Oregon Aftermath: Brehaut Needs To Play
by mdjohns4 on Oct 11, 2009 7:16 AM PDT
107 comments
Bumped. There will be lot of reasonable disagreements re. the QB issue here on BN. Nothing wrong with that. Let's talk them out. I think what we saw from Richard Brehaut today was pretty encouraging. He certainly refuted the perception that he might have not been "ready" as a freshman. He looked as ready as Cade McNown or Drew Olson did as a true freshman. I think at this point both Prince and Brehaut should get equal shots to win the starting job by getting their chances to prove it on game days. Brehaut certainly won the duel today, IMHO earning PT for next Saturday. GO BRUINS. - N
I haven't had too much time to review any of the game film, but the in immediate aftermath of this game it's obvious the offense is holding this team back. Specifically at quarterback and offensive line. This shouldn't be news to anyone, but I would just like to emphasize it. The defense is not the problem, not to say that it doesn't have its own issues. Yet it cannot be primarily blamed whatsoever for this loss, nor the Stanford loss. Two long rushes inflated the stats. Of course they count, but they were bottled up and should have gone for nothing. It was a result of poor tackling, not gaping holes, and tackling issues are easier to fix than an inability to fill running lanes. One of the long runs was a result of Sheldon Price (who should not be playing) inexplicably losing contain. More on him later. Yes, there were too many missed tackles, but for some reason, there was only one offensive touchdown on a drive that started at the 50. If Oregon can't complete a forward pass, I'll take giving up 200 yards rushing and one offensive touchdown. Especially when half of those yards came on a true freshman losing contain, and one hell of a spin move at the one yard line. It was a good defensive performance. It certainly wasn't bad, but I look forward to debating with some who think otherwise.
This should be Brehaut's team. Prince's performance today was ugly. In his three games as the starter, he has shown little to place him over Brehaut considering the way Brehaut handled himself late in the game. He made crisp, strong throws when he was given enough time. It's also increasingly evident that this offensive line cannot handle the blitz, nor adequately pass protect against a 4 man rush. Run blocking has been very good, but the line (running backs included) still cannot protect the quarterback. Ramirez missed several pickups and Thigpen missed his fair share. I can't recall any missed blocks from Franklin and Coleman, correct me if I'm wrong. Yet time and again, the line could not hold its blocks, missed pass rushers altogether, and got our quarterbacks crushed in the process. However, it is clear to me that Brehaut needs to continue to play. What are we playing for right now? A bowl game? I think it has become increasingly clear that our chances of making a bowl are not decreased by having Brehaut behind center. His interception was a little behind Embree but the ball was entirely catchable. Our receivers should catch catchable balls, hence the term catchable.
Regarding the receivers, they're good but not great. They don't create good separation, except after bullshit offensive pass interference calls. Logan Paulsen has been a big disappointment this year. His penalties have killed us as much as his dropped passes. His catch and run on the screen late in the game does not redeem his previous poor play, but hopefully is a sign of getting his head back in it.
In all fairness, Neuheisel has really got to make a decision on the state of this football team and pursue the best course of action for the program. In my opinion, this means getting Sheldon Price off of the field and into the weight room and film room. He is lost and physically inadequate. The ONLY offensive touchdown for Oregon was a route that came across the formation, with Price in position to make the tackle but he does not. The wide receiver shakes him off his rear like no one is there. Do we have a better tackling cornerback on the bench? Yes. Courtney Viney needs to play. His performance against Tennessee has been better than any of Sheldon Price's games. I would like to think that Viney has turned it off in practice after being suspended and has shown he's not prepared to play for a coach that enforces a standard of discipline. Unless that is the case, Neuheisel/Bullough are blowing it by keeping Price on the field.
Lastly, the unspeakable self-destruction of our team at the beginning of the second half was disturbing. We've known the kick coverage is bad, but why? We've got athletes yet we can't shed blocks, get downfield, and make a tackle. It's probably the most baffling issue this team has. Can someone elaborate on the keys to effective kick coverage? I would love to hear more about it. Moreover, Prince's pick was awful. He didn't even make his first read. If he had, he would have gone away from the cornerback who was staring at Prince in his backpedal rather than focusing on the receiver. Prince's fumble was just the icing on the shit cake of a 3rd quarter.
But it has become all too clear that Brehaut needs to play. If we have a quarterback making elementary mistakes (like Prince and Craft) why not have the highly recruited, Elite 11 camper that has been bred to be a quarterback learning from them when he makes them? The fact that our quarterbacks are relatively even in terms of effectiveness right now should show that the one with the potential to turn this offense into one that can make plays downfield needs to play. We don't need a "game manager." That is coach-speak for "he sucks too much to make plays himself". We've got a young team with raw talent and the potential to go to a bowl game this year, as well as prepare for the ensuing dynasty over the coming years. Coach, stick with Brehaut. Please?
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 |
107 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
well said!
