Dear Coach Neuheisel: Go For The Win Or Die Trying
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 12:05 PM PDT
in Football
49 comments
Let me make it clear at the outset. I am not even close to giving up on Rick Neuheisel and his chance of success as the head coach of UCLA football program. I finally gave up on Dorrell pretty much during his first year in Westwood right after his team choked in a typical Dorrellian sloppy loss against Arizona State in October of 2004. By that time it was pretty obvious based on his in game management skills, lackadaisical recruiting, and just complete cluelessness in terms of how to communicate with the greater Bruin Nation, that Karl Dorrell was not qualified to be the head coach at UCLA.
Now with Rick Neuheisel it is pretty clear that he is as dynamic and intensely competitive recruited as anyone in college football. He clearly "gets it" as in knowing how to communicate with alums, students and the hardest of hardcore UCLA football fan. I also think given his background here in Westwood and the lessons he has learned from his previous mistakes, he is as good as fit as anyone in terms of having the best chance of success as the head coach of our snake bitten football program. That doesn’t mean, I can’t think out loud about the doubts I have about him on his ability to be the kind of in game coach and program administrator, who will finally be able to break the Donahue curse that has ravaged the UCLA program for years in Westwood.
Actually one of the reasons, I wanted Rick Neuheisel to be the head coach at UCLA was because I thought he would be the ultimate Anti-Donahue (forget about being Anti-Dorrell). I thought that finally we were going to get a coach who will have his team come out and play with the same underdog, nothing to lose mindset that made him a legend as a player at UCLA. I thought he was going to provide the kind of leadership, who through his clear actions of always going for the win, would not just light up his players, his future recruits, and the entire Bruin Nation around him.
We have seen some signs of that here and there since his arrival in Westwood. But from what I saw yesterday and during other occasions this year, right now I am seeing a coach who is too concerned and consumed with barely eeking out 6-7 wins so that he can build his program for the future by loading up on elite recruits. I can respect that mindset and I can respect the need to operate in a way so that we are thinking long term. However, at the same time I think Neuheisel needs to send signals to his team that would clearly demonstrate the urgency of how much and how badly he wants to win at UCLA.
Run the ball or die trying.
But to me the more I think of it the better mantra should have been:
Go for the win or die trying
I already rebumped BruinBlue’s epic post from two years ago articulating the curse of Terry Donahue over UCLA football.
That post saved me the set up for three decisions from yesterday’s ball game:
- First, already talked about going for the FG with a 4th and 2 at Cal’s 6 yard line. When it was pretty clear that Bruins needed TDs instead of FGs, CRN decided to play it safe.
- Second, we saw the same situation play out again later in the third quarter when with a 4th and 3 on Cal’s 28, Neuheisel again went with the Donahue mindset of playing it safe and going for three.
- Third, this is where probably many will not agree with me but I will share it anyway. Jahvid Best’s 93 yard run I thought was the game changing moment that pretty much decided the outcome of the game. However, the pivotal decision in my mind came right before UCLA punted in that second quarter. Bruins had 4th and less than a yard to go on their own 46 yard line. Up until that time Bruins were doing all right on offense (actually we had a decent day on offense against a slightly better than average defense yesterday). Anyway with a less than a yard to go and down by only 7 (14-21), Neuheisel took the safe route (the Donahue one) and decided to play for field position by depending on Locke’s leg. Well Locke did boom one (for 46 yards) but it didn’t do much good as the D got obliterated by Best in the subsequent big play. What I am saying here that’s the kind of moment when Neuheisel instead of playing by the conventional Donahue rules, could send his signal to rest of his team that he had enough trust in his young talent and offense to go for less than a yard.
I know what the retort is going to be to that third point. People are going to say that well we tried that last weekend against Oregon and came up short at the goal line. I don’t buy that argument because I don’t think it is not just about "going for it." It’s going for it in a smart and aggressive way with swagger and attitude that puts other team on the heels. If we are going to try to ram it in at the goal line than we should be coaching up our fullbacks or big backs to blast through the hole and fall forward (something DC, Ramirez, Moline or any of our "power" backs seem unable of doing).
On the same point I think Bruin4ever is on point in admiring the mindset Pete Carroll shows when going for it on 4th down. Of course Carroll takes gambles are calculated. I don't believe they are reckless decisions as many UCLA fans would like to think they are. I think when Carroll goes for it he is doing to grab a choke hold of the momentum and optimize it for his team. He also does it from POV to send a clear message to his team about how much he trusts them. And note he is doing it this year as a true freshman at QB.
