Spaulding Roundup: Can The Bruins Be Consistent Against Explosive (Dangerously Desperate) Bears?
by Nestor on Oct 13, 2009 5:40 AM PDT
in Football
21 comments
Let's start this Tuesday with an injury update:
An MRI exam on linebacker Reggie Carter's left knee confirmed a minimal medial collateral ligament sprain. Carter and Korey Bosworth (ribs) are likely to play against Cal on Saturday, though technically they are on day-to-day status.
Also, Johnathan Franklin (ankle) and Glenn Love (ankle) were supposed to give it a shot at practice yesterday. Didn't see any update on their situations as to whether they were able to give it a go. Milton Knox was out with flu on Saturday. He is supposed to be back at Spaulding this week.
As for what team needs to work on consistency is the operative word in Westwood this week:
"It'd be a long list - it's not always just one thing. We need to get consistent play from our quarterback. Kevin, now being back in and having some more game experience under his belt, we'll get more. We need to make sure that when we call plays that they're blocked correctly. We can't miss assignments and watch them come back and haunt us. We've got to make sure that we're coaching great fundamentals and remembering all the while that we're young.
However, Neheisel is not using being young as an excuse and also making sure the coaches including himself bear responsibility for how the team plays and prepares every week:
"We can do better as a coaching staff. I do not want to shirk responsibility from us. It's too easy to say, 'Well, we're just too young.' We have enough to be successful. We've proven we can be successful. We need to play within ourselves and be efficient."
In terms of the QB play CRN is sticking with Prince but keeping Brehaut in the mix. More on that and other notes after the jump.
As mentioned above Neuheisel is staying with Prince as the starter but keeping Brehaut in the picture:
"I've been pretty clear that I want to keep looking to get Richard in the game. Kevin was not at his best. We weren't moving the ball. Sometimes just a change of pace is a good thing. It looked to me like a great spot to get Richard the chance. I'm not trying to create this controversy. I know it's a favorite of your profession, but no, Kevin Prince is the guy we chose, and we'll get Kevin Prince the chance to play this week. But I still want to keep Richard on the come."
I think it is clear what he is doing at this point. He is keeping the heat on both QBs so that they are competing hard at Spaulding Field. I think that is a healthy situation and given the comments we have seen from Prince this week it's clear that the players are getting it in terms of what they need to do to get on the field and hold to their starting assignments.
Going back to the point of consistency, it's an issue that our defense needs to address as well. While we have collectively directed lot of our frustration at our offense in last two weeks we can't forget about the breakdowns we had on defense in certain key moments hurting our chances to win the game:
"I thought defensively, we played terrifically probably 90 percent of the time," Neuheisel said. "Ten percent of the time ... Chuck Bullough said seven plays led to 170 yards of offense. Most of the times it's because we didn't tackle and wrap up. That's a huge lesson as we go into this game. If you don't get your arms around them, they'll make you pay, and pay dearly."
The Bruins have not made the opposition pay, both short and long, since defeating Kansas State 23-9 in Week 3. They've stalled when they need to surge, they've come up just short when they needed to get just a foot more, and they've looked every bit their age.
"Sometimes we move along scheme-wise and try to take what we see are opportunities, but are we ready to execute that stuff?" Neuheisel said.
"Sometimes when you've had more experience, you can point to a time earlier in a guy's career. Now, we don't have that luxury. But at the end of the day, it's always about execution."
Bruin defense gave up more than 150+ yards to LaMichael James this past weekend. While James has a great future ahead of him as a Pac-10 running back, at this stage of his career Best is way more dangerous. He is the kind of running back, who has the ability to single handedly dominate and embarrass the Bruin defense. So they will not have the luxury to take any plays off with sloppy and lazy tackling because just 3 to 5 plays here and there when Best rips of huge runs, will put the game out of our reach.
Honestly right now I have no idea what to expect from our football team this next weekend. One thing we can count on is that the Bears will come out with emotion and try to save their season. This is it for them. If the Bears some how lose this coming weekend, it will not only be a long season for them, it will intensify the discussions up North about Tedford's long term future in Strawberry Canyon (which is a little surreal given the job the guy has done putting together a good program and rebuiling it from sad Holmoe days). So they are going to come out with a desperate sense of urgency with the intetion of blasting the Bruins out of the gate and taking out their frustrations from last two weeks.
The question for us is whether not only the Bruins will be able to match that intensity but also play the smart and consistent football we saw in flashes during first three games of the season (or arguably for 50 mins this past weekend at the Rose Bowl). A positive answer this weekend at the Rose Bowl will do wonders for Neheisel's second year in Westwood.