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 10, 2009 5:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Take away the first 3 minutes of 2nd Half...
and we win 10-3 (more likely 13-3, because we’d have kicked the gimme FG instead of going for it on 4th, due to being behind 2 tds).
And everybody would be raving about our incredible defense, bowl hopes, etc…
Easy money and faithless women, red-eye whiskey for the pain...
by rich87 on Oct 10, 2009 5:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oregon very smartly
shut down their offense after getting up by 18 because they knew we are unable to score touchdowns.
Had the game been closer, they would have opened up the offense and the outcome would have been most likely different.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Oct 10, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No question Oregon went conservative
That was a very Vanilla offense for most of the Second Half. Still your defense (and by defense I mean Price, he single handedly disrupted our offense) played pretty well.
by ppilot on Oct 10, 2009 8:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Conservative...
I’ll buy it, but I think it was partial to the fact that UCLA wasn’t tackling very well, and Costa had a pretty abysmal game when it came down to it
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't call it abysmal at all
His only INT was due to a fluke play in the end zone and he managed the game well. Price was getting pressure up the middle all game which really disrupted his passing effectiveness.
by ppilot on Oct 11, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They still scored 0
in the first half, when they needed to score and their offense was most definitely not shut down.
by captainqtp on Oct 10, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure why
we have a special teams coach if this is the garbage he comes up with. Its not just the poor kick coverage, its the uber conservative return game as well and sticking with the slowest returner we have.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Oct 10, 2009 5:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't get criticizing the special teams at all
Locke was booming punts all day, Forbath nailed his only field goal try, and TA had a 50+ yard punt return that got us inside the 15. I suspect the hesistancy to go with Thigpen may have something to do with the coaches not quite being comfortable with his ability to field punts quite yet.
The punt return for a touchdown was due to bad angles and some poor play on the actual play, not anything from a scheme perspective. There’s plenty to complain about, but special teams definitely ain’t one of them, in my mind. That unit is one of the strongest on this team.
by CAJason80 on Oct 11, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the root of frustration
Is that it seems like a regular occurrence that the opposing team gets a big return against us in every game. Thought we had shut that down in our first two games but it has become a problem in last three (especially yesterday and against KSU).
Also, the decision to let Austin return all the kickoffs (most of them) and punt returns … is driving people nuts (for good reason).
by Nestor on Oct 11, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We also blocked a field goal
I mean, really – no reason at all to complain about the special teams. I get that everyone wants to see Carroll and Thigpen returning punts, but I’m sure the coaching staff isn’t sold on their abilities to field punts and kickoffs, and if I recall correctly, I remember some people mentioning that Thigpen was still having some struggles with this aspect of his game during fall practice.
Yeah, TA’s not that fast – but he can field punts, make people miss, and hit the hole. He certainly isn’t going to burn anyone, but special teams is nothing to complain about on this team.
by CAJason80 on Oct 11, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kick coverage is special teams
and it has been abysmal. So there is a reason to complain about special teams. At least the kick coverage aspect of special teams. No?
by mdjohns4 on Oct 11, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brehaut is not the Answer .... Yet
It is clear that Brehaut is extremely talented, but it’s equally clear he has not yet caught up with “the speed of the game”. For the long term (i.e. next three seasons) it might behoove us to play Brehaut more now, but in the short term, I believe Kevin Craft gives us the best chance to win. I will go so far to say, that if Craft had started today’s game, I think we’d have won it. Poor Kevin Prince was not ready to play today. From the start, it was evident that he was firmly encrusted in three weeks of rust. Granted Oregon’s defense is tough, but it wasn’t that tough. Prince flat out missed several receivers early on and never got a whole lot better. Hope his knee injury isn’t too serious – he’s a game young man.
I’m also quite concerned with how we use Franklin. He starts out the main guy, does fairly well, then gradually seems to get phased out by halftime, never to be seen for the remainder of the game. If we’d have handed the ball off to Franklin when we were down on the goal line, he’d have found a way into the end zone. He is incredibly adept at finding the smallest hole and speedy enough to kick it outside if there is no hole.
Two bright spots today: Christian Ramirez finally showed us something today with a couple of very tough runs and we did really well limiting our penalty yardage.
This team has loads of talent, but we’re very young. We’re going to mistakes. But if we remain patient, I think we will be well rewarded by year’s end and in the years ahead.
by snorkeldorf on Oct 10, 2009 7:18 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Franklin
sprained his left ankle in the second quarter.
by Telemachus on Oct 10, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
really need an update there
I’ll look for any news
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just watching the replay now ...