We need to not only go for it when chances present themselves, we should go for it with play calls that are not necessarily predictable. For this reason, after my initial reservations about it, in hindsight I liked the roll out call Neuheisel made from the goal line with Kevin Prince against Tennessee. That was different. It was aggressive and it played up the idea of going for the kill.
Speaking of the Tennessee game, I think the victory in that game might have undermined us not for the reasons some are thinking. I don’t think the victory against Tennessee undermined us in the sense that players got too cocky reading the "press clips" (even though it certainly feels that way given how we have seen the defense play since the). I think what might have happened is that the Tennessee outcome might have given Neuheisel and his coaches a fall sense of comfort with their scheming. We did get out of that game with victory by settling for FGs and playing base defense most of the game. Unfortunately the strategy that might have worked against one of the worst quarterbacks in the history of Volunteer football, was just not going to cut it with more potent Pac-10 programs such as Stanford, Oregon, and Cal with lot more explosive talents and better QBs leading the teams.
Staying with the topic of coaches and their schemes, as mentioned up top I still have confidence in Rick Neuheisel. However, what I want to see from him is that he needs to be communicating and functioning in a way that makes it clear that he is going to impose a culture of accountability not just from his players, but also from his staff. While I have confidence in the job Norm Chow and Bob Palcic have done with our offense, right now I am unsure about rest of the staff.
Our WRs have been a disaster. I feel comfortable staying not only are they doing a poor job with running routes, they are also not playing hard and at times with lack of heart. From what I have seen this year, I see a team in which the receivers are not getting separation and fighting to make plays. Sure there are those flashes of brilliance that gets us excited about the future. However, there is no consistence and I am not seeing any signs of this unit getting better game by game. I am also not sure whether the coach in charge of this unit – Reggie Moore – is doing his job in terms of ensuring we are playing the best talent and getting the most out of them.
Same goes with our defense. At the half way point of this season, color me extremely unimpressed with the job Chuck Bulllough has done. I don’t really care much about the argument that we need to give him a chance because he is a "DC in training." If that is the argument, then the responsibility falls on Rick Neuheisel for failing to hire a DC who would get most out of our talent. If Rick Neuheisel can voluntarily take a substantial paycut as UC employee, he might just want to consider taking another one and help investing on quality defensive (and other assistant coaches) at UCLA. Because from what we have seen from Bullough is not good enough. Looking back at yesterday’s game, I am even more unimpressed the day after with our defense. Sure they did a better job of "containing" Cal’s explosiveness in the second half, however looking back at it, it looks like lot of it had to do with Cal pulling back their offense and going with the strategy of eating up the clock.
I never cared much for Dewayne Walker’s defense. He had some great moments and did a good job of bringing back credibility into a joke of a UCLA defense. However, Walker always ran a fairly conventional pro-set defense which time and time was outshined and outscored by spread type college offenses featuring explosive skill players. Looking at Bullough’s defense after 6 games, it looks like we now have a defense that is even more conventional, and frankly reverting to the vanilla bend-don’t-break Bob Field defenses from the Donahue eras. Again, that’s not the kind of football I was expecting from this program when Rick Neuheisel took over in Westwood. If we continue to see the same pattern of predictable, vanilla schemes in defense in the coming weeks and see them getting shredded and toyed with by athletes such as Foles, Grigsby, Rogers, Locker and by you know who, I sure hope there will be changes at the of this season, which will clearly establish a sense of accountability in this program.
Where do we go from here? Well, FWIW I did some "signs" of life yesterday in offense. While I am not sold on Kevin Prince, I thought he improved from his rusty performance against Oregon. I think our OL is coming into its own, and looks like the unit that is showing tangible signs of progress game after game. We have some decent sets of young backs and collectively I think our offense is potentially on the right track. That said we need our coaches and players to play with that proverbial sense of urgency. I get that we have a very young team and have years of mediocrity to shed. What I am really looking for rest of the season from here on out is for Rick Neuheisel and his coaches to show they are going to go all out for Ws in every play for rest of the season. Of course I want them to play smart and disciplined football. Most importantly, though I want them to show boldness and courage on the field.
Just running the ball or die trying is not good enough. We need our head coach to send a more inspiring message through his game management decisions rest of the year:
Go for the win or die trying.
We are rooting for your coach.
As you well know ... we are dying for it.
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
49 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I agree with you general concept
of playing for TDs and not field goals, especially in four down territory, generally, to me, any time you’re past the other team’s 40. Especially when we’re playing teams with great offenses. We need TDs not FGs.
But I disagree on the your side of the field 4th and goal. As Lou Holtz pointed out yesterday in another game, when you do that you’re telling your team they can’t win on both sides of the ball. Yes, they got a 95 yard TD, but that’s the exception, not the rule, even with us.
