The Dorrellian MVP: Gerard Lawson

by Nestor on Oct 1, 2007 6:24 PM PDT in Football

I am sorry guys. I made a huge mistake. You see our weekly BN player of the week poll on the right which allows you to pick basically the MVP of our Saturday’s game? Well I forgot to include the obvious MVP for UCLA from last weekend’s game.

Was it KD’s brilliance or the perseverance of our players that led to the deceptive win from Saturday?

Neither.

The athlete who was responsible for saving the clueless Thinker was none other than Gerard Lawson of Oregon State Beavers.

Allow me to take you through play by play of Saturday night's fourth quarter:

9:55 left: 4th and 5 at OSU 33: Alexis Serna punt for 51 yards, returned by Ryan Graves for no gain to the UCLA 31 out-of-bounds, Oregon St penalty 15 yard personal foul on Gerard Lawson accepted. Two plays letter Breazell took a slip screen from Olson and took it to the House. Bruins up 19-14.
9:10 left: Jimmy Rotstein kickoff for 47 yards returned by Gerard Lawson for no gain to the OrgSt 21, fumbled at the OrgSt 21, recovered by Matt Slater. Promptly Bruins drive down 21 yards for a TD. Score 26-14.
8:04 left: Jimmy Rotstein kickoff for 53 yards returned by Gerard Lawson for 18 yards to the OrgSt 39, fumbled at the OrgSt 39, recovered by Rodney Van. 4 plays letter Olson strikes BB for a 30 yard score.

Here are the highlights of Saturday's fumbles which also includes a fumble recovery by Bosworth in 3q (which we didn't convert thanks to two sraight penalties leading to an awkward pick of Olson). Anyways here are the graphic reminders of Mr. Lawson's heroics:

NCAA Football Highlights on Veoh.com

I am sorry. So what was that nonsense about Dorrell’s team pulling out a well coached win in a "hostile" environment at Corvallis? If anyone actually watches that game again and see the highlights will know the real story.

Oregon State Beavers, specifically Gerald Lawson gift wrapped this game for Dorrell and his unprepared bunch who didn’t deserve to win on Saturday.

Sure big ups to Olson, Breazell et al for fighting through, but it is foolish to get swept in our 4-1 record, and think that we are some kind of good team that showed a lot of "character" by winning a tough game on the road. That is nonsense.

Gerald Lawson gave us the game. If I was some kind of conspiracy theorist, I’d think Lawson had $omething riding on those play$. However, I will not go there.

I will chalk it up as sheer luck (in three straight unbelievable, bonehead plays) for our Sleeping Beauty. But then again if I were Karl Dorrell, I’d at least make sure to send something special to Mr. Lawson for X-mas for doing his part to preserve the jobs of one of the worst coaches in college football.

Mr. Lawson by all accounts was the unquestionable MVP of Saturday night. And he looked: so Dorrellian.

GO BRUINS.

Tweet Comment 31 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Brandon is my pick

and I was not happy to hear him on the 570 post game show stating that the 4th quarter screen was the FIRST time his number was called in the game. UCLA was up 19-12 before the Lawson fumble fest, and the defense was playing well (or OSU offense was playing like, well, Dorrellian).

by Vanman7475 on Oct 1, 2007 6:37 PM PDT reply actions

Actually

UCLA going up 19-12 also had to do with Lawson f*kup. Bruins got in to great field position because of a bonehead personal foul Lawson picked up during our punt return, which practically set us up at midfield. And then just 3 plays later Olson hit Breazell on that screen. Lawson had a hand on all the game turning UCLA TDs in 4th.

by Nestor on Oct 1, 2007 6:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Does that first video belong?

Because I think that one is just an amazing play on the part of the defense. Granted, the other two are give-aways. But you have to give credit to [can't tell who, Christian Taylor maybe?]. He totally gets stuck and just flips back into running position!

by jatteratious on Oct 1, 2007 6:43 PM PDT reply actions

It doesn't really ...

However, the way I picked up the higlights from that service ... I wasnt able to splice out the fumble due to our defensive pressure.

by Nestor on Oct 1, 2007 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions

I want to reiterate

Lavin, KD, and others of their kind have more than 9 lives.

by bluegold on Oct 1, 2007 7:13 PM PDT reply actions

ND game prediction

I predict we come out flat, looks lost on offense and make mistakes.

ND will be fired up and know that this is their best chance for a win until their last 3 games games. They have seen the film on us, Weiss will have them prepared and they'll give us a hell of a fight.

Halftime: Notre Dame 7, UCLA 6

In the second half, UCLA's superior talent takes over and gives us just enough.

Final: UCLA 20, Notre Dame 10

Dorrellistas rave about 5-1 record and huge victory over Notre Dame.

The realistic rest of us have to listen to it...until the next Dorrell embarrassing loss, which unfortunately is just a Cal game away.

by RealisticBruinFan on Oct 1, 2007 7:33 PM PDT reply actions

Notre Dame is Irrelevant

Unfortunately, the Notre Dame game is irrelevant. It is a classic no-win situation. Like Utah, when you are a prohibitive 3 touchdown favorite the actual outcome can only be viewed in terms of failure to perform or you did what was expected. The Dorrellistas can crow all they want about a 5-1 record (that should be 6-0). The favorable schedule we all talked about during the off season has been front loaded with all the weakest teams (other than Arizona).