Franklin goes off limping with three minutes left in the first quarter (right before our ill-fated four tries into the end zone). Missed that at the game. Gosh, I hope it’s nothing serious. We need him badly.
by snorkeldorf on Oct 10, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, that makes me a little less annoyed
I’m getting a little sick of the musical running backs when we get down inside the red-zone. We rely on Franklin outside the 20s and it’s like we forget he’s the most competent runner on the team once we get inside the 20. At least the lack of him in the redzone today makes sense.
by CAJason80 on Oct 11, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was hurt
He sprained his ankle on that drive
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 11, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brehaut has improved
He now knows the plays called and can read the defensive back field. The problem is he doesn’t have command of the hot routes or check downs and doesn’t have the pocket presence or ability to read the front seven yet. Brehaut didn’t pick up on the fact that they were bringing more than we had blocking and went down as a result. He didn’t see the overload coming and stepped into it. He didn’t have the hot routes or check downs necessary to adjust to the pressure coming. Next week, with Cal’s 3-4, they can put together a game plan based on what they saw tonight and use a lot of creative blitzes to really cause havoc.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 9:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
hence
the eight engaged blitz not checked down from a post and deep in play= sack.
3-4 defenses are easy to attack, and those are actually suiting up to our strengths.
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3-4 defenses can give you a lot more looks
and it’s more for the QB to read. If he (Prince or Brehaut) can do it then it will play into the strengths of the rest of the team and we can exploit it. Today, I saw a QB in Brehaut who throws a better ball, but one that doesn’t read the game nearly well enough to lead an offense for 60 minutes. I think it’s a recipe for disaster at this point in time. All you’re doing is opening yourself up to allowing big plays.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll talk with you later
The 3-4 is my least favorite of all defenses… but then again the last two times we played a 3-4… @ BYU, @ Cal… we’ll see
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep, that's my complaint with Brehaut as well
He doesn’t have any grasp of the checkdowns and audibles at this point – nor, as a true freshman, would I expect him to. That blitz on 4th down was so obvious – if he had a better grasp of the playbook, he would have checked out of that play and we would have converted relatively easily.
As is, he’s sticking with the original play and it’s leading to sacks. He’s going to be put down in the backfield a lot more than Prince or even Craft.
Frankly, I was just mystified by Prince’s performance on Saturday. He looked like he was pressing way too much – whether that was rust or panic, I have no idea.
I will say this, however; he again had two very nice deep balls in the first quarter, one of which should have been caught by Carroll. If I recall correctly, it was on the defensive holding call (basically, the Oregon defender got screwed at the line and had to hold Carroll), and Carroll still got free on the right side. Prince placed the ball exactly where it should have been – and quite frankly, even with the penalty, Carroll should have caught the ball.
Prince is, however, starting to show a complete inability to read defenders in soft coverage. Not quite sure what to make of that. All of his interceptions have been the result of defenders playing off in zone or soft coverage, and I’m not sure if he just doesn’t seem them or he thinks he can zip the ball in there.
by CAJason80 on Oct 11, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The frustration IMHO
then is the original playcall. Everyone and their mother seem to know that a blitz was coming. Then why did Chow call a 5 step drop with a freshman QB? He didn’t put his QB in a position to succeed.
by Nestor on Oct 11, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree
Chow’s playcalling was…..well, it just wasn’t very good, to be honest. I’m not sure if Chow doesn’t yet have confidence in the offense, but the play-calling is shackling players.
I’m also getting mighty sick of the musical chairs at running back that we seem to be employing this year. No one is getting in to a rhythm. I understand the desire to utilize Thigpen, but my honest preference would be just to line up Thigpen out wide and keep a RB back there (Franklin) that we know can produce. Understand that Franklin was hurt yesterday, but half the time we lined Thigpen in the RB spot, he ran out wide anyhow. Why not just be honest about what you’re doing and start there?
I was happy that the offense did finally start running some bubble screens with Thigpen. Note to coaches: Please do not ever – EVER – run a bubble screen with Terrance Austin. He is not Damien Thigpen. Thank you.
by CAJason80 on Oct 11, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It didn't look to me like Carroll got free
It looked like the defender was holding on to his left hand the whole way, slowing Carroll down. Carroll yanked free at the last second as the ball was arriving. Maybe he still should have caught it, but if he hadn’t been held the throw would have been well short.
by SuperBruinMan on Oct 11, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither will flourish
if not given time to throw, or a decent running attack to take pressure off them.
Neither will flourish with wide recievers that can’t get separation, or catch a ball that hits them square in the hands.
Neither will flourish with a play calling system that is predictable and unimaginative.
If Brehaut were so good, why couldn’t he beat out Prince (or Craft for that matter) in practice?
Sorry, I just don’t believe that our offensive woes will be fixed by a QB change. I think our problems are much, much deeper.
by godblesstyus95 on Oct 10, 2009 9:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree
But I am not proposing that the offense will be saved by Brehaut. It won’t. It will be the reason we lose most of the games we do in fact lose.
I want Brehaut because it has become clear that this offense will not flourish under any quarterback due to poor pass protection. Our pass blocking would make Tim Tebow look average.