I have been surprised by how conservative CRN has been, but actually, I think if we ran the ball more in four down territory we would get more first downs and TDs and kick much fewer field goals. And I don’t meant three times up the middle by any means. I just think any time you have less than third and three in four down territory you should generally run it twice if necessary to get the first down, go for the TD, and not kick the field goal
I don’t think our wideouts are terrible, not at all. Every team has its receivers covered on some plays. We need to learn to make adjustments IMO when that happens.
by uclahy on Oct 18, 2009 12:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Our wideouts might not be terrible
However, some of them are not getting it done and some of them are not playing up to their abilities. They also look to be poorly coached.
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think our receivers lack talent...
but they most definitely have room for improvement. Ever since Stanford, I can’t help but notice how ineffective our receivers are in blocking for their fellow Bruins.
by Scotucla03 on Oct 18, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Thoughts on the D
(Repackaging some thoughts posted a moment ago in another thread).
Nestor, I am glad you are pointing at the need for improvement on the D. For the past few years, you, Fox and I have been voices in the distance, challenging the notion that we had a “top 10” D and that all of our problems were elsewhere.
For the past few years, some of us have been concerned about our D. Those concerns continue.
Although I agree with Fox that Rocky Long would have been the best choice for DC, I am hesitant to be too critical of Bullough because I’m not sure whether he’s playing the D he wants to play or the D that was semi-imposed upon him when he took over.
IIRC — Bullough was brought in to run the same DW D we had been running for the past few years. The idea was that we needed continuity on at least one side of the ball, that we had players experienced in DW’s D, and that now was not the time to make major changes. I think Bullough was quoted as saying that we would continue to do what had been done by DW with some minor adjustments.
And, that’s where I have a problem. I was never a big fan of DW’s D’s. And, we see the same remnants of DW’s weaknesses, today. Slow starts, sloppy tackling, a weak pass rush, giving up big plays (and none are more frustrating than 3rd and long), and stupid penalties (although for all of us who watched the game on TV — the face mask penalty that gave Cal a first down when they would have had to punt was a SPTR call — totally blown).
There have been some excellent analytic posts on BN pointing out the deficiencies in our D schemes. And, we are not executing well.
All that said, Bullough (and this entire coaching staff) are a major improvement over the past regime. I’ve not heard one “throw the players under the bus” “We had the right plays they just didn’t play them right” excuse from a coach.
Still, I am not discouraged — I actually think we show improvement as a team, and that we have not lost a game we should have won. That we have lost games we could have won is encouraging in the sense that we are more competitive against good teams than was predicted. We knew this would be a tough season and it has been. But, when our young kids grow, get strong, and learn the college game, we will be where we want to be.
I don’t think CRN is Donahueesque at all. I don’t think he’s playing not to lose. I think he keenly understands our weaknesses and is trying to protect the team from them. Yes, Pete Carroll runs head first into the wall; but he has a lot of very strong players to lead the charge. I rarely doubt that they will miss on those plays — he just has so much talent. He is playing strong hands and he knows it. We don’t hold those same cards. For us to do the same thing, with the cards we hold would, more often than not, be bluffing. And, I think the football world knows enough to call our bluffs.
When CRN made those “conservative” calls, we were still in the game and he was trying to keep us in it until the 4th quarter. A great punt pinning Cal back. Who would think of a 93 yard run?
Um, maybe I would because I see that our King D has no clothes, but not too many others would.
Nestor — solid post raising important issues. I disagree a bit — but think it is on point.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 18, 2009 12:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks 66
I think it’s important that you should package your thoughts disagreeing with me in a fanpost. It’s important to have that featured on our homepage as well.
I am going to wait till the end of next season to form a definitive opinion on CRN although I will have markers for this year (6 wins – and/or bowl game appearance). Until the data points are all in, I think there will be varying takes among the long term/regular BNers. So it’s good to get the diversity of opinion reflected on the home page. We agree on the big picture however in the meantime … healthy to think out and discuss the disagreements we have on the team.
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yesterday's performance
was not the usual for this defense. We held probably the pac-10’s best offense to 10 points the week before this and zero points in the first half while Oregon was trailing. We have three mid season all Americans. This defense is good. Until yesterday, no one scored more than 24 points against us the entire season. Yes, we have been allowing some big plays, but when it matters, our defense has the tendency to stand up and make big plays.
