to do that, it might as well be consistent across the board. The article yesterday by Ted Miller was viewed skeptically; im not sure why we can't enjoy it as a good piece of writing and a sign that the program is indeed gaining national recognition.
It's pretty simple
"loyal BN reader"
If you want to stick up for KD based on facts don't try to paint yourself as a "loyal" BN members without having any shred of evidence on how exactly you have been a loyal, engaged "member" of this community.
If KD had an actual record of tangible progress showing this program is on the righ direction, we wouldn't be so cynical and caustic about our football program.
Don't blame us for the tone when the anger should be focused on a head coach who has been nothing but a Trojan's poodle (except for a fluke win) and has come nowhere close to winning the Pac-10 in his 4+ years in Westwood.
Yes I couldn't care less about your loyalty to this blog. You are not paying me and I am not working for you. You can hide your head in the playground sand somewhere else. There are plenty of other places to engage in happy talk around KD.
Awww Poor KD
1. He is 1-3 against Southern Cal. Two of the losses have been total embarrassments.
2. The team has no Pac-10 championships.
3. The team has no BCS bowl games.
4. Coach Dorrell is 1-3 in bowl games (all of which were minor)
5. He is 1-10 on the road against teams with a winning record.
6. He has the worst starting 3- AND 4- year record of any UCLA football coach since WW2, including Bob Toledo who was fired.
7. He has a worse winning percentage (.580) than Bob Toledo, who was fired.
8. He is 3-11 against ranked teams.
9. He is 2-7 against top 10 teams.
10. He has only 6 conference wins against teams who finished over .500.
11. He is 19-14 against Pac-10 teams.
12. He is 8-17 against teams with a winning record.
13. He has 10 losses to unranked teams.
14. He has a losing record after October, 6-12.
15. He "lead" us to embarrassing losses to Wyoming, Fresno State, Arizona, Southern Cal and Florida State.
16. His inability to attract or retain assistant coaches has reached nearly legendary proportions.
17. His penchant for spouting meaningless cliches about "moral victories," and how a loss (no matter how embarrassing) is a "learning experience" demonstrates an apparent constitutional inability to deal with the truth in an open and honest manner.
Yeah, I feel really sorry for the guy who is making almost million bucks a year despite turning UCLA into a laughing stock.
Poor baby. We are such bunch of meanies.
your arguement will fall on deaf ears
The most recent example is the use of terms like "kool aid" and "hype" to describe positive assessments of DWalkers job as a the defensive coordinator. I again challenge anyone to tell me that with the roster he inherited, that the defense did not make huge progress and greatly surpassed everyone's (fans, alumni, media, etc) expectations for the season. YOu can focus on the spread defense deficiencies (which we have discussed, and I believe are oversimplified) but you can do so in a way that highlights the positive progress in the defense unit as well, instead of looking only for the negative.
I would just accept the fact that you are not going to see diaries that will any way reflect positively on the football program. If problems are fixed, the story will be why weren't they fixed early. If we win, the story will be that hopefully will get KD another gig. If the defense plays great in 10 games and struggles in 2, the story will be why did we struggle in 2 and not have the best defense in the nation.
It doesn't matter what the football program does this year with KD, because many just want him gone. That is their goal for the season.
Debating it won't get you anywhere.
by silverlakebruin on Apr 8, 2007 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions
you apparently werent here last December
as for the rest of your comment, you would sound more intelligent if you didn't flat out lie. everyone here has said Walker improved the defense. Everyone! But we had 6 losses dude! 6!! What is friggin great about that?! Many of those losses came as a result of defensive coaching - the inability to scheme against the spread offense (which is documented by those things called FACTS) - not inheriting bad players. Answer THAT criticism and you might get some respect here.
you want to whine and be happy with 3rd place in the pac-10 in 4 years (that 10-2 season) thats fine ... just dont expect any love.
by DumpDorrell on Apr 8, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Dorrell is an average coach
What people aren't saying is that he does make some good decisions too. That's all.
Some people's view of Bruin Football is like George Bush's foreign policy: absolutes, black/white, for me or against me.
There are lots of shades of grey when it comes to Dorrell
by silverlakebruin on Apr 8, 2007 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions
objective??
Dorrell's Record
- 1-3 against Southern Cal.
