Bruins Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: SB Nation interviews Jerome Bettis

Culture Change

I felt like there were some encouraging developments that transpired throughout this game. Our defense held up relatively well against a bunch of offensive 5 star recruits. Our offensive line provided good pass protection and seems to have gotten slightly better as the year progressed. I also felt as though the players played with great passion and determination (although sometimes their passion led to some unfortunate mistakes – like Ayers late hits and Carter’s penalty on roughing the punter). I was certainly pleased to hear Craig’s endorsement of UCLA at halftime – and I hope that the nation at large was listening (especially if you happen to be a young athlete that can bench press 400 plus pounds or can run a 40 yard dash in around 4 seconds).

Now, there were definitely some areas that need to be addressed in the future – and I was hoping that a few of you could comment on what areas you see as essential in improving our organizational depth and talent.

First, recruiting absolutely needs to reflect the level of success that we are hoping to achieve. We should consistently be pulling in 5 star recruits. In particular, we need better talent at the skill positions (haven’t had a break-out receiver in awhile – and our runners need to be more dynamic and shifty – perhaps last years recruits will help out here).

We also need to find some defensive ends that can hunt down a quarterback like their next meal depends on it (like Bruce Davis, the Ball brothers, etc). How many sacks did we have this year? As good as our Defensive tackles were – the ends were somewhat disappointing.

Clearly the offensive line needs some more talent – but I would expect for the returners to be better next year with more experience under Palcic’s tutelage. Currently we have two (or did we get a JUCO transfer?) offensive line recruits – one which looks like a stud – the other is a middle of the pack lineman.

We also need to address special teams – which I felt like was poorly coached all year long (which was surprisng to me – because Ganss – sp? – seemed promising). Our coverage seemed late and ill conceived – and some of the mistakes today really hurt us today.

Finally, I feel like we should never be out-schemed. While the level of talent on the field may not be able to effectively compete for national titles yet – the talent level on the sidelines and in the sky boxes should be able to compete with anyone in the country. There were times where I felt like this was the case this season – but overall – it was defintely debateable. Could you definitively state that we grew as a team this year? In what ares did we truly progress and what players development was blatantly obvious?

Furthermore, at the end of the game today – how many third downs did we give up for first downs? It seemed like we could not stop SuC from getting first downs when they wanted them. While I did feel as though the officiating was overly tendentious – the coaches should also have been in the players ears about late hits and holding (I swear SuC’s offensive line was consistently getting away with holding). I also think that offensively we were aware of our identity from an early point in the season. Therefore, shouldn’t we have identified a clear plan for getting most out of that talent and helping players progress for next year? I would have liked to see some more creativity with the offensive play calling – even though I will acknowledge that Chow, Neuheisal, etc, are much wiser than me when it comes to doing their jobs – but they should be – they are getting compensated fairly well to do this professionally. If I produced the same outcome as a psychologist that they have on the field – it would be fair to critique my performance.

Finally, watching Carroll shake hands and joke around with the refs all day today really pissed me off. I feel pretty certain that those refs go to bed in SuC pajama’s and have a autographed pictures from Petey on their business desks. However, I would like for CRN to utilize his considerable charisma to work the sidelines so that we can get favorable calls – and put UCLA charm in the minds of other schools and fans.

As a very last note – in order for this program to make a complete turn into national prominence – we need to help out on the grassroots level. There needs to be an investment on all UCLA supporters parts. Our enthusiasm and confidence should be infectious. So when our kids, neighbors, co-workers, strangers, etc – think about where they are going to attend college – they will ineluctably think about going to UCLA because of the profound impact that we imparted upon them. If we can offer that to CRN, his staff, and the players – we will have played an integral role in creating the cultural change and paradigm shift that we have been so desperately calling for.

Let’s quit talking about KD – his era is over and it was a depressing one at that. Now it’s time to be a part of the solution as we inculcate and propagate a collective environment of excellence. Thanks everyone here for sharing in my joy, pain, and renewed hope! Have a great Christmas season (or Hannukah, etc)!

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.

2 recs  |  Comment 14 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Recruiting

Recruiting, recruiting, recruiting, recruiting, recruiting….