Yesterday’s failure excluded, we might have one of the best defenses in the country. Remember, your defense tends to look worse when your offense is going three and out regularly, and despite that our defense is putting up top 25 numbers. Yes, they need to get back on track after last week and most importantly, finish tackles, but the defense has not at all been an ongoing concern for me.
by captainqtp on Oct 18, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"We held probably the pac-10’s best offense to 10 points the week before"
That’s not true. That offense was playing without it’s starting QB, a key OL, and it’s starting RB. I am not going to give this defense kudos for containing a Masoli-less Oregon offense.
Also, Stanford offense DOMINATED our defense for pretty much the first three quarters in Palo Alto. They manhandled us and Bullough didn’t make any sort of adustments until it was way too late.
Sorry don’t buy the argument that yesterday’s performance was “not the usual.”
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
24 points doesn’t seem like domination to me. Look, we tend to give up yards, but typically, we don’t allow our opponents to score. Every time our opponents get close it seems like our defense grows a spine and makes a big play to knock them out of field range.
by captainqtp on Oct 18, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry Captain -- But Blaming the O for the D's Failures Is BS
For three years, the defense apologists have made the same argument you’re making here: “Your defense tends to look worse when your offense is going three and out regularly…”.
That argument cannot be supported empirically and has absolutely no place in the analysis of this year or in yesterday’s game.
I have written this up so many times I’m sick of it. Take a look at the drive charts.
Our D comes out and gives up ground and scores from the first series it’s on the field. Surely, you can’t blame the O for that.
All a D has to do is force the other team to a 3 and out and it is off the field, resting on the bench. Over the past three years, this one included, our D has not done that. It has a responsibility to get itself off the field. Our D doesn’t. We’ve given first downs on stupid penalties. And, third and long conversions are not rare against this D. A D that can’t get itself off the field has no right to blame the O.
Look at this year’s drive charts. Our O has stayed on the field. In some games, we dominated TOP (a meaningless stat, particularly when the D gives up a 1 play, 93 yard drive for a touchdown).
In the past, there was a potential argument that the D was put in bad field position and, therefore, failed. But, I’m not sure one follows the other AND this year Locke has let them take the field in a good position — and they’ve still not been able to get a 3 and out. Finally, what better field position can you start with than with your opponent inside its own 10. A one play touchdown drive. You can’t blame the O for that.
Bottom line: Search my posts and a couple by Fox. There is no factual support for the whining coming from the D apologists — blaming the O for what is, really, very poor D.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 18, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
66
I don’t know if there is a motivation problem at the start of games or lack of preparation, but if you look at the complete picture our defense is doing a good job. I didn’t think I needed to back up the fact that when your defense is on the field more often the other team has opportunities to gain yards? After all, let’s say the defense gives the opponents a 30% chance to score on any given drive, then naturally if there more is more drives there is a higher likelihood of scoring and of giving up yards. I was operating under the assumption that was a given.
Since I think everyone will acknowledge that our offense has been poor for several years, we are therefore giving our opponents lots of chances. When our defense is highly ranked despite that, I think it’s safe to say it’s a very solid squad.
by captainqtp on Oct 18, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you Nestor for printing my thoughts.
It’s like you read my mind.
After yesterday’s game I walked away thinking “We’re playing not to lose, when we should be playing to win.” And it all boils down to conservative play calls on 4th and 1 or 4th and inches. I was one of those booing in the stands when CRN chose to go for the field goal. I’ve never understood the hesitancy to kick a field goal when a 1st down is so incredibly close. For those that will argue we couldn’t punch it in the end zone after going for it twice, I will counter that I’ve never understood the notion that by “going for it” necessarily means you have to run it up the middle!
I’m behind CRN all the way, but the more we play like this, and with the continued success of Paul Johnson at Georgia Tech, the more I wonder . . . What if?
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 18, 2009 12:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have a coworker that went to GTech and we sometimes talk football
My sense of the situation from talking to him is that GT had established talent and decent depth and Johnson is now making the most of it. Not to say that we don’t have talent, but they didn’t have the glaring holes to fill that we do.
by Tydides on Oct 18, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Paul Johnson is one of the greatest coaches in America…what he has done in a short time in Atlanta has been very impressive. You don’t hear about it much around here but I try to watch GaTech whenever I can, they are fun to watch. No excuses about him not having his players (as Rich Rod used up at Michigan), he went out and got it done in his first year, installed a practice-intensive system that is more rare in D-I football than probably any other scheme within one year and had it humming at times. His job coaching up the jackets against Georgia last season, beating them in Athens, a team with plenty of talent that had a fairly good season as well, was excellent – one of the best coaching jobs i’ve seen.
by jtthirtyfour on Oct 18, 2009 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure
Why you chose to reference Rodriguez regarding him giving excuses about “not having his players.” Is it an excuse or a fact that Michigan was playing a walk-on and RS freshman quarterback?