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
21 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Coach's Remorse
Good for CRN saying the coaching also needs improvement. I hope all the coaches take it to heart and work just as hard as their players in getting ready for CAL. Both teams are desperate for a win so it should be a great game. The uncertainty of who is going to show up makes it exciting. GO BRUINS!!
by Keptycho on Oct 13, 2009 7:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Completely off topic, Nestor
But were you or Achilles able to find out who lead the team in tackles against Oregon? I think it was Kyle Bosworth.
by hicalliber on Oct 13, 2009 7:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I believe Kyle led the team with 9 tackles. Numbers from the official site.
by Nestor on Oct 13, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think James...
is the better back. Jahvid Best is an extremely talented back. He is, imo, a " hole"
runner. Give him a nice lane and boy watch out. He does not have the ability to create and make people miss a la L. James.
by Rico Bruin on Oct 13, 2009 7:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nestor, someone should address the weaknesses of our special team
Our special team did not do the job. If it weren’t for Locke’s superb puntings, the oponents would have gained huge yardage, if not touchdowns. They don’t tackle well and looked slow in covering any fast runners we faced. The turning point for the Oregon game was the 102 yards runback that killed us. From that point on, we not only lost momentum, but also our confidence, and eventually the game.
by NNL on Oct 13, 2009 8:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Here Here
This is a real issue as I have posted elsewhere.
Locke was great in punts. Kickoffs were great except one was 8 yards short (the 102 yard return). Field goal team is great.
But as someone said on the 102 yard return: “that was overdue given how bad we have been on kickoff coverage”. Locke made a series of tackles against Kansas State. When the kicker makes the tackles you know you are in trouble.
It appeared to me is that we did not have any depth in our coverage. Everyone was going down at the same speed essentially in a horizontal line. That means one missed tackle here or there and off the return goes….
But I would love to hear more analysis on this
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Oct 13, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Taking a look at the numbers
Not including the 106 yard return, out kickoff coverage has allowed 23.9 yards per return, which would place us at 98th in the country (including this return, we’re at an awful 28.7 ypr, which places us at 118 out of 120 teams).
Conversely, our punt coverage has been excellent so far, only allowing 4.1 ypr (good for 21st overall).
Not sure what to make of this, except that we are dealing with a small-sample-size.
by Sean P. on Oct 13, 2009 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The good news is the small sample size
Because of Locke’s great kickoffs.
But it isn’t only the yardage. Against K-State we were dependent on the kicker making the tackle. That is playing with fire.
Thanks for getting the data. Where did you get it?
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Oct 13, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"we didn't tackle and wrap up"
What is it about our tackling over this past half decade. I scan my faulty memory and what I come up with is the bruin defender bouncing off the hip area of the opponent, arms grasping at air. I’m guessing the center of gravity is the least place you want to confront the opponent. Our “tackling” coach, if there is such a position, should get pointers from his counterpart at Oregon. Now these dudes leveled some decisive open filed tackles. Anybody know the fundamentals of tacking? I want to know why is this such a persistent problem year in year out.
by brewnz on Oct 13, 2009 8:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Is it really a past half decade
Seems to me we have been quite strong in defense until the last couple of years. I am not sure if there is a publically available statistic on missed tackles to confirm one way ot the other.
I guess we should not be surprised that the personnel that missed tackles at times last year have the same trouble this year.
It is also worth pointing out that this is not a consistent problem. I think the focus is fair we do have games when we are consistently good tacklers.
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Oct 13, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No expert, but
I would think that their center of gravity is exactly where you want to hit ‘em. A tackler who comes in, more or less, horizontally and drives his shoulder through a runner’s hips can’t be stiff-armed, and he displaces said center of gravity. If the tackler wraps up, too, the runner has nowhere to go. Now, this assumes the tackler isn’t a little, weak guy who bounces off a horse of a runner, but I don’t think that’s our problem.
In contrast, a tackler who comes in vertically and tries to wrest the runner to the ground, grabbing his shoulder pads, jersey, or arms has no leverage. This technique can work with dogies at a rodeo, where there’s no facemask/head-twisting rule, but not so much with big, strong backs. Plus, the tackler is ripe for being stiff-armed, something that dogies rarely do.
This, from two years of “C” football, mind you.
by Bruinut on Oct 13, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"counterpart at Oregon"
was in charge of UCLA defense on December 5, 1998.
by Nestor on Oct 13, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
was about to say the same thing...
honestly i think our lack of tackling against James is being overblown a bit because for the most part, we have been wrapping up well. Everyone is going to miss tackles – the key with the Oregon game was that we didn’t swarm the ball carrier well enough, so on the plays that a tackle was missed, it always turned into a huge play. Hence the 170 yards on only 7 plays
Now, at Stanford, we just didn’t tackle well. But we didn’t do anything else well either.