The reason I want Brehaut in is in the future’s interest. I don’t believe struggling for a year with this offense will erase his confidence. The team will be better next year and the year after for him gaining experience under pressure. Barring injury from the expected hits he’ll take, he will be a better quarterback next year when he’s starting full time. We may not have seen the best of Prince, but one can reasonably infer it’s not as good
as Brehaut’s best. This season is not yet lost, but our chances are just as good to make a bowl with Brehaut behind center. By no means is he the savior of the offense this year, but by next season we could have a better, more experienced line along with a better, more experienced quarterback.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 10, 2009 10:14 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think our offensive woes will get fixed
w a simple QB change either. However, I think we can salvage this offense by playing the young talents on this team with a simplified scheme that is best suited to Brehaut’s skills. I think Brehaut brings lot more to the table in terms of pure QB skills than Kevin Prince.
by Nestor on Oct 11, 2009 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our defense gave up 10
and scored 7. Sure, Oregon may have shut it down some at the end, but it’s tough to blame the defense that played to a -3. Even had they not shut it down and played to a -10, it’s still a good performance.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 9:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not ready to christen Brehaut as THE guy based on less than one quarter
The whole team had breakdowns, every unit — and we can’t go hair-trigger in decisions.
This is what “growing pains” means. This is what we thought might happen when we only predicted a 6 or 7-win season.
We will learn.
We will grow.
We will move FORWARD.
Prince was sucking down bean and salsa shakes for the better part of three weeks, so his stamina and strength will be in question.
Four weeks ago, a lot of us thought Kevin Prince had IT. He may still have IT.
BE PATIENT.
HAVE FAITH.
BELIEVE.
M
"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008
by Meriones on Oct 10, 2009 9:54 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Injury or not
Prince made bad reads and bad throws with bad mechanics. Even his numbers before the injury were not great.
Brehaut is obviously more talented and I find the arguments that his ability to read defenses is somehow worse than Prince’s not well grounded. Is Brehaut missing a check down on a blindside rush more incriminating that Prince’s read on the pick 6?
by mdjohns4 on Oct 10, 2009 10:20 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
You're comparing one play to one play
Yes, his interception was bad, but Prince has also shown the ability to feel the rush, move around in the pocket, use his hot routes and adjust on the fly. Brehaut showed an inability to recognize blitzes, little pocket awareness, lack of command of the hot routes and that is consistent with what he has been doing in practice so that’s really all he’s done.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But I'm usjng
that one play to illustrate a larger point about him not making good reads. Prince was
in the game at time when running the ball was an option. Brehaut was in all passing downs due to the score and time remaining. He got blitzed accordingly and couldn’t get a pass off. He recognized the blitz, but if it went unblocked by Ramirez in the backfield. And a blindside blitz is difficult to pick up for any quarterback. Brehaut was on the last step of his drop and got drilled in the back. More
game experience would help increase his pocket awareness.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 10, 2009 10:47 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
When he shows improvement in pocket awareness in practice
then I’ll believe he’s ready to work on it in the game. He’s so concerned the defensive backs that he isn’t processing everything he needs to. I don’t think it’s as much an issue of game experience as it is still adjusting to the playbook and defensive schemes of college defenses.
The blindside blitz came when Oregon brought more men than we had to block, something you want your QB to recognize and adjust with a hot route. He didn’t recognize or have the command of the hot routes. The other sack was partly a matter of Ramirez whiffing on a block, but there was a man coming off the back side and space in front of him. That’s his key to step forward, but he didn’t. He also wasn’t about to get rid of the ball, which you should be ready to do when a man is one on one versus a running back. In that situation, you can’t depend on a running back erasing the rusher. You have to depend on a chip or something that will slow him down so Brehaut needs to be ready to get of it, which he wasn’t.
Yeah, he was in on passing downs, but the blitzes Oregon brought weren’t complex and could have been beaten by hot routes and adjustments, which Brehaut wasn’t able to do. He’s so focused on the defensive backfield that he can’t process the rest. In short, he’s a true freshman.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The argument that Brehaut can't read defenses
I find them a little off based considering what I saw yesterday. I saw a QB who was standing calmly in the pocket and zipped number of perfect passes right out of the gate.
If anything, we have to question the play calling. What was Chow doing making RB take 5 stop drops and going for those slow developing plays? It was Chow who was calling the plays making it harder to deal with the blitzes.
From what I saw yesterday, I saw a kid who read the defenses just fine.
by Nestor on Oct 11, 2009 6:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess we're not going to agree here
because I don’t know what play you would have liked Chow to call. First off, the plays weren’t that slow developing. There were a couple open receivers coming out of their breaks, but Brehaut didn’t get the ball out so while he was sitting back there holding onto the ball, it seemed like a slower developing play than it was.
Also, if a team is going to adjust to the blitz, it has to be the QB doing it so it;s not as if Chow could have down it. Adjusting for the blitz can only be done when you know where the blitz is coming from and we didn’t know where it was coming from until we got to the line, at which point Chow can’t do anything. That’s where Brehaut needs to recognize what’s going on and make his checks and use his hot routes to exploit the holes left by the blitz.