It’s ok for you to hold Johnson in higher regards, but if your reason for doing so is based on the idea that Johnson didn’t make excuses and Rodriguez did, it’s not a very good one.
The logic behind Johnson claiming his team under performed (if they actually did) because of not having “his” players isn’t valid. Georgia Tech had a team full of players that were significantly better than “his” players had ever been at his past jobs. The reason Rich Rod couldn’t get results wasn’t primarily because the team had trouble with the system; the players just weren’t good enough to win very many games. That team would have failed in any offense. Paul Johnson had guys that could play, and with the offensive complexity of the respective systems being equal, his team had for more potential to perform well than Michigan’s ever did last season.
So making the “excuse” that he didn’t have his players is pretty obvious and understandable. And now that he has Tate at quarterback the team seems to be doing quite well, essentially validating his past “excuses.”
But I do like Johnson a lot too for many of the same reasons you articulated. Just not the Michigan comparison.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 18, 2009 8:18 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
To be clear
Georgia Tech’s success against Georgia last year was largely the result of Georgia completely forgetting how to tackle, and/or believing the second half of that game was going to be played solely by utilizing two-hand touch.
In related news, I hate Willie Martinez.
Paul Johnson is also a damn good coach – my sarcasm excluding, of course – but Tech had a lot more established talent to work with than Neuheisel did when he got to UCLA.
by CAJason80 on Oct 18, 2009 10:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You forgot to mention special teams
Since his arrival Gansz has been the biggest disappointment of them all, although at the rate he is going Bullough is certainly giving him a run for his money.
by Sideout11 on Oct 18, 2009 12:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I have mentioned Ganz before
I have been disappointed with him. But I think few have made good points on his behalf that our special teams have been decent in certain areas. Our kicking team has been solid. We have had I think 3 blocked kicks (FG and punts). On the other side our kick coverage has been bad on kickoffs and have no idea why TA is still returning kicks/punts.
I think Moore and Bullough’s performance have been lot worse compared to Gansz. We will know more by the end of the season but the returns from the first half of this season are not encouraging.
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
perfectly said...amen!
but that being said, why is it always ‘wait till next year’ for us die-hard BRUIN FANS?
by bruincheerleader on Oct 18, 2009 1:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Because the year is so damn long...
& the Football season is so damn short!
BTW: UCLA = HEART. You can hear from far and near the Mighty Bruin roar!
by Bruin4ver on Oct 18, 2009 1:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Offensive philosophy
I went through the offensive statistics from the last six games and this is what I’ve concluded:
We have had 189 pass attempts and 193 carries. Let’s consider the QB runs as passing plays, because some were sacks and others were scrambles; in other words, they were almost all originally called as passing plays (I know, this is imperfect, but the statistics don’t show which ones are QB runs). This leaves UCLA’s offense having called 181 “passing” plays and 133 running plays. Our offense has generated 4.67 yards of offense per pass attempt and 4.27 yards per run. We have passed 57.6% of the time.
Given our efficiency per pass attempt and per run, we should actually run more than we are currently doing – 52.2% of the time is ideal at this time. This is likely a tribute to Palcic’s offensive line coaching as it relates to blocking for backs, as well as our improving set of backs. The low number of yards per pass attempt is generally worrying, as the average team should have a significant yard or so per pass attempt than per run. I think this will come down to who we play at QB (Craft has actually statistically been more effective than Prince, but Prince has played against more difficult competition; Brehaut has too small of a sample size to really judge). Our WR’s need to run better routes, as well.
"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
by Yoyo on Oct 18, 2009 1:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Concerning 4th down conversions
Statistically, it has been proven that a team will convert a 4th and 1 on 73.8% of all runs and 4th and 2 on 68.3% of all runs. The cost-benefit analysis indicates that running on 4th and short is more beneficial than punting or kicking a field goal.
"I never watched baseball on TV. It's slow and boring. I'm not a fan. Never was." - Jeff Kent
by Yoyo on Oct 18, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CRN's Lavinesque quote
Great points N, I couldn’t agree with you more. The one thing that has been eating at me all day today was this quote from CRN in the LA Times:
“It’s too long and too hard a story to give all the details, and frankly I don’t think they’d understand all the details. We have to keep working at it, no excuses.”
While I like the last sentence, the first one pisses me off to no end. Really CRN? I understand that we aren’t genius coaches like you and Chow, but please try and explain why your team is essentially the same today as it was in week 1. To me, the only conclusion from a statement like this is that 1) maybe the details are too difficult for CRN’s assistants (D and ST) or players since; and 2) CRN doesn’t know the reason why his team is stuck where it is. Since I am too dumb to understand, I sure hope CRN can come up with some answers in the next few weeks.