- No Pac-10 championships.
- No BCS bowl games.
- 1-10 on the road against teams with a winning record.
- Worst starting 3- AND 4-year record of any UCLA football coach since WW2, including Bob Toledo who was fired.
- Worse winning percentage than Bob Toledo, who was fired.
- 3-11 against ranked teams.
- 2-7 against top 10 teams.
- Only 6 conference wins against teams over .500.
- 19-14 in the Pac-10.
- 8-17 against teams with a winning record.
- 10 losses to unranked teams.
- He has a losing record after October, 6-12.
- Embarrassing losses to Wyoming, Fresno State, Arizona, Washington State at home and Southern Cal.
- Only 1 big game win.
- Revolving door for assistant coaches.
by DumpDorrell on Apr 8, 2007 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Revolving door for assistant coaches is subjective
by SuperBruinMan on Apr 8, 2007 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Deaf ears don't matter
However, we want to see what that "success" translates into this year. You'll have to forgive us if we maintain a skeptical outlook until we are shown some consistency in our defense. After one year, it is hard to declare Walker a defensive guru. Just like, after one 10-2 season, no one is calling KD a football coach.
You might want to start with
silverlake
No one is going to shed any tears over you.
I Love These Guys
Just keep repeating the same mantra until they get it - DG hired KD with certain goals set and KD has hit none in 4 years. What else do you really need to know?
Still waiting
There is no Dorrell hatred here
But realism says that when your record is 29-21 (that's a .580 winning percentage) for your total body of work, and when you haven't come even close to the expectations that were set for you before you took your job, then if you're Coach Dorrell you have to expect criticism.
There is a major difference in between those calling for Coach Dorrell's ouster and those wanting to give him more time. The people who want him fired are able to point to objective facts which have been laid out several times in the BN. The people who want him to continue as head coach are required to ignore the facts and rely instead on totally subjective reasoning which is simply contrary to the facts.
I have yet to see a Dorrellista defend the coach with a fact-based argument. I remember that someone tried it (maybe Tasser) several months ago and got maybe three things listed. But have at it. Please explain how that .580 lifetime record should make us think that our football program is in good hands. To put that into a little different perspective, if Coach Howland had won 58% of this game this year, he would have finished 21-15 instead of 30-6.
So go ahead and try to defend Coach Dorrell as a coach. You don't have to defend Coach Dorrell as a person because no one at the BN has any issue with Coach Dorrell in that sense.
I don't know anyone who says KD is a good coach
The question is what do you focus for the remainder of 2007? Is there any good, or is it all just negative? Is everything KD does terrible, or will he do good things as well? Are there positives about the program or only negatives?
Those are the questions I think. Is there room for hope or only doom?
by silverlakebruin on Apr 8, 2007 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
KD is up against it
No, there will be no room for "i told you so's" after 3, 4, or even 5 wins to start the season if that should happen, because we have seen this movie before, and we have been quite dissatisfied with how it ended. Call me back when we're going into the SUC game with the Pac 10 title on the line, then there will be room for hope.
KD in 2007
Your tone is similar to other boards, where the idea is, look, he is here, so what to do? Let's make the best of it.... My issue is and always has been that the football players are having the times of their lives for most of them... this is the highlight reel. If they were BB players for BH, that reel is a rich and memorable series of successes due in large part to good coaching.
FB is so mixed the players are seeing a reel they may not want to keep, save the SC win last year. That is not enough, and KD is responsible for that, and he cannot hide. I have had it with his mediocre record, and with the administration for tolerating and rewarding his misguided behavior!!!
Bill
I'd like him fired.
by greatgymnasticsschool on Apr 11, 2007 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions
These hockeyesque line changes...
I think if KD and staff play the hands they're dealt, they'll be much better off than by subjugating their athletes to such a roll-the-dice philosophy (to mix gambling metaphors).