What scares me is that Oregon was able to get to Brehaut and confuse him with their front seven despite not really game planning for him. After what he showed yesterday, you can bet every other team will have a game plan against Brehaut that requires him to pick up front seven movement on every play and live off of the hot routes. I saw no evidence yesterday that he could succeed in such a game.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 11, 2009 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes we will have to disagree
Chow could have dialed up a play that didn’t entail 5 step drops with a freshman QB on whom the Oregon D was teeing off on. Sometimes there is a little too paralysis by analysis going on. I have seen and followed Bruin football long enough to know that what I saw from Brehaut yesterday was not any different than what I saw from McNown back in the day. He injected life into an offense that was listless the entire day.
We can discuss technicalities all day long but at this point I trust my instincts and eyes enough to know that Brehaut did all right considering the circumstances he entered the game under.
by Nestor on Oct 11, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problem with Prince
He is also very streaky. Remember against SDSU? Started with a great first half and then completely went cold in the second half making lots of bad reads. Exact same thing happened yesterday. Of course Chow’s play calling has left lot to be desired. But from what I have seen it’s Brehaut who looks more comfortable and from the snaps he has gotten during live game action, looked like he was doing fine reading defenses.
If our playbook is too complicated, then the coaches need to simplify them to fit Breahut’s skills/comfort level. Otherwise, we are stuck with the same coaching philosophy of paralyzing college kids with complex schemes that demoralized and stunted our offense during the Dorrell era.
by Nestor on Oct 11, 2009 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The playbook isn't that complicated
Brehaut has the playbook down, he just doesn’t have the hot routes down and more than anything, he doesn’t have what the opposing team is doing down. I don’t think you can possilbly argue that he saw those blitzes coming and that’s scary.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 11, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offense 2 Minute Drill
Am I missing something or what…. UCLA offense every time they go into the NO HUDDLE OFFENSE they move the ball GREAT…. This slow offense with no timing ot rythm is exactly what BRUINS don’t need. I say BRUIN FANS that the only way to control the offense is by not allowing the apposing team time to set up Defensive scemes. Look our Defs is good but our offense needs all the help it can get, so quit stalling and GO NO HUDDLE, I am sick of this @#$%#$# offense. Craft Prince both can play they just need the right offensive sceme and CHOW has not figured it out.. Set the offense with what you have not what you don’t have we are two years out from contending so make it happen with pure agresive play and we can’t afford the luxery of having an offense that huddles it won’t work….. No huddle gosh dam it.. I won’t buy season tickets until something changes…. Oh I like Rick N. I thinky he will change the team arround, but please don’t expect me to pay for coaches that aren’t looking at what has made the offense successful, it is right in front their face… No F’n huddle!!!
Late
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
lets do it!
Oklahoma time!
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a bit of a red herring
During any two minutes drill, defenses by nature play softer coverage. You notice as soon as we went no huddle we were able to complete passes to Paulsen with Brehaut at QB? It’s because the defense went soft over the middle – essentially giving those plays up on purpose.
That’s not going to happen if you go no-huddle with 8 minutes remaining the second quarter.
by CAJason80 on Oct 11, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. Way too many missed tackles today.
October 28th couldn't come soon enough.
by JETisKing on Oct 10, 2009 10:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No Huddle offense Facts
When you run the no huddle offense sceme :
1) Less chance of injury to Offenseive line, and running backs
2) You control the tempo
3) you tire the Opts. Defs much faster
4) You create confussion to Opts. Defs
5) Less chance for False start Penalty and other penalties.
6) Eliment of suprise (UCLA has None)
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:11 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
remember
you also tire out the refs, making them cranky
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You also
1) Leave your defense on the field longer
2) Put more onus on your QB to call plays and adjust them
3) Need your QB and OL to be able to recognize what the defense is doing expertly
4) Essentially kill your ability to run the ball because you’re not able to change formations
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but then again
should points suffice for a tired D, I’ll take it.
The No Huddle Offense is an art that requires practice. You can’t just put it in overnight.
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very few times run the no huddle exclusively
Using it some of the time, sure, but certainly not the majority of the time. The inexperience at the QB position, whether it be Prince or Brehaut makes it a poor fit for the team right now.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
well put
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nonsense
None of the 4 things have any merit,
1) Leaves Yr D on longer, you are scoring points
2) The QBs are doing it
3) QBs and OL make adjustments look at film
4) That is a bunch of Bo Who!!!
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's tough to
Argue that someone else’s points have no
merit when you don’t actually refute them with some sort of intelligble reasons.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 10, 2009 10:35 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Michigan
Runs an exclusive no huddle offense and runs the ball extemely effectively. They mix spread formations with traditional I forms quite well out of the no huddle. But I agree on the other points.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 10, 2009 10:32 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Just posted this...
subbing in a new offense is like hitting someone with a bat… sometimes it gets the point across, sometimes it leaves you with a dead guy. Check SMU…
Michigan got the first… my bet, since we don’t have a Forcier is that we get the latter
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
PS
When did Michigan become the juggernaut of Spread Offenses?