Let the Dorrelistas have their day, but based on how this team has performed so far this season, they will have some explaining to do when the Bruins have to play Arizona State, Cal, Oregon and SC. While I would like to restore my pre-season hopes that the Bruins will run the table, when you lose to Utah and struggle with the likes of Washington and Oregon Sate, it does not bode well for their ability to compete with the upper echelon teams of the Pac-10. Las Vegas or Nut Bowl, here we come.

by Bruin77 on Oct 2, 2007 8:58 AM PDT reply actions

This post reminds me of

John Calipari's comments following our victory over Memphis in the 2006 Elite Eight Game--he basically said the loss was due to his team's inability to make "bunnies" throughout the game. Bill Self, and some of the Kansas players, made similar comments in UCLA's victory over the Jayhawks in last year's tourny as well.

Rather than give the Bruin players one iota of credit for their defensive efforts, resilience (to battle back after the two fumbles, early deficit), etc. those coaches essentially chose to blame the "inexplicable" missed lay-ups.

Not saying this post and those comments are carbon copies of each other, but the line of reasoning is similar in each instance.

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 9:49 AM PDT reply actions

And your post

is an insult to our basketball program which actually puts together resilient defensive efforts game after game based on solid fundamentals. To compare their efforts to the garbage we get from football program on a yearly basis smacks of ignorance on your part.

by Nestor on Oct 2, 2007 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions

Are you saying?

Our football team is as well coached as Howland's Final-4 teams?

by bluestreet on Oct 2, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Where do I

compare, or even address Howland's or Dorrell's coaching? So, the answer to your question is "no".

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions

You clearly implied the comparsion

by bringing up those games.

by bluestreet on Oct 2, 2007 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Please see below (AND above)

I "clearly" wasn't.

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Say what?

Was the score 14-12 in the fourth quarter or not? Do you think it is normal for a return man to fumble a return THREE TIMES in a row?! This was somehow part of the genius game plan by Dorrell? The defense does get a lot of credit for being resilient and only allowing 14 points. But most of the offense's TDs were gifts from the other team in the red zone!

The difference is that Ben Howland can plan for a game and prepare the defense to shut down and bother the opponent. You cannot have fumbles as part of the game plan in football, those are lucky plays that could go either way.

by tasser10 on Oct 2, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

My point was

how can one not give ANY credit to the defense or the fortitude this team demonstrated to come back in THIS particular game? Answer: point out how the other team "gave" the game away, that's how! To me, it seemed analogous to Calipari/Self talking about how their teams "gave" the game away.

OSU caught some breaks/made mistakes, and so did we, but we hung tough and the players who bust their collective arses every day deserve SOME credit for that.

I chose to point out a similarity I saw in your rationale and that of Calipari and Self (taking away credit from where it's rightfully deserved). You chose to ignore that, and twist my post. Nice.

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 10:49 AM PDT reply actions

This team

will get all the credit it wants once its wins a championship.

Howland's teams gets all the love it deserves because it pulls out huge wins. You mentioned Kansas and Memphis games. In both games UCLA pulled out huge wins against powerhouse programs with a Final-4 on the line. In contrast we are talking about our guys basically getting lucky against a bad team from our conference. There are differences in those hoops win v. the expected win we got on Saturday. If you can't see that difference than you probably don't know anything about college sports.

by bluestreet on Oct 2, 2007 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Thanks

for saving me a response to one of the most asinine comments I have read here to date.

by Nestor on Oct 2, 2007 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm not talking about

the magnitude of the win(s) or how well/poorly-coached the teams are. Rather, I'm talking about the reaction/spin from commentators AFTER the game has been played. Withholding/re-directing credit (not talking about some lavish, falling-over-ourselves type praise...I mean we were EXPECTED to beat OSU convincingly) for a TEAM because you dislike the COACH is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Didn't the D really only give up 7 pts. in this game? Turnovers are a part of the game, and BOTH teams had their share. No, UCLA wasn't directly responsible for SOME of them, but these things happen...much like Bell's two fumbles.

Being able to bounce back (DESPITE the team's leadership) is admirable.

But then again, I don't know anything about college sports.

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

You sound like you don't

Otherwise you wouldn't be clamoring for credit for throttling an offense that specializes in turning the ball over featuring a QB that leads the nation in interception. Add into that they were playing without their best WR, playmaker, and going up against our defense of the ages, yeah you bet we were expecting a dominating performance from our D against a horrible Pac-10 team.

You certainly don't sound like you know anything about this game. There is always other sites on the internets where you can bask in the glory of an awesome Dorrell coached 4-1 football team.

by Nestor on Oct 2, 2007 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Uh, a little more nuanced than that

Wow, never thought that trying to give some (albeit meager) "props" to our Bruin players would result in my posts (me) being called "asinine", "ignorant", that I "probably don't know anything about college sports", implying that I should get lost etc. etc. in a matter of minutes...on a BRUINS website of all places! Awesome.