There are some terrific athletes on this team. Let 'em play.
by BruinLuv on Apr 8, 2007 4:49 PM PDT reply actions
couple of things
i dont want to pick a fight, all i said was that i would appreciate the tone of the posts to be more objective. please just read through this post, and tell me where im being unreasonable.
if you guys aren't going to respond rationally then don't bother, but let me just say the answers you guys are giving aren't very responsive. First, you give ad-hom attacks saying im a "whiny" "newbie" and "should go play in the sand". That doesnt answer substance. Second, you guys assume that im a huge proponent of Karl Dorrell. thats not true at all. to tell u the truth i disagree with the playcalling, the receiver rotations as you guys rightly pointed out, and the inability for him to retain coaches. MY PROBLEM WAS WITH THE TONE OF THE BLOGS. im not sure why silverlakebruin is going to be banned because she wants blogs to more objective. she's just voicing her opinion, not inciting a riot.
My two points are 1) objectivity is good in a blog like those one and 2) even if all the accusations are true against KD, im not sure what purpose that serves. Objectivity is good like silver lake bruin said because it helps us form our own conclusions about the programs (dont ban me, im not saying bruinsnation is a horrible fascist place). look i think the linking to the articles on these posts are absolutely tremendous, which is why i regularly read these blogs. We all want to know bruin news. but objectivity is not only good for us to form our own opinions about the news, but also because there are very few media outlets that are objective. case and point espn. Dont we hate it when espn unnecessarily rags on Ben Howland's offense? Even if its true, it forces everyone to view the program in that light, and contributes to public perception of our team as sluggish and unathletic(which is just false). So objectivity is good, im not sure if thats being contested. 2) If your goal is to really remove the wool from our eyes, then maybe join forces with dumpdorrell, who's explicit purpose is to force that action. in other words, its fine to say that on a blog that is dedicated to that purpose, but bruinsnation (at least to my knowledge) is just about reporting bruins news. correct me if im wrong.
Again, im not doubting the veracity of the claims against KD, and i dont think my point boils down to "be nice." Im just saying be more objective or give more credit, thats all. i appreciate dumpdorrell.com's comment about how they gave credit. thats good, then i guess i was wrong in that instance. is anything ive said unreasonable or wrong? Has anyone else said that either 1) objectivity bad or that 2) this blog is objective? If you censor me, then i guess itll just prove my point. again, dont want to pick a fight, just something to think about.
Nice try
If you don't like the tone of this blog, then really tough shit. I am not going to pay much attention to someone who is posting here for the first time. And yes whether or not this is your first post it does matter. If you don't recognize this is a community where people build a track record of credibility based on the kind of contributions he or she proffers to this community. I don't really care much for "the long term listener first time caller" schtick. It is worthless on this site.
Also your point on objectivity doesn't make any sense at all. One of the main things we do here is discuss, analyze a coach's performance based on his over all record and numbers, which are probably the best objective measures on which we can judge a coach.
News flash for you. I am not here to fucking serve you with daily news. You are not paying me. Do you get that?
I am here to write up my thoughts on what is going on with UCLA sports based on news, stories I am reading and then providing my commentary based on that. Now if you don't like how I am offering my thoughts or what tone I am taking, then that is tough shit.
I am not here to be your servant or providing public service on Bruin related news.
The way you come across as a newbie on what kind of tone I should take or not take without contributing a shred to the devlopment to this community his insulting and offensive.
So really fuck off. And if you don't come back I am not going to cry over it.
nestor
and cmon, if you believe that the blog is completely objective, calling the usc win a fluke win (i mean cmon give some credit to the coach), you're kidding yourself and doing people a disservice. objectivity is about conceding certain points, admitting when you're wrong, and not naively sticking to one position. just think about it. im not forcing you guys to do anything and yea im not paying you, im just saying it might better to, at the very least, not explain any positive in the football program with cynicism or skepticism.
the win over Southern Cal
Only a delusional Bruin fan would consider that win a non fluke win that foreshadows great things in Westwood under the leadership of KD.
And no one is asking you not to contribute here on BN. But if you write something questioning the tone of my post without having anything to show for how you have positively contributed to this community, yes I am going to call out on it. And even more so when you haven't shred any evidence except for a fluke win over Southern Cal that somehow things are peachy under Dorrell.
I will just highlight it this way
To snksbruin
But most of the posts are on measurable subjects, and on those subjects you would contribute most when you back up your points with persuasive argument. In my opinion, the persuasiveness of an argument starts with the verbiage after the word "because." That's where you convince the reader that your thesis is correct. Check your posts, and I think you'll find very little use of the word "because."
Now check this post - the first was an attempt at humor (and I hope you recognized it as such. But the rest of it was an attempt to explain, and since I have no real measurable authority for the basic proposition of the paragraph, I made sure to label it as my opinion.
So my suggestion for "contributing" is to have valid, logical, fact-based arguments about a point before you announce your conclusions. Or label your conclusions as your opinions. But either way, be ready to have your opinions tested or where, as in this case, it appears to be just a little whiny, be prepared to have your opinions tossed back at you.
Take this for what it is worth. I have been on the receiving end more than on the giving end.
i guess my last point
You're right. things aren't all peachy. ive never argued that. but, there are some positives we can look at. our recruiting was good this year, and we have a five star recruit which is admirable considering the trojan recruiting forces in the area. our defense is good, and dorrell(for hiring walker) and walker should get at least some credit for defense. Statements like "So Walker improved a woeful defense (which had nowhere to go but up) " are unnecessary. and even the win was fluke, there had to be something the coaching staff did. thats a huge win. anyway, thats all im going to say on this. peace.
I disagree about the coaching staff
In my opinion, coaching lapses cost us the Notre Dame game and the WSU game. (It's too painful to go back and rehash any more of that season.) Do I give Coach Dorrell any credit? I give him the credit I think he deserves. His assignment was laid out when he was hired and he has not achieved it. Do I give him the blame for the losses? Yes. He is the captain of the ship, and has steered it onto the rocks.
Coach Dorrell is like a doctor who had six of thirteen patients die. Is that good? No. It isn't. So what credit should he get for being just mediocre?
And why do we keep ranting about his poor performance? Because he should have been fired the day after the FSU game. In my opinion, it is my duty to keep the fire to which Coach Dorrell's feet are being held in a permanent state of major blaze. Otherwise, I fear that after another lackluster season, the powers that be will just roll him over for another year. And I can't stand to watch my alma mater deteriorate into an irrelevant football school, and become the Duke of the West Coast.
I chided you about using the word "because." Well, my "because" has been posted here lots of times. There are 16 objective measurements (plus my own 17th, which I feel is objective but others disagree) which show Coach Dorrell's incompetence.
If I could fire him now, I would. I think he is that much of a disaster as a head coach. And the question is who to put in his place. The administration made sure we could not get any sort of search going by not taking action last December. But now, I would offer the job to anyone on the staff who would take it. ANY of those guys (and lots of others) could be just as ineffective as Coach Dorrell, and the likelihood is that they would be much more effective.
huh?!
I don't always agree with some of the sentiments on this board, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. Since everyone is entitled to their opinion, why can't you just accept that different posters think differently and EXPRESS those thoughts differently? I don't have the same level of USC hatred as some over here, but others feel differently. Why do I care how they express their thoughts online? Who am I to tell them to be nice? I'm not obliged to act as a hall monitor on the internet.
Anyone who reads the posts here knows that Nestor and the rest of the gang are passionate UCLA fans who care a lot about the state of UCLA sports. I presume you are too, otherwise you wouldn't be here. You can contribute to this site by offering observations on UCLA sports. If you dislike the tone of a post, get over it or ignore it.
yeah recruiting has been dandy
The first being Ben Olson. The second one in Bryan Price. You'd think he would do much better considering he was hyped as being a great recruiter.
This year we are off to a good start but we havea shit load of scholies to give out. And lot of those early signees are singing the praises of DeWayne walker (who is most likely a goner after this upcoming year) then something specific related to Karl Dorrell. So excuse me for thinking recruiting could be much better.
Again stick to facts. Signing two five star recruits (one of them being a transfer) in a four year period is not a sign of progress. I will wait till the end of this year to see how this class with early commits shake out. UCLA has gotten off to a good start in recruiting before only to crash and burn down the stretch. So yeah you can see why we are cynical about Dorrel's efforts in this department as well.
The bad outweighs the good
by SuperBruinMan on Apr 8, 2007 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions
not a fluke win
Why: It wasn't just dumb luck. It wasn't just Eric McNeal's tip/pick on the final trojan drive. It wasn't a surprise game-plan that stunned stunned the 'sc coaches. The D-line gave the Trojan O-line fits all day. Justin Hickman and Bruce Davis, who were excellent pass rushers all season long, just did what they have been doing, only better, and it worked. Booty was never comfortable, his O-Line got out-worked, out-hustled and outran, the running backs never got off. That was the story of the game.
