Affirming Our Expectations
by Nestor on Aug 30, 2007 4:49 AM PDT
in Football
Email
PrintAll right lets get back to talking about our football program. The Daily News rolled out its kickoff special section today with lots of UCLA related features. Dohn obviously as one of the anchor pieces writing how Dorrell needs to end this season on a "winning note":
During last season's 7-6 stumble, UCLA committed six less turnovers and two fewer penalties than its opponents, and was inconsistent in losing games to Washington State, Notre Dame and Oregon but defeating Oregon State, Arizona State and USC.
The Bruins also scored 13 fewer points in the second half than first half, and allowed 19 more points in the second half than the first.
"(Dorrell) has the perfect team this year," Bruins senior left guard Shannon Tevaga said. "Some people love the pressure. It makes you want it more."
Anyways, I am not going to bother slicing and dicing up rest of the pro Dorrell takes in that article because we have done it so many times here on BN. But it is good to note that despite all the boilerplate quotes from DG, he did point out that Bruins must remain consistent this season, and not beat themselves this coming season.
Anyways, no worries, players are doing the best to affirm all the expectations we set here during this long hot offseason. From Steve Dilbeck:
Davis said it will be disappointing to him if the Bruins finish the regular season 11-1.
"It's a big jump from 7-6, but we have a senior-laden team," he said. "We've been here for five years and really haven't done much. So we have a lot to prove this year."
There are 25 seniors on the team, and they are understandably tired of this so-so routine, weary of being L.A.'s other team, worn out by being viewed as fine but unremarkable.
They cast an unfiltered eye at their past, looking objectively as possible, and demand more.
"We've had mediocre seasons for the past four or five years, and I really feel it's time for us to step up," Markey said.
Indeed, why can't the Bruins be gunning for a Pac-10 title as well as bragging rights in Los Angeles when they face the Trojans on Dec. 1 in the Coliseum? Why can't this be that rare season when both schools have something huge at stake when they face each other?
"Hey, that game is for rights to the city. We've been down for so long," Van said. "Now we're not."
The Bruins have 10 starters back from a defense that went from one of the worst in the nation to giving up just 314.5 yards a game under new coordinator DeWayne Walker. The defense peaked against the Trojans, giving up just 55 yards rushing.
"That victory gets us headed in the right direction," star defensive end Bruce Davis said. "That was great for the program. We're nationally recognized now. We're focused each day on that fact. This is a national situation for us now."
Same theme comes across in Kevin Pearson’s UCLA preview posted in the Press Enterprise this past Saturday:
"People who won't drink the Kool-Aid and buy into the program and what our goals are, they will hold us back," offensive guard Shannon Tevaga said. "But the sky is the limit for us. We can do this."
And they have to. For five years, these players have taken their baby steps. And with each step forward -- measured in victories over Cal, Oklahoma and USC -- they have also fallen. But each time, they learned to walk again, like that child who is now ready to run.
If ever there were a season in which UCLA could finally say it is ready to do so, this is it. With so much experience -- both physical and mental -- and a schedule that brings Cal, Oregon and Notre Dame into the Rose Bowl, these Bruins are finally hoping to prove that when they said, "Just wait," that they knew this was what they were waiting for.
"It all kind of lines up," quarterback Ben Olson said. "This is the time here at UCLA now where we have to do it. There is not next year or the year after that. It's now, and we understand that."
GO BRUINS.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
National title, baby...
Now, if the players could only figure out a way to lock up KD in his office every game...the only thing that stands in the way.
Uh yeap
NC Goals
I would hate to see a repeat of 2001, when our guys were 6-0 and NC was being talked about until we were upset at--you guessed it--Stanford. We seemed to lose our spirit and turned that first loss into a 4-game losing streak.
Hopefully this team's confidence will prove to be rock solid and able to survive any adversity that may come.
by Calchas on Aug 30, 2007 9:02 AM PDT reply actions
Guerrero just outlined Dorrell's report card
- We don't beat ourselves. No more idiotic Notre Dame losses, or 1st quarter blowouts to Oregon, or 4th quarter comeback losses to horrible Washington. Those losses were the result of bad coaching and obviously Guerrero is saying a 5th year coach with 20 returning starters, 17 of them seniors, with 25 total seniors on the team should not be making such stupid mistakes.
- Play with consistency. No more beating title game bound SuC one week, then getting spanked by a ridiculously bad Florida State team the next game. No more 3 game seasons after a 4 game losing streak. That just won't get it done. Consistency is the mark of good coaching, plain and simple, and it is widely known that Dorrell's tenure has been marked by inconsistency. No way Dorrell can "grow" and "learn" his way out of that one this year.