Just like you N, I fully support CRN and think that he can turn it around. But the reason I think a lot of us liked him was because he was so affable and you couldn’t get him to stop talking. If he is going to go down a path of “the fans are too dumb to understand what I’m doing,” he will lose my support very quickly. I hope this is just an aberration said after a frustrating day.
Go Bruins.
by bruinponcho on Oct 18, 2009 1:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This should be a stand alone fanpost poncho
I had been looking for that quote in the traditional media outlet today. Thanks for pointing out. Apparently he made that in context of explaining why Viney hasn’t been playing. It is really befuddling and doesn’t make any sense to me.
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A loose supporter
You take a well-deserved swipe at CRN and Chow in one sentence and say you support them the next. You were right the first time. These two haven’t showed much genius the entire season. I think CRN made the comment because he doesn’t have any answers to the many problems. I am no longer a supporter of CRN. Right now I think he is a poor head coach unless he shows me otherwise.
by Keptycho on Oct 18, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you're a troll until you show me otherwise
Go hop on someone else’s bandwagon and spare the rest of us.
by Tydides on Oct 19, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I loved BruinBlue's essays on BN
You should talk him into writing more!
On the present situation I think we’re very lost and confused as a fanbase. I don’t know what to make of it myself. CRN has said all the right things, but we haven’t seen it on the field. We are playing a pro-style system both ways that does nothing to minimize our limitations, but that people believe in because of its potential to attract big-time recruits and make us like SC. I’ve been skeptical about that from day one. The more you look around at rising, smart coaches, the more examples you see of successful unorthodox systems (Brian Kelly, Petersen, Paul Johnson…not to mention the already established Leaches and Meyers).
Meanwhile, the mantras of “punting = winning” and “game management” — while understandable given our weaknesses — are probably affecting the mentality of the offense. Touchdown-scoring is a state of mind. You have to feel like it’s absolutely mandatory to make it into the endzone to complete those drives. I remember reading that Mike Leach went so far as going for it on 4th and 11 from his own 26 in the first quarter, just as part of the message that scoring touchdowns is the purpose of every drive — the one and only purpose.
I won’t dwell on any particular “conservative” play-calls. With this system, conservatism will only come into play when we have good talent and are still playing it safe. I don’t think that will happen. Both CRN and Chow have never been conservative when confident in their players. The question is how we can get there without infecting the minds of our current players who give up on routes and get lackadaisical in the red zone.
By the way, as long as we play a pro-system on offense it will be imperative to keep Chow around, and makes the possible disharmony between him and CRN more worrisome. I have a gutteral fear of retreads like Steve Axman (whom Chris Foster recently tweeted as a possible replacement “if Chow ever decides to leave”) coming in, and if that happens, we’ll never go anywhere great under CRN.
Time will tell, but it won’t be pleasant waiting to find out.
by bluebland on Oct 18, 2009 2:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Steve Axman
If that assclown comes back to UCLA … I will move from “approval” to either “unsure” or “disapprove” category with RN.
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No kidding
Let’s not forget that CRN’s record of assistants was pretty horrible before coming here. Steve Axman. Karl Effin Dorrell!
Really, the most promising concrete thing he has done so far was hiring a guy like Chow, at a cost to his ego and authority. That doesn’t seem like a big deal with our offense sucking so far, but we all know how huge it was to hire our first big-time coordinator maybe ever (unless you count Homer Smith). It will be absolutely huge, in my mind, if he isn’t able to keep Chow around because they don’t get along — unless we go with a markedly different offensive system.
The list of backups to Chow wasn’t thrilling either. It included mostly retreads. (And sorry, but Al Borges hasn’t done anything without Cade McNown. He went up to Cal for Holmoe’s final year and spent some awful offensive seasons at Auburn, which couldn’t have been for lack of talent.)
So…I’m not giving up soon, but I’m no longer very confident.
by bluebland on Oct 18, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My two cents
Nestor, like several others, you are such a powerful poster, but I want to make sure you put in enough postiveness into the minds of our coaches, players, and fans. As 66 pointed out, we are right on track, we didn’t win the games that we were predicted not to win. I am still confident we will win 6 games because the games we are supposed to win are coming up. Yes, I was a little disappointed when we kicked the FG instead of going for the first down. If we are a perfect team, then we would shut out every team we had faced. But, we are not, far from it. All the players as well as the coaches have to learn from their mistakes and improve on it. One thing I don’t want to blame the coaches too much is that they cannot play for the players. We have to be patient on whatever we have. Hopefully we’ll have a good season. Go Bruins!
by NNL on Oct 18, 2009 2:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
6 games will not be enough
For a bowl. We have to finish top-6 in conference, and 3-6 won’t do it.