We are still light years behind SC on the recruiting trail. According to Scout, we are currently ranked 28th in the nation (right behind Kentucky and just ahead of Illinois) and 3rd in the Pac10 behind SC and Stanford. We can outcoach, outscheme, outfight, outsmart, outclass as much as possible, but superior talent will nearly always win out. We have got to change that.

We still have a shot at a few nice pickups between now and signing day. And even though expectations won’t be very high next year, I think this program needs to gain some momentum by winning on the field. Going to a nice bowl (and winning that bowl) would certainly help.

by godblesstyus95 on Dec 8, 2008 4:38 AM PST reply actions  

It starts and ends with recruiting

I agree, we are light years behind SC in terms of recruiting and talent. I recall Petros saying on the Gauntlet show that Harwell is the only player at UCLA who was also offered a scholarship to USC. I believe it. Remember when the Bruins were “finalist” for Bradford, Johnson and Cable and all three went to USC despite the presence of three other top RB already committed? Any of those players (assuming they would have qualified) would have been the Man at UCLA from Day 1.

richramus

by Rich Ramus on Dec 8, 2008 3:36 PM PST up reply actions  

I remember that

Datone Jones, Raymond Carter, Akeem Ayers were also offered by USC. There’s also Brian Price who SC went hard after until the final minute to the point that Brian and his dad were both upset and had to tell SC to back off. There were probably a few others who had SC offers too, but I agree, the talent level needs to take a step up.

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 8, 2008 3:50 PM PST up reply actions  

A few notes

Good post, but I have some issues with some of the things you said:

- UCLA has never consistently pulled in 5-star recruits. And unless our admission standards change, that will not happen. Just read what Brigham Harwell had to say about that.

- I never felt that we were out-schemed this year. The only time it was debatable was against BYU, and I’ll notch that up to everything going wrong for us in that particular game. What does that even mean, “out-schemed”?

- Offensive creativity: you can’t be creative if you don’t have time to throw. Also, I think the coaches wanted to keep the game somewhat close, and that entails not taking risks in the one area in which you suck: offense. The last thing they coaches wanted was for the game to get out of hand, at the Rose Bowl, and completely demoralize both the players and the fans.

You ask “shouldn’t we have identified a clear plan for getting most out of that talent and helping players progress for next year?”. That is rather presumptuous. How do you know the coaches didn’t do exactly that? And yet, you ask them to get “creative”. No, the way to prepare for next year is to keep playing the way you’re supposed to play, just get better players. We’ve all seen it work, and it’s going to happen eventually. Too much creativity is usually a sign of desperation. Now, if we were 5-6 going into this game, things might have been different, the coaches might have pulled out all the stops to get a win. But, there really wasn’t anything in this game that warranted us going all crazy with weird formations and trick plays that are way too risky with the kind of offense we had. In short, maybe risking it all for a win was not worth the risk of a blowout.

And just FYI, last year’s team lost at U$C 24-7. This year’s team, with far less talent, only lost 28-7. I think these coaches know what they are doing.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Dec 8, 2008 2:40 PM PST reply actions  

I agee with the comments and post above. I just hope that as fans we dont become too unrealistic of what UCLA football can achieve in the upcoming season. Two areas that are very lacking are qb and o-line, those will not become strengths in one year. With Palic and Chow those positions are coached by two of the best, but it takes time to develop Freshmen and Sophmores.

I was very encouraged by the way the defense played all year, they were put in an unteniable position all year. Particularly the SC game, the D played with a chip on their shoulder they never backed down which was encouraging. Here’s hoping that lots of hard work will be done in the offseason and UCLA can start to compete year and year for Pac-10 titles.

by hatesc on Dec 8, 2008 11:39 PM PST reply actions  

Wrong on the "untenable position"

I’ll probably have to write up a separate analysis like I did last year, but the argument that the D played poorly because of the O cannot be supported by the empirical data.

First, in many games the D gave up yards and scores early in the game; on those drives, they were not “worn” out from being on the field too long.

Second, I made a point, in every game thread of mentioning the Time of Possession numbers at the half and during the game. In most, our O was on the field longer than the D.

Third, the D always controls it’s own destiny — all it has to do is give up less than 10 yards on 4 downs and it is off the field. Most of the time we did not do that. We had streaks of bad tackling and gave up too many long plays, many on 3rd and long.