And our offense in that game was the same as it was for all of '06.. not good.
The Bruin football that day was pretty much the same team they had been all season, only in a more magnified, more intense atmospthere. They came out on top in a close game.
It boils down to what you think is a fluke win. And I think of fluke more in regards to dumb luck, not as an anomaly in comparison to the overall record.
Upset? Yes. Unexpected? Yes. Close? yes.
But just some out-of-the-blue stroke of luck? No.
And because I don't think it's a fluke, does that mean I think it's a sign that great success is afoot for this football program. Nope. not that either.
I guess its a matter of semantics
We played 13 games last year
Was it a fluke? I have no way of knowing because I wasn't on the sideline. The only basis most of us have here to make that judgment is the other games last season, and the total body of work put up buy Coach Dorrell during his career.
Based on those factors, I believe the win was the result of a convergence of all the stars, karma and mojo, the cosmic payback for all the bad calls that cost us games in the past, and everything else. In other words, it was an absolute fluke. The players won it despite the head coach.
Was Boise State's win over Oklahoma a fluke? I don't think so. They got put in position to win that game because of their coaching. I heard in an interview that they practiced that statute of liberty play every day in practice.
Was the success of our Basketball team a fluke? I don't think so.
Boise St may not be a fluke
Bringing up Boise St. reminds me of another problem with Dorrell. I can only remember one trick play, and that was just a run off a fake punt (against Cal). Toledo early on used trick plays all the time, and '97 and '98 weren't exactly hard times for the football program. If he had a firm grip on the program we would have had similar success in 2001, and I'm not sure USC would have been able to pass us by. Oh well...
by SuperBruinMan on Apr 8, 2007 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions
You may be right about
I believe that is one of Coach's great maxims. I won't be able to quote it correctly, but it's something like success meaning that you got the best out of yourself that you had in yourself to give. Coach is too modest to say that his coaching skills put each of those players in that position to be successful. I think BSU's coaching staff was "Wooden-esque" on that particular day.
And I see a qualitative difference between the two coaching staffs. That's not something that I can measure objectively (other than the winning percentage of course.) BSU looked like they knew how to win. UCLA has not looked like that since Number 18 was QB, in my opinion.
Yes I was
I didn't see the ASU game, so I didn't hear about it. I also think there may have been something against WSU two years ago where the punter threw it but the guy he threw it kept running and never saw the ball.
by SuperBruinMan on Apr 9, 2007 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Contributing 101 -- A Semi-Primer for New Members
Here's how I view them.
This is a very diverse Nation. We have empiricists at one end and pure theorists at the other. Factual arguments have to be supported by facts. Opinions need be stated as opinions. We are bound together by our passion for UCLA sports and our respect for each other.
The passion is obvious.
The respect may not be -- to a newcomer -- but it is here.
Respect is manifested in many ways. Once you get to know us, you will not take personally the passion with which some of us disagree with you. We respect each other enough to go straight at each other. There is no self-censorship or PC line that we must toe.
That said, we don't hide behind our anonymity and call each other names or distort each other's posts. When that gets done, you will see a reaction from the long term residents here defending the people they "know" and their writings.
We are particularly protective of Nestor. As invested as we are in this Nation, he is invested to a much greater degree. He does all the work. This is his place and he's let us in. Challenging his tone or objectivity -- when he did not set out to create a "nice" or "correct" place, is inappropriate. He will fight back, and we will fight back because we don't want this to be a "nice" but dishonest place.
And, Nestor is particularly protective of us -- and will be of you, once you settle down. People have been banished -- for things like calling our members Nazi's or other horrible things. It's not that we cannot handle the taunts, it's just that Nestor did not create that type of place and he's right to keep it where he wants it.
What he has done, and we are doing, works for us. We are growing in both size and stature. Many of us get almost ALL of our UCLA sports news here. It's an amazing place.