- Excellent 2nd half team. No more coming out of halftime with 0 adjustments. In nearly every game last year, Dorrell was outcoached in the 2nd half. Good coaches adjust and it shows in the second half of the game. Last year, the team scored 13 fewer points in the 2nd half than in the 1st and allowed 19 more points in the 2nd half than in the 1st, for a 32 point differential. Not a recipe for success and a clear indicator of bad coaching. Not only did Guerrero say he wanted to see a good 2nd half team, he wants to see an "excellent" 2nd half team. Dorrell better work on adjustments at halftime and that is what we will be looking at all season.
- Improve as the year progresses. Dorrell's post October record is a dismal 6-12 in 4 years. Although last year Dorrell had his first winning post-October at 3-2, the late season collapse is the norm for his football teams. It's no wonder, coaches have more film on the team than during the earlier part of the season AND our tougher, better coached teams are usually scheduled during the end of the season. So, Dorrell proves his mediocre skills with the late season collapses. Guerrero is clearly signaling that a 5th year coach with all this talent should not be outcoached like that and win only by surprise or by luck ('05). Dorrell has to show that he can outflank his opponents when all is out in the open. If he can't prove that he can do that now, with this team and this schedule, when will he ever?? We think Guerrero is saying its time for Dorrell to prove himself as a top conference coach this year.
Kind of off the subject...
by meow meow on Aug 30, 2007 9:14 AM PDT reply actions
Joe's
Have fun at Wrigley. With Penny/Loiaza/Wells/Lowe, the Azul should be able to pull closer to the D-Bags and Puds by next Thursday.
A sincere thanks for the response...
And by the way...GO BRUINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by meow meow on Aug 30, 2007 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
DG
Howland - Fantastic hire
Savage - Fantastic hire
Did DG get lucky with those two hires, or just unlucky with the Dorrell hire?
I realize this is a question without an answer, it just makes me think.
We love to give DG credit for Howland and Savage, but maybe he just lucked into them. The way Mike Garrett lucked into Carroll and Floyd. Remember, SC could easily have Mike Riley and Rick Majerus right now.
Any thoughts....?
Nope
As for Savage, that is all DG. Savage was the baseball coach at UCI where DG was the Athletic Director.
Garrett however certainly did "luck into" Carroll, because Cheatie Petie had nothing in his background that made anyone think that he would accomplish what he has. Floyd? That would presume that Floyd is a good coach. Well he's not terrible, but please, I don't see any luck there.
Finally, you are completely off, because DG actually had very little to do with the KD hire, based on the information provided here. It is obvious that the KD hire is the oulier, and not the other way around. And you are going to get a lot of grief now for comparing Floyd to Howland. Get ready.
Huh?
I asked a question that I acknowledged I didn't know the answer to. I can't really be "off" then.
I was just thinking out loud.
Also, I do think Floyd is a good coach. I think Howland is a great coach. To me, there is no comparison between the two, besides the fact that they both coach college basketball in LA.
Where did I compare Howland to Floyd? I swear, the people on this board cannot read. A sad indictment of a UCLA education, circa 20-30 years ago.
My point was this...was Guerrero lucky in landing Howland and Savage, or merely unlucky in having his Dorrell hire not work out? I was just posing a question. I really don't know the answer. And I'm guessing we won't know until Guerrero gets a chance to hire another high profile coach.
FWIW
Agreed
Until the LSU job opens up...
How does one "luck"
Floyd has been so-so thus far, and even the most ardent SC fan knows that Carroll was far from Garrett first choice, so luck would enter into that one.
READ, READ, READ
And by your logic, any coach who does well cannot be lucked into. For a clear example of the idiocy of that comment, see USC and Pete Carroll. Excellent coach, was Garrett's 4th or 5th choice.
This is my final post on this subject, as my point was clearly too nuanced for anyone to understand. Apologies, I guess.
Quick - I think you're looking for a fight
Here's what you said on October 15, 2005
[new] Why do I get the distinct feeling ...
That people on this board WANT UCLA to lose? I'm serious. They finish off a brilliant comeback win, and all I hear is that people here are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
"Why can't Dorrell be like Charlie Weis?" Well, Weis lost today. He's a great coach, but meanwhile, UCLA is 6-0.
APPRECIATE THAT.
You guys don't deserve a winner if you can't appreciate wins like this.
This ain't FireDorrell.com anymore.
This kind of crap is absurd.
by Quickhands on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:33:55 PM EDT
Then someone responded with what seems to me to be some reasoned comments.
[new] No one wants UCLA to lose
It's great that we overcame a 3 TD deficit, but the fact is WSU is a mediocre team that won't even get a sniff at a bowl game. That fact that we are eeking out victories is fine, but I don't see any foundation for the future. What happens when Drew Olson and Lewis are gone? Or Havner and London? Or God forbid Maurice Drew leaves early? We are being carried by outstanding offense. The defense has been terrible the past two years, nothing has been done to address this problem. Granted the D in the second half was much better, but why do they need to wait at the half to make any adjustments? I just don't have any confidence that this is an up and coming team regardless of our record. We can easily lose to any team on our schedule in the next few weeks.
by drillerdoc on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:45:36 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
[new] Yes
You COULD lose to any team on your remaining schedule, but wouldn't you rather BELIEVE?