I do believe that the D was put in some bad positions this year. Several times, because of turnovers or a bad special teams play, they had to D very short fields. And, On every kick off, it seems, the opponent was starting with very good field position — not at or inside their 20.

Just as I was all last year and this year, I’m really tired of hearing about the “poor D” which, because of a bad O, couldn’t get the job done.

To make one thing clear: I am starting to warm up to DW as a DC and I am very proud of the way our D played, all year. They played hard and with passion. But, so did the O. Blaming the O for the D’s failures is not fair. We lost as a team.

Last year, Fox and I debunked this “blame it all on the O” argument and I’m sure with some effort we could do it again. But, I see no reason to. People just love to overlook the facts and throw out the “defense apologist” folklore. It’s not just you, “hatesc”, it’s all over the Bruin world. But, an analysis of the drive charts and statistics simply does not support this argument.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 9, 2008 6:25 AM PST up reply actions  

You are mostly right, 66

However, I think you have to agree that because of the O’s struggles, the D could not be as aggressive this year. I don’t know if you noticed, but there were far fewer blitzes this year than last year, partly because of the inexperience, but mostly because this team is not built to play from behind. If the D took too many risks and got scored on, we didn’t have the kind of O that could have brought us back. Just my opinion, normally I see Walker send the house against opposing QBs to rattle them, and I didn’t see it as much this year.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Dec 9, 2008 10:34 AM PST up reply actions  

I can see your point --

This year, blitzing became very risky because some of our cover guys had trouble 1:1.

I see that as a problem on the D. But, I can see how, knowing that the blitz was extra risky with our cover guys — and that we wouldn’t score a lot of points — we didn’t blitz.

The main point I was making was that there is no support for the argument that the D got too tired because the O couldn’t stay on the field. The O did stay on the field, the D gave up too many key plays to allow drives to continue (or key penalties) and missed too many tackles — and blaming the O for the points scored on the D is just not fair. Especially when those points were scored on long drives early in the game.

I think we agree that we didn’t have the personnel, on either side of the ball, to play super aggressive D.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 9, 2008 3:08 PM PST up reply actions  

This argument needs to get stored somewhere

The argument that the defense gets tired because the offense doesn’t work gets brought up about every month or so. That raises the hackles of some of us. (I’m not exactly sure what a “hackle” is, but at my age, it’s nice to have anything raised once in a while, but I digress.) Anyway, the numbers absolutely positively show that this theory, like Cousin Vinnie’s theory, doesn’t hold wuotta. SJH, I think you need to figure a way to store the rebuttal so you don’t have to go through the drive logs of all the games over and over again. (Oops – gotta go. I think I notice a hackle raising!)

by Fox 71 on Dec 9, 2008 9:16 PM PST up reply actions  

You're right

The fatigue argument doesn’t hold water. U$C converted more 3rd downs than I care to remember. To me it was more a matter of personnel and strategy, not going for the jugular as much on defense. Nothing to do with fatigue, these guys were in great shape.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Dec 10, 2008 9:17 AM PST up reply actions  

"unteniable postition"

I want to touch on a few points. First, I am disheartened to read that Class of 66 is “warming up to DW”, does anyone remember what the D was like before he got here? The Larry Kerr days were not good. How bout Rocky Long…Nick Aliotti do we want a return to that? DW was the architect for the biggest win in the last 15…20 years.

The 2008 UCLA offense was ranked 111th overall, Rush Offense 116th. UCLA had a minus .83 turnover margin this year. In the last five games Craft threw 13 ints to 0 tds. I agree that you win as a team and lose as a team. But I disagree that the stats back up your point. To say that D has to “give up less than ten yards in 4 downs” is shortsighted. Teams are going to score, the D is going to give up first downs. The Offense has to be able to hold onto the ball and run the ball consisently this did not happen this year.

I think that it is obivous that biggest area of improvement needs to be on the offensive line and at qb. The offense had way too many 3 and outs this year it was a consisent problem. I think on many of these points we can respectfully disagree.