And, as '71 has pointed out, many of us joined up here and got blasted on our first major post. Mine was a post expressing my opinion that Jim Colletto was a great hire. I got immediate heat -- some of it from Nestor. I thought some of it mis-stated part of my comment. Others agreed. And, the thread was off to the races. That's seen as good here. Long passionate threads with strong, well supported positions -- I learned that's what we're all about.
And, then I did it again. When two of our players were arrested in one of their parents' home -- for throwing an uninvited guest out of the house, there were people here, including Nestor who called for some form of immediate sanction from KD. In a series of posts, I presented a contrary position -- based on opinion -- espousing a Due Process model that, in my eyes, made a pre-conviction or pre-administrative finding sanction, inappropriate.
I got more heated responses. BUT -- they were all VERY RESPECTFUL. Why? Because I had learned that respectful, clear dissent is not only tolerated but appreciated.
I must admit that when my first posts were "attacked" I wondered whether I belonged here. I sat back a bit, set my ego aside, and learned how to play in this sandbox.
You will, too.
And, what you'll learn that there is no kinder group of people one can have than inhabit this Nation. I can tell you from very personal experiences that the support I have gotten from this group of "strangers" at times when I needed it, has been incredible.
It's the same for others. We are all in a tizzy over bruinbabe's upcoming wedding. And, celebrate the birth of children with gusto. We pray when people are sick or need help and support.
This is a great place. And, you'll find your spot here. Go back and look at your posts -- study the tone, look at what people are saying to you and try to respond, without ego. Until you know us, don't attack us personally -- except anyone can attack '71 because he just plain out deserves to be attacked.
I look forward to your next posts.
Thank you Steve
See, this is what we mean. We back each other up. No one ever picks on anyone else. I can take attacks because my positions are absolutely unassailable. One little example - Coach Wooden is the greatest coach in history in any sport? Anyone want to take me on? See -- no arguments.
And it's the same on anything I post, pretty much.
(And we handle sjh class of 66 pretty gingerly because of his advanced age.)
The problem with Mediocre
The win against U$C was not a fluke, the players earned it. But the effort was a fluke. The coaching was a fluke. Because it did not happen in most of the games...only in half of them. Any team that "brings it" only for the rivalry game is undisciplined and poorly coached.
We are not hypocrites. We will not play nice and forget our gripes just because the season is coming up. We will always and forever support our team, cheer our butts off and want to win every single game. But we are not going to be all cheery, blind and supportive only to revert back to our critical ways if the season tanks, that is the epitome of hypocrisy.
So the question is, to those who see hope for the future, what is it that gives you hope, based on KD's record the last four years? Maybe we are too cynical to see it (I doubt it) but if you want us to give any credence to your assertion you MUST give us objective, fact-based reasons. Otherwise, we might as well believe that KD is Clark Kent on Saturday and Superman on Sunday.
It is telling that we have to "hope" for a good season instead of knowing that it will be good. All of us could probably rattle off ten schools off the top of our heads whom we know will have a good season. Would you not like to be one of them?
Any Ranking of Pac-10 Coaches...
That's hil-fricken'-larious.
Dennis Erickson
by greatgymnasticsschool on Apr 11, 2007 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Why should KD get so much slack?
There ARE no indications. Just a haphazard good win here and there, surrounded by embarrassing losses.
Enough is enough. Time to stop babying KD. Time to stop having one set of standards for Howland and a much lower set of standards for KD. A bad coach is bad coach no matter what his color, race, religion, or creed.
If UCLA does not win the Pac-10 and go to a BCS bowl this season, there are no compelling reasons for KD to return.
Right on
In my mind it is the BCS bowl that is the minimum achievement, because winning the Pac-10 entails going to a BCS bowl, but it is possible to go to one without winning the Pac-10. If we are in contention but don't win it, yet get to go to a BCS bowl, I for one would be somewhat satisfied. Not thrilled, but satisfied. And that is assuming a win over U$C...
FB Takes time
Notice today the interview with the new OC coach? Couching his terms, careful not to extend himself and declare that they are going to kick bxxx.... No leadership (except for the brief motivational plea KD made on the sidelines in last years SC game), and he reflect it.
Bill
Our losses
Close games
And I still don't think USC won that game
by SuperBruinMan on Apr 9, 2007 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Alibis for deficiencies
And every year some assistant coach is booted off KD's staff. Just another form of alibi.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