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Michigan does not run the no huddle exclusively
Even in their final drive vs. Notre Dame when they were competed against the clock they were using some huddles. They use a huddle some of the time and they also run a spread offense with a QB picking up some of the rushing yards so the formations adjustments aren’t as big of a deal. A no huddle can be useful, but rarely, if ever, is it done exclusively.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rye
You won’t win this one. I’ve watched every down of every Michigan game this year. When they don’t run the no huddle, it’s the exception. They are a no huddle spread offense. 95% of their plays are from the no huddle. I generalized that as “exclusive.” Which it basically is.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 10, 2009 10:50 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I've seen a lot of Michigan this year
and while they no huddle a lot, it’s not nearly exclusive or 95% of the time.
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rTOuB0rQtM&feature=related
Not so much no huddle there, even against the clock. Tonight against Iowa they huddled for parts of the game too. The no huddle can be effective, but even Michigan doesn’t run it exclusively or 95% of the time. They also get a lot of rushing attempts from their QB’s, giving them an extra blocker and taking some of the need for the formation/personnel changes to be able to run the ball consistently.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, man
but I don’t have any idea how that video proves Michigan huddles. The only huddles were during timeouts. You are confusing yourself when you see Tate calling out the blocking scheme to his line as a huddle. The camera is in so tight you don’t notice that the wide receivers are already split out wide. Plays are called in from the sideline, every receiver knows their route (3-5 of them at time) and never go into a huddle.
Watch the video again, because you proved yourself wrong. I will have this argument as long as you are willing, but it will not turn out favorable for you. This a no huddle offense, as exclusive as I pointed out earlier. It is not necessarily a hurry up offense, but they certainly do not huddle and they do not break from a huddle. You are simply wrong and proved it yourself with video evidence.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 11, 2009 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is considered a huddle
by rule and allows for the personnel and formation changes necessary to effectively run the ball. If you truly don’t huddle, then any personnel changes you make must allow time for the opposition to make. If you don’t huddle at all, then you cannot make the personnel changes, but the defense cannot either, one of the benefits of the no huddle offense. By rule, that is a huddle and takes away one of the no huddle benefits so I’m calling that a huddle because it functions as one. I’d classify Michigan’s offense as uptempo for sure, but that’s not a no huddle. As soon as you allow for personnel changes on both side of the ball, which Michigan does, you’re no longer running a no huddle.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 11, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where is the rule?
The rules committee has a rule that determines a huddle based solely on substitutions? If so, you’ve nailed me on semantics. Rich Rodriguez calls it a no huddle spread offense because, I’m assuming, they don’t ever actually get the line, receivers, running backs, and quarterbacks in a huddle-looking formation and break from it. Not allowing substitutions is only one aspect of the no huddle, and not necessarily the most important. Time between plays is still shortened, defensive fatigue still increases (since teams don’t mass substitute, nor do they have the depth to do so), and the effect of running a no huddle is still achieved. If you want to take this one on semantics, fine. But the coaches and players will always refer to that system as a no huddle system because of the way they define a huddle, not the NCAA rules committee awesomely accurate definition.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 11, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no interest in searching the rulebook for the rule
but it states that a team that huddles, allows for substitutions for both the offense and defense. I wouldn’t call it semantics either because that is the only real advantage of the no huddle. You can run a hurry up, uptempo offense and still huddle. Teams have done it before and will continue to do it. You can use a conventional huddle and get the snap off in 20-25 seconds, as Michigan does. The only real advantage of the no huddle is the substitutions that you do not allow the defense to make. It’s not as if Michigan is getting snaps off every 10 seconds. It’s every 20-25 seconds and they’re making substitutions, as is the defense, so they are not using a no huddle. The huddle does not define uptempo or hurry up.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 11, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh
“It’s not as if Michigan is getting snaps off every 10 seconds”
Yeah, it is. They choose to run at that tempo, especially when Denard Robinson is in at quarterback. You haven’t watched enough Michigan football. I say that as someone who’s watched every game of theirs in the Rodriguez era at least twice.
2009 is just 2007 in 2008's clothing. - Trooper
by colintj on Oct 11, 2009 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're getting them off fast, but not every 10 seconds
Look at the video I linked above and these videos. The snaps are coming every 20-25 seconds for the most part, not every 10.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUvieRvK_wI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igsmIi4V0EM
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 11, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what is that video showing me that i haven't already seen?
what about “every game at least twice” would make a youtube video of games i have on my hard drive necessary to watch? i know they don’t run high tempo all the time. but they rarely huddle if you’re using the layman’s understanding of the term. the OP was using the same understanding. if Chris Brown from Smart Football calls what Texas Tech does “no huddle,” then what Michigan does qualifies under the same definition. Chris Brown is the best analyst of college football X’s and O’s around and he has no problem with OP’s language.