I just don't sense any optimism here from a blog supposedly supporting a 6-0 team.
There's so much negativity. Yes, today's win and last week's win were close ones that might have gone the other way ... but would you rather be Cal?
They actually lost last week and then gave a piss-poor showing against a mediocre Oregon State team at HOME.
In that span, UCLA is 2-0 with 2 amazing wins, and Cal is 0-2 with two disheartening losses. Does this mean Cal should talk about firing Jeff Tedford?
by Quickhands on Sat Oct 15, 2005 at 10:49:37 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
I think subsequent events have answered your comments quite well. Jeff Tedford has gone on to do some fine things at Cal and we all know what Mr. Dorrell has done with the UCLA program.
One would think that with all the negativity that you have perceived since 2005, you would not waste your time here. And you are apparently too "nuanced" to be able to communicate with the rest of us here at the BN.
For what it's worth, Quickhands, I'm not impressed with your opinions or the reasons for them. I strongly believe that your degree, if you have one, is not from UCLA.
Gulp!
Aw, shucks
I Realize...
Any posts under QuickHands before about July of 2007 were not me. They were my brother, probably looking to be a pain in the ass.
Your response: "Oh, so now you made up an excuse...blah blah blah...."
It happens to be the truth.
Also, even if it were not, would it be possible for someone to like Dorrell in 2005 and not like him in 2007? I mean, is that possible?
You're Missing The Point
You deserve what you get on this one.
Moral of the story
http://www.bruinsnation.com/comments/2007/6/15/114556/555/30#30
The tagline to that story
So I'm good, and it's all thanks you you, Free.
Excellent!
I'm pretty sure
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Aug 30, 2007 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Could Riley
An interesting question re Riley
The media spin painted Riley as a guy who would be driving down to S.D. all the time to be with his family, when the program needed a Tedford like guy who gave UCLA his all 24/7.
I wonder now if that was media spin or if Riley really was going to commute like that.
Your post is like a soliloquy
Off topic... but
by BruinManDan97 on Aug 30, 2007 2:35 PM PDT reply actions
Dan Guerrero question
Perhaps a look at this data (which I don't have) would give us some insight into whether or not the KD hiring was an outlier. Also, it might give us some insight into whether Guerrero would give Walker an opportunity to interview for the job once he fires KD. Of course, that would be assuming the defense has a very good year, yet the KD factor leads to a few riduclous losses.
Football
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Aug 30, 2007 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
why??
All our great coaches have had successful head coaching stints PRIOR to taking the UCLA job ... coaches from OUTSIDE the program (Wooden, Sanders, Harrick, Howland). Great programs learn from their failures and successes. What has Walker done that would give ANY big time program the size and stature of UCLA football a reason to make him their head coach?? Lose 6 games?
Being a head coach and running a football program is entirely different than being a coordinator. We don't need to hire another coach for some on the job training. That experiment should be over. Sure, some coordinators can make great head football coaches eventually after proving themselves as head coaches at smaller programs or at the very least serving many years as successful coordinators. 9 of the last 12 NCAA football champion coaches learned their jobs somewhere else first. All of the other 3 had significant coordinator experience (Fulmer at Tenn, Coker at Miami, Stoops at Oklahoma) and Fulmer was an old school hire. Look what happened to Coker. Stoops had 7 years experience as DC and assistant head coach including winning a national title with Florida before he took over as head coach.
So the evidence is heavily weighted both nationally and at UCLA towards going with PROVEN HEAD COACHING EXPERIENCE. Learn from it.
let me add
DeWayne Walker has all of 1 year experience as DC and lost 6 games in that year, including blow-outs losses to Cal, Wazzu, and Florida State. And you want this guy to be our head coach??
I agree
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Aug 30, 2007 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions
exactly
Come on, bruincore,
After the failed Lavin and Dorrell experiences, I'm in the camp that UCLA should only hire a proven successful head coach for its major programs, especially the money-makers: basketball and football.
I have a question for you. Have you seen any studies on the major programs that try to show the relative benefit of having hired a proven head coach? It would be interesting to see something like winning percentages of those head coaches who had been previously head coaches, versus those that had never been head coaches. Also, the percentage of head coaches in both categories that had winning percentages of, say, 75% or better. My guess is that would probably show the Fulmers, Cokers, and Stoops of the world are more the exception than the rule for the major programs. Especially considering the survivor bias.
by bornagainbruin on Aug 31, 2007 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions
my bad
My very cursory analysis though says a lot. The last 12 champions have coaches with major experience as a common trait. If UCLA wants to play it like the Oakland A's and go for cheapest way to have a good but never great team, I would be against that. I say, go for greatness all the time, even if you come up short. Hiring an experienced proven coach seems to be the best way to do that.
Do you suppose it's too late to get
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.