Has there ever been a player better than Detlef Schrempf?
by bucknellbruin on Oct 13, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope Carter is fully healthy
Or at least as healthy as one can be with a knee sprain. We’re definitely going to need his presence this week.
by Tydides on Oct 13, 2009 9:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Tackling
I don’t know much about tackling physically, but I do know, from the science point of view, if the gravity line from the center of gravity is perpendicular to the base ( in this case the runner’s feet), then the runner will stay on the ground. So the idea is to move the runner’s center of gravity outside of the base of his feet, then he will fall. That is why the runner would fall with a small push or a little tap of the foot. Sometimes that is more effective than wrapping the runner up with brute strength because he can bounce off or drag the tackler for more yardage.
by NNL on Oct 13, 2009 11:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, returning a kick-off or a punt
for a TD is always partly a fluke, like many goals in soccer, where things just seem to suddenly coalesce into an opportunity to score. In football, the runner makes a move that turns out to be the one thing that frees him for the instant he needs, or the pursuit loses its angles, or a defender doesn’t get by or get free from the blocker, or the tackle isn’t executed, etc., etc. Not that special teams can’t practice and improve, of course they can. But nothing beats putting the kickoff deep in the end zone, or punting deep out of bounds, because those solve all problems. So let me recommend the obvious: take the safest approach. Of course, you give up the chance of pinning a runner deep or getting a turnover that gives you great field position, but you take away the opponent’s chance for a big play. It seems to me that we have to limit the opponent’s scoring, just because we probably aren’t going to put a lot of points on the board ourselves. (Please let me be dead wrong in this!) I agree that Cal is gearing up for an all-out effort. They would have to be. But I also expect us to play a much better game than last time, inconsistency being the hallmark of young teams. I’ve given up convincing myself that we have a great chance to win, and will just await the game with hope and interest.
by ReineSeite on Oct 13, 2009 12:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Oregon return wasn't a fluke
The 2 gunners took the wrong angle an missed, then everyone else was being blocked.
by SuperBruinMan on Oct 13, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big Plays
Bullough must have been referring to the 5 plays that went for 175 yards. Oregon’s three longest plays were rushes of 49, 48, and 34 yards. On the 49 yard rush, Siewerski missed him in the backfield for a safety due to a great spin move by James. He broek through the line and 3 Bruins had a chance to tackle him just past the line of scrimmage at the 3, but all three players seemed to let up, thinking that the other two had him dead to rights. You can never do that. Another spin, and it took a great play b4y Verner just to keep him from taking it to the house. I don’t specifically recall the other two long runs, but I imagine that missed tackles played a role, as they did on the kick return for TD.
In one sense, Bullogh is right: take away those 5 plays, and Oregon ran 62 plays for a measly 150 yards, a measly 2.4 yards per play. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to view the big plays as the disease. The mistakes that led to big plays were happening on other plays, too, so you could say that the big plays are a symptom of poor tackling and poor positioning. We need to get back to defensive basics.
Offensively, you could say the converse is true. We are a decent offense but for the lack of big plays. We had just 4 plays that went for more than 9 yards on Saturday. And those only went for 12, 11, 26 and 16. Take away our only play over 20 yards, and we averaged nearly 2.5 yards per play (just like Oregon when you take away its big plays). You can’t dink and dunk at 2.5 yards per play. We have to find a way to make a handful of big plays each week. If we don’t, we’ll continue to get bogged down in the redzone, if we get there in the first place, and will continue to fail to score enough points to beat average to good teams.
by BruinsRule on Oct 13, 2009 1:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The 34 yarder
was where James bounced it outside to the far side of the field relative to the TV angle and Sheldon Price got sucked in too deep and lost contain. The play should have gone for 2 yards if any at all.
The 48 yarder was Kenjon Barner’s run where he used a stiff arm/facemask? on Price down the sideline. I forget how we got through to the second level, but it led to a field goal that put us down two touchdowns.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 13, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Final Tally
UCLA Offense: 3 pts
UCLA Defense: 7 pts
UCLA Special Teams: 0 pts
Oregon Offense: 10 pts
Oregon Defense: 7 pts
Oregon Special Teams: 7 pts
I would say that our defense played very well on Saturday. No need to rehash, but if you can hold Oregon to 10 pts., 7 of which were off a UCLA turnover at midfield, you have done quite well.
We are now in the 11th season since Cade McNown’s senior year, in 1998.
Since then, here have been the UCLA football highlights:
…
OK, so I am being a bit harsh…we did have 13-9, and some pretty amazing games in 2005 (though it was a hollow 10-win season). The Tennessee wins were great, but not exactly over a top notch Vols team. Our best WR since then was Drew Bennett, our best RB was MJD. A few great players, but the drought is really noticeable. I’m just tired, we are really due for some good teams…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Oct 13, 2009 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good analysis
This is a solid breakdown. I agree that our defense played very well. As best as I can recall, we did not have many penalties, either. I think we were hurt by one special teams breakdown, a horrible pass, and a rusty QB. But no excuses for not punching it in near the goal-line. That was horrible.
I think we are on the upswing. It is a young team that is still developing and there is some more great talent on the way. I think we are getting very close. It is just tough being patient.
by Barnes2JJ on Oct 13, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up 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.