2009 is just 2007 in 2008's clothing. - Trooper
by colintj on Oct 11, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brown even refers to Rodriguez' no huddle
in the comments section of this post
2009 is just 2007 in 2008's clothing. - Trooper
by colintj on Oct 11, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
even wikipedia similarly describes RR's offense
2009 is just 2007 in 2008's clothing. - Trooper
by colintj on Oct 11, 2009 6:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yet
Michigan’s players do not ever form a huddle and proceed to run an uptempo offense.
I guess I still can’t understand what you mean by conventional huddle, since Michigan runs nothing of the sort. Unless a conventional huddle is one where the players never actually form a huddle formation.
But to each his own. I’ll stick with the traditional sense of the word “huddle” and the formation that it implies, and you can go with an obscure rule book definition that I can’t find, nor are you willing to point out yourself.
That being said, Michigan runs a no huddle spread offense.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 11, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Boise St,
They run this Hybrid NH with the offensive players running on and off the field exchanging wide/outs , backs etc. at the down of the ball…. The WAC has a bunch of good players but speed seems to be their key.
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to this article
Boise St. ran the no huddle 25% of the time last year and have only used it for two non-hurry up drives this year. Good try though.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/boisestatefootball/story/931553.html
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nicely done rb - but it's not about stats anyway
our problems go beyond pure gimmickry – it’s about confidence. call some plays that make the kids feel like they can do it again. i don’t see that ever happening. when we convert on any down i feel ilike it’s a miracle. i can’t imagine how the players must feel. especially after today. put a gameplan in that creates a little rhythm. doesn’t have to be fancy. just spread em out and put the fear of god into the opponent. we have the talent to do that – we didn’t have that last year. it’s called creativity. you can’t tell me that TTU, BSU, etc have the talent we do. they win with coaching and attitude. i thought we were going to do that this year too. crn and chow need to get it together.
by Nocal Bruin on Oct 11, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the playcalling needs to improve
I’m simply stating that going to the no huddle full time is not the answer and that nobody uses it exclusively.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 11, 2009 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
VIDEO GAMES
The younger generation players play this game with speed and quickness feed it to themm let them go Balls to the wall!!! Gees the only thing they know is stop and Fast.
If you speed up the tempo these ADHD players can make it happen :)
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree, watch the film
In every game played by the Bruins this year, the offense has succeeded in this offensive sceme, No huddle, and if you even take into account the fact that the Bruins were lagging they picked up rythm.
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The reply buttong is your friend
If you don’t use it then it’s very difficult to figure out what exactly you’re talking about.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NO Huddle!!!
You use a huddle when you are in control of the game and its time to burn the clock
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Or
you use a huddle to make personnel changes, give the defense more looks, take some of the decision making out of the hands of your QB, exploit holes shown by the defense, more effectively run the ball and keep the defense from keying in on your minimal options.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
sorry 58 you don’t know what you got yourself into.
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
UCLA OFFENSE Works with NH
I am telling this is the key to UCLAs success a No huddle offense with Auds. will turn UCLA around.
Look at the film
and explain Lucy!!!
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The UCLA offense utilizes a number of shifts, formation changes and motion
If you’re not huddling, you’re not changing enough personnel for formation changes so the UCLA offense doesn’t work with the no huddle unless you plan on overhauling the whole thing, in which case it’s not the UCLA offense anymore.
As for the audibles, we have one QB who has mastered the hot routes and blitzes, but isn’t working in audibles yet because he’s played three games. Your other QB hasn;t started a game yet and doesn’t have the hot routes down. Asking for audibles is too much, plus some.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Craft has it I know
Craft is in, but I am not shure about Prince, but he seems to have the IT factor Chow talks about this in meatings and states the obvious.
Prince I believe is beeter that Mcnoun and Cade was not a bad QB…
I think the NH is based in part on 11 on 11 team no subs… and pure athletic condition it is not for the week….but I have seen what UCLA Ofns can do with it….
by 58Bruins on Oct 10, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
NOOOO
Blasphemy! CADE > ALL!
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We don't have that!
The QB is the one making those reads! We haven’t trained any sort of QB in making those reads a la Graham Harrell/Tim Tebow/Colt McCoy/NATE COSTA!
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 10:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's take a look at the QB's you mentioned
Graham Harrell redshirted, then didn’t play as a freshman, then wasn’t given the reigns of the no huddle or audibles until his junior year. Tim Tebow was worked in for a series here or there his first season and wasn’t given full reign to change on the fly until half way through his sophomore year. Colt McCoy redshirted, then wasn’t allowed to audible until the end of his redshirt freshman year and wasn’t given the go ahead on the no huddle for any extended period until his sophomore year. Nate Costa was pretty protected today and wasn’t asked to audible, while Oregon huddled often.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 10, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
We’re working with 2 freshmen, 1 just learned how to drive, and now you want him to read defenses like a pro and shift out of your traditional offense? Sorry buddy
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 10, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just got back in - didn't read all the posts but
Brehaut is not our savior. sound game planning is. no one can seriously believe that anyone could have succeeded with this hapless gameplan, could they? pleeeeeeaaaaaaze don’t pin this loss on prince. brehaut may be better, but chow and crn assured failure. last year we didn’t have all these moving pieces to second guess. this season there’s really no excuse. i hate that these kids have to be demoralized this way. i believe in crn and want to see him succeed but he needs to get it together.
by Nocal Bruin on Oct 11, 2009 12:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it's the play calling of saint chow that has me mad!
1st and goal at the goalline and we run 4 straight plays up the middle…and with 4th and goal and we come out of a timeout and run the exact same play as 3rd and goal…WHO CALLED THESE?…chow has a great HISTORY…and that’s all it is…no imagination in play calling at all…I SEE OTHER FRESHMAN QUARTBACKS in the nation playing well…why cant ours?…IT’S THE PLAY CALLING GUYS…
by bruincheerleader on Oct 11, 2009 2:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
with the playcalling issue. But isn’t it nice having a QB controversy? It means we have recruited some athletes for a change and we are lobbying to unchain their talents.
by BruinFanGA on Oct 11, 2009 6:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel ya on your Logan Paulson bio...
Major dissapointment.
Other than that …until QB and O-line gets more experience, those “baby blues” are just gunna hafta continue paying those dues.
The pedigree of our coaching staff cannot be ignored. I trust them and their decisions more than anyone on the internet.
Sure is frustrating though.
by GogetemBruins on Oct 11, 2009 10:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Brehaut is not ready
But he sure throws a nice ball. I think he will contend for the starting job next year. He’s still thinking too much and can’t sense a pass rush.
Our receivers are below average. Most cannot gain separation from defenders, and they drop too many passes. None are long ball threats, at least not until Carroll learns how to catch the ball.
by BruinsRule on Oct 11, 2009 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
High Expectations?
My very 1st post. I couldn’t tolerate all the whining going on. My 2 cents is that expectations are suddenly running way too high for a rebuilding program in it’s 2nd year. Face it, this football program is a work in progress. We simply do not have enough talent yet. And the young talent we have needs time to develop. We lost to the 13th ranked team in the country by 14 points. Given the tone of the board you would think we were ranked 11th and lost 48-10. Despite 2 straight losses we are 3 & 2. The preseason expectations were for around a .500 record and if we did a little better maybe a bowl game. We’ve played only two Pac 10 games, there’s lots of football left. At this point give the coaching staff the benefit of the doubt. By the recent comments you would think Dorrell & Co. are back at the helm. Have CRN & Chow suddenly lost it? NO. If we play like this next year then I would start to get concerned. But, we won’t.
by 77bruin on Oct 11, 2009 2:33 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I agree with your first post 77
Welcome to BN
by Tydides on Oct 11, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also agree,
although I think some of the frustration involves the way in which we lost, falling apart after giving them a close battle in the first half. Had Oregon come out and dominated from the start, I don’t think BNers would be as emotional about the loss.
by Give me a B... on Oct 11, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This comment frustrates me as much as our loss
The reason I, as well as many others are upset stems from an inept offense. Had we been blown out, I would be equally upset with the defense, probably more so since I expect far more out of that unit. To say that people would be less concerned or less “emotional” if we were blown out is just nonsensical.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 11, 2009 8:49 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Which goes back to what 77 is saying
perhaps expecting our young, inexperienced, unranked team to play even with, or beat consistently the 13th ranked team in the country may be asking a bit too much. Believe me, I’m with you. I think we should be competing with and beating the big boys on a consistent basis, but we are not there yet. Also, I didn’t say “blown out”, I said “domintated”. I actually thought we dominated the first half, but the scoreboard didn’t reflect it. We had long drives and chances to score, and they didn’t even get in the red zone, and had their only FG attempt (from over 50 yds) blocked. All I am saying is that most “experts” including those on this site, had us likely losing by a touchdown or more, and ultimately that is what happened. After the first half, we had hopes that we could pull it out if we continued to play flawless D. When we gave up cheap touchdowns on special teams and offense, the frustration and recollection of last year set in.
by Give me a B... on Oct 11, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: high expectations
Mine were never very high for this team. I predicted 6-6 and thought that would be a successful year. What I didn’t predict was an offense that would not be able to score points. If you expected us being 106th in total offense I commend your clairvoyance. That is about as bad as it comes. Losing by 14 to another team is alot more than you postulate. Especially when your team only scores 10 with the offense scoring 3. We lost by more than we scored. That is alot. This was no moral victory by any means.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 11, 2009 8:39 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom line
It will be all about the numbers. We will see the where the offense numbers are at the end of this season and at midpoint of next season. I know we have talent issues stemming from previous era. However, that doesn’t mean we should an offense that is ranked in the 100s. That is inexcusable. No one is going to be able to convince me there are 100 other teams with more talent on offense than UCLA. As I said, we will get the results at the end of this season or by the midpoint of next.
by Nestor on Oct 12, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
UCLX
Based on the sentiment if UCLA football was a stock I would buy a boatload at the open tomorrow with the intention of selling in about 2 years.
by 77bruin on Oct 11, 2009 7:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