 Here’s to vast improvement across the board for UCLA football in the offseason. I think that we can agree that in all phases of the game UCLA is not at a championship level. Thanks.

by hatesc on Dec 10, 2008 7:15 PM PST reply actions  

Here we go again

Your argument does not hold water. U$C scored twice in the first quarter, and should have scored another but they missed the field goal. They went 40 yards on 5 plays for the FG miss, 72 yards on 6 plays for the 1st TD, and 60 yards on 4 plays for the 2nd TD. What does any of this have to do with the offense having 3 and outs? The only time the offense’s poor play will have an effect on the defense is:

1. in case of a turnover
2. in the second half if the defense gets tired

Well, the offense didn’t have a turnover until the end of the game, and in the second half U$C only scored one TD, so the UCLA defense was obviously not tired even though the offense was still having 3 and outs. Time of possession in the first half was 15:21 for U$C and 14:39 for UCLA…so it’s not like the defense spent all that time on the field.

So, you are right that the loss is on the offense, but only because they didn’t score enough, not because they got the defense tired. The defense played very well, but still got beat in ways that had nothing to do with the offense.

Here’s to better days ahead!

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Dec 11, 2008 12:15 PM PST up reply actions  

Offense v. Defense

I don’t think anyone on BN would take issue with the faults of our offense. Our offense reeked this year.

And 13-9 was terrific, but in the last 15-20 years, we also beat SC 8 straight times and had a number of tremendous wins against other schools. I’m old enough to personally remember all this, and not yet old enough to have forgotten it all yet.

But laying out the faults of the offense does not address 66’s points. And how does our crappy offensive display explain the blowout this year at BYU? Or last year’s blowout by Utah?

I think the defense has, on the whole, done very well under Walker. In fact, I thought the D played very well against SC this year, and against several other squads where we were simply outscored as a result of INTs returned for TDs.

But the D has also played wildly inconsistent at times. And that inconsistency cannot be laid at the door of our crappy offense.

by Barnes2JJ on Dec 11, 2008 12:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. GO BRUINS.
Start posting about the Bruins »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dsc00716_small
First Road Trip Of The Year: Open Thread For Bruins In Manhattan
Blue_bellerophon_small
Arrogant WWL "Journalist" Ted Miller Takes Shot at Well-Informed Fan

Recent FanPosts

Small
Matt Barnes arrested
Small
Almost a "Rudy" story at UCLA
Small
Owamagbe Odighizuwa
E014780120090330144414_small
2010-2011 Women's Volleyball Off to a Great Start
Small
Yahoo Sports reports that bu$h to be stripped of Heisman
13-9_ucla_baby____036_small
Photos and Videos from our Trip to Manhattan
Small
Honorary Captain for Stanford game...and me
13-9_ucla_baby____036_small
Reminder: "Rick Neuheisel: UCLA Football Weekly" Tonight
Uclabear1_small
Chris Foster - LAT's "UCLA Beat Reporter" - Tweets Out Of The Closet
080513__0038_1_small
Random Thoughts On The KSU Game

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS

SBNation.com Recent Stories

LANDOVER MD - SEPTEMBER 06:  Safety #23 Jeron Johnson of and cornerback #21 Jamar Taylor of the Boise State Broncos celebrate defeating the Virginia Tech Hokies 33-30 at FedExField on September 6 2010 in Landover Maryland.  (Photo by Geoff Burke/Getty Images)

College Football BlogPoll Top 25 Week 2: Boise State Inches Closer

Georgia wide receiver A.J. Green talks to the media during the Southeastern Conference football media days on Thursday, July 22, 2010, in Hoover, Ala. (AP Photo/ Butch Dill) +4 updates

Georgia WR A.J. Green Suspended For Four Games

Boise State quarterback Kellen Moore (11) celebrates with fans and teammates including Boise State defensive end Ryan Winterswyk (98) after winning their NCAA college football game against Virginia Tech 33-30, Monday, Sept. 6, 2010, at FedEx Field in Landover, MD.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

2010 Heisman Trophy Threat Level Watch: Kellen Moore Starts At The Top

More from SBNation.com >


Managers

094_small Ajax

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

Small Meriones

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Small Odysseus

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Editors

Images_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Licenseplate_small gbruin

Rowing_picture_small tasser10

Small DCBruins