To make a bowl will have to win at least 4 of our last 6 games. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
by bluebland on Oct 18, 2009 2:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even then
I will at least take 6 wins. How about that? Let me be even more reasonable. Let’s get 6 wins out of this regular season.
A 5 win regular season would be hugely disappointing. No other way around it. 6 wins will allow us to have some modicum of momentum heading into next season.
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
3-6 in Pac-10 play may do it
the top six in the Pac-10 are guaranteed bowl bids, but it’s very possible that other conferences cannot fulfill their bowl obligations and the bowls are free to choose the team of their choice. The Mountain West may have an opening, as could the WAC.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 18, 2009 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't mean bowl games either
I just meant to win 6 games to salvage a satisfactory season for me.
by NNL on Oct 18, 2009 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a bowl appearance and win
was my standard for this season. The win being necessary because in a crappy bowl we might very well be playing one of those mid-conference teams that you really need to beat to have recruiting momentum going into February. Either way, the opponent will not be very good, and winning a bowl is huge for recruiting.
Another reason why a bowl is necessary: the extra 15 days of practice.
by bluebland on Oct 18, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This quote in the LA Times bothered me a lot:
As the fans turn
The third consecutive loss left Coach Rick Neuheisel feeling the pain of Bruins fans.
“I understand their dissatisfaction, especially given the 3-0 start and that things were turning [around], and so on and so forth,” Neuheisel said. "All I can tell them is that we’re going to keep working at it.
“It’s too long and too hard a story to give all the details, and frankly I don’t think they’d understand all the details. We have to keep working at it, no excuses.”
That reads like the most passive aggressive excuse making of all time. Basically he’s saying there are excuses, but we aren’t smart enough to understand them, so he might as well just say "no excuses.’
by Achilles on Oct 18, 2009 2:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
There is a fanpost on this now
Check it out.
by Nestor on Oct 18, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Some Reading
My personal opinion is that I would have gone for the 4th downs on all three calls – if you’re a talent underdog, which I still think we are, even by a little, then you have to be the aggressor – all things being equal, the probability that you are going to win the game head to head is probably not in your favor, so you need to roll the dice a bit – you might boom, or you might bust – greater chance of a blowout, if you go for 4th downs and the other team has a short field, but if you don’t take those chances then you are probably not going to win anyway unless the other, more talented team screws up.
Now, in real life you have to consider a whole bunch of other factors….I know no one wants to hear it but there is a place for “keeping it respectable” in big-time college football, where a 40 point blowout looks really bad when there are recruits at the game. Didn’t really end up as a close game but it was respectable up until that final interception. Coaching is the one job that everyone else thinks that they can do better than the people who actually do it, as someone who’s never been in the meetings, locker room, practices, and sideline on gameday I don’t think that I can really criticize the decision without knowing the full story, but I would have liked to see Coach go for those 4th downs….maybe not so against Oregon where we were averaging only a few yards a play, but against Cal (was at the game but didn’t watch the TV broadcast tape yet) I believe we were moving fairly well at those times.
If you have the time and are really interested in how football works there is some great reading at this site:
http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/09/4th-down-study-part-4.html
The short of it, is that they ran a study that figured a range of variables, calculating the expected points vs field position, and came up with this chart
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2618/3688516023_07450826e5_o.png
which basically says, most of the time, you’d be good going for about a 4th and 2 almost anywhere on the field, even backed up, but definitely near midfield.
by jtthirtyfour on Oct 18, 2009 5:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think if we went for it on fourth down...
We would’ve been stopped every time. This team isn’t quite ready to dominate on the big plays. We’re just not there yet. Obviously, just my opinion, but I think CRN made the right calls. What’s disappointing to me is that we didn’t get the necessary yardage on the third downs.
by waters96 on Oct 19, 2009 3:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, we're 3 - 3, but the glass
is definitely half empty. I doubt if any of us are looking ahead to the remaining six games with much confidence. I will not repeat what others have said in terms of what is wrong and what is right, except to say that I am very uneasy at the season midpoint. I commented to my son on two main points; 1. Our defense seems to have been thoroughly scouted. More than that, every tendency seems to have been understood, every weakness exploited. Slight delays while the blocking forms, the assumption that our read and react will be passive, defenders waiting to fend off the blocking rather than attempting to break it up, the vulnerability to cutback running, the weakness on the corners (at least on one corner), the fatal delays that ruin tacking angles, in short, all the signs of uncertainty, of not playing at full game speed that we display too often, were things that Cal seemed to know about. Or maybe they were just lucky. 2. The spirit of Donahue did seem to be present. My son, who hated Donahue even when he won by stalling, picked it up first. But maybe we are misinterpreting and overgeneralizing from a call or two that we really don’t understand. Could be. Anyway, it is what it is, as people seem fond of saying nowadays. We liked our kicking game, though, and wondered why it didn’t serve us better. Prince was certainly better, and would have been great if our receivers hadn’t underestimated how far he was going to throw it on a couple of occasions. I can’t predict how we will do at Arizona, etc., but the D has to come back. We have a few alpha dogs on the D, the others have to absorb their spirit and play like they know what they are doing and aren’t just trying to figure out what to do. Attack, dammit! Sometimes you just have to play stupid. I am wondering what we have to lose by taking a few more chances. Something has to change, doesn’t it? But before I stop these somewhat unfocused remarks, let me say that I never boo the Bruins, though I understand the impulse. But that’s just me.
by ReineSeite on Oct 18, 2009 6:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Scouted
Excellent point about our defense being scouted. They methodically picked us apart.
by Bruin'96 on Oct 18, 2009 8:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Defense was Horrendouse
I was at the Stanford and at the Cal game.
The Offense was O.K.
But the Defense was horrendous. It has been missing for the past 3 games.
If the defense played like it did 2 years ago, we would have beaten Cal and Stanford.
But currently, the UCLA defense doesn’t have the talent, bodies, or perhaps the heart.
They have to drink some coffee before the game to wake up.
by James Katt on Oct 18, 2009 10:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We're close but not quite there...
In order to win, you need talent, coaching, and chemistry. It took Howland a few years to recruit, then teach his system, have the players become familiar and comfortable with it, and then execute. And of course, some luck.
When I look at the football team, I see some talented individual players. However, I see holes, I see inexperience, I see not knowing the system, and I see a learning process, players and coaches. With Howland, we got there a year early. With CRN, who knows. I feel that he’s got the right attitude, he’s getting the right players, and the winning will not be far behind. Finally, I think the injury to our new QB really set us back. Anyway, I’m sorry we’re not going to be better this year, but we can still win a few more games and go to a crappy bowl game. That was and is a reasonable expectation, despite the fast start this year.
by waters96 on Oct 19, 2009 3:13 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That 4th and inches at midfield was absolutely the game deciding moment.
As much as I dislike Carroll, your analysis of his aggressive fourth down play calling is spot on. We might as well go down swinging as opposed to going down the way we did yesterday. The frustrating thing is that CRN has been doing this exact sort thing for a year and half, and I don’t see it changing.
by BoltDaddy on Oct 19, 2009 8:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the Tennessee bootleg scared off Neuheisel
that play call at the end of the Tennessee game was the ultimate go for broke play. pick up the first down and it’s over… on the other end, if the play failed… well you saw the results: a safety and our exposed QB got lit up and was forced to eat through a straw for multiple games. Still, I liked the call then and I like it now. It was bold, it was gutsy, and it was a win or die trying play. I hope that failed play didn’t psyche CRN out for the rest of the season…
by CPOBruin on Oct 19, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The decision to punt on 4th and inches...
was a morale draining decision. It showed no faith in our offense. That was the only decision I question (though I am close to questioning some other 4th down FGs). Kudos to the O for showing up for once. Did you see the line? All things considered, it was f*ing beautiful. Not pleased with our receivers not catching balls though. The scheme puts them one on one and they need to come down with the ball. Same for Prince’s brain fart in the 4th, but I attribute that to youthful miscalculation – he showed more good than bad.
As for our D: except for that TD pass to Best, where Boz was just on the loosing end of a mismatch (no fault to him), the defensive scheme was good, if not perfectly matched for Cal’s offense – but we have to learn how to tackle good backs! Those long runs were not the result of good blocking or mismatches, they were the result of over pursuit and not squaring up for the hit. The same goes for the DB’s in coverage. The coverage scheme was there – the DB’s just need to do their job. This is assignment football people.
All said and done, the record is not everything. We look better than last year (in a stronger Pac-10), and look to be better still for next season. Remember, no game (with the exception of WASSU was a pre-season gimmie). I still think we can hit the 8-9 win mark!
by hwn44 on Oct 19, 2009 4:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
WR's are struggling...duh
One glaring weakness for our WR’s is that they don’t block. Period. On running plays, they jog down the field with nothing to do and no purpose. It’s embarrassing. They need to be better coached, and they need to play tough.
by Fludrick on Oct 20, 2009 12:59 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.