Basically, I want to see Dorrell go as much as anyone on here...enough is enough. A blind person could see that this team could very well be a house of cards (if Utah is any indication), and that we've been skating by on a little luck, and other teams' implosions.

I guess I just don't understand why well-intentioned views that are deemed to be antithetical to the BN "party line" are ridiculed unmercilessly, OR the posters told that they "will be gone" without hesitation.

Meriones clearly spells out the code of conduct to most of the new posters when they initially post on BN: personal insults won't be tolerated. At the same time, as recent as a couple days ago, there are those telling other people: "Wake the hell up you complete idiot" (by "joeb") or calling others, "pussy enablers" (by "meow meow"...ironic name).

Why the double standard? Why is THAT nonsense tolerated, but well-spoken dissent is not?

Bottom line: I'm not sure if some posters have the capacity to separate their Dorrell disdain from their feelings toward the TEAM, and that's a shame.

As I read earlier, "Dorrell is NOT UCLA".

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions

Uhm

I don't have time to "police" every posts.

But if I see a post comparing a Howland coached team to a Dorrell "coached" one, I will call it out as "ignorant" or "asinine." There is no other way to describe any comment that invokes a Howland coached team to make excuses for Dorrell's joke of a program. And if that is too tough for you, then you are more than welcome to stay away.

by Nestor on Oct 2, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Agree to disagree

Once again, I wasn't comparing the actual performance between the two teams. I was simply making a comparison between different TAKES on their respective performances. A Howland coached team is NOT a Dorrell coached team.

Yes, I feel that your take slighted the team and its efforts to some degree, and I disagreed with it...that's about as far as it goes. I feel/hope that I'm allowed to do that as a guest on BN...that's it.

As a daily (usually SEVERAL times a day) reader, I appreciate the tireless work you do to make this site possible, Nestor. I don't often contribute to BN, but when I do, I'd like to think that a differing viewpoint won't be met with condescending and dismissive remarks.

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions

What credit, anyway?

How can the defense get credit when THEY WERE HARDLY ON THE FIELD IN THE FOURTH QUARTER? The OSU offense never got to have the ball because their return man kept fumbling it. The defense gets credit up to 14-12. A fine job, and well done for keeping the game close. But that's about it.

by tasser10 on Oct 2, 2007 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions

You're absolutely right

the 4th quarter happened in a vacuum. The preceding 45 minutes of D had nothing to do with the final 15 minutes of play.

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions

Maze, I respectfully disagree.

Please allow me to explain:

(1) Your mention of Calipari and Self, both of whom had teams go against our BB team in the past 2 Tournaments, seemed to draw a clear comparison to our basketball team.

To a number of us, it appears as though you are saying that Self and Calipari should have given credit to UCLA's BB defense, so people here should give credit to UCLA's FB defense. Thus, the comparison between the BB and FB teams seemed pretty clear.

(2) As the Lawson clips demonstrate (and I had the giddy pleasure of watching them again last night on the FSN replay), much of our comeback/ scoring explosion seemed to result MORE from Lqawson's errors than particualrly great defensive stands by us.

I certainly give credit to our D to holding OSU to only 7 points the first 3 quarters. even if OSU is NOT an overpowering offensive team.

HOWEVER, please keep in mind that Lawson, pretty much by himself:

(a) committed a senseless out of bounds penalty that gave us 15 additional yards with which to set up the go-ahead score by our up-until-then poor offense;

(b) dropped a kickoff and started running 5-10 yards before he was ever hit by one of our defenders; and

I applaud our D's work on the 1st half interception and our special teams on knocking the ball loose from Lawson between plays (b) and (c).

However, we did not even crack 20 points until Lawson decided to have the worst day of anyone since Britney last went to Vegas.

Were it not for the direct drops, mistakes, and errors of Lawson, we would likely have had to wait additional time and take additional yards to try to score. Given the up and way down performance of the offense, there is no telling whether we could have reached 20, let alone 40 points, were it not for Lawson.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Oct 2, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Thanks M

I appreciate your take...especially the Britney reference! haha

by Maze949 on Oct 2, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Well, no, nothing

What did the defense have to do with fumbles from kickoffs?

Anyway, it doesn't matter, no reason to argue over this. But the point is, do you feel comfortable? Is our team solid? Can the offense win a game for us on its own merit?

by tasser10 on Oct 2, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Tasser -- was this to me, or maze?

I am confoozed.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Oct 2, 2007 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions

Tasser -- to clarify...

... I was trying to say our D did force ONE fumble by Lawson, but the rest of Lawson's brain-locks were pretty much all him, and not on our D.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Oct 2, 2007 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Reply was to Maze

Thanks for soothing this thread, it got a bit too hot, wasn't that big a deal.

by tasser10 on Oct 4, 2007 12:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Lawson did give the game away

There is a difference between missing well guarded layups (as Memphis and Kansas did) and dropping kickoffs when there is no one around you (as Lawson did).

Keep Dorrell ~ Mediocrity Rules.

by SuperBruinMan on Oct 2, 2007 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions