Spaulding Roundup: Predictable Bruin Defense, Injury Note & Staring At A 5 Game Losing Streak
by Nestor on Oct 21, 2009 5:34 AM PDT
in Football
Email
PrintLet's get back to football and look ahead (if that is possible) to this weekend's game against Arizona. I still haven't figure whether UCLA has a shot to win this game. I guess most of us around here have been long enough to know why we can't never count any team out. However, the more I think about this game the more I see a total match up nightmare against Arizona's explosive offense.
From what I have seen from Arizona this year they are the kind of offense that carves up an opposing defense with screen passes and getting their receivers into open spaces (something our guys seem incapable of doing for some reason). That's the kind of offense we have seen in recent years slicing through a Walker/Bullough offense like a hot knife through butter. If anyone here feels differently and thinks that our defense can actually scheme and stop these guys on Saturday, I would love to hear and read your thoughts because right now I am not seeing it.
As for our defense it is becoming pretty easy to scheme around it. As Jon Gold from the Daily News reports this am, the Pac-10 coaches are just keying on our DL rotation and waiting to strike when Price leaves the game:
In football, now there is the Brian Price playbook.
It seems UCLA's opponents have one set of offense for when the Bruins' mammoth defensive tackle is in the game and one for when he is out.
"Yeah, it's respect, but it's irritating because they just wait until I get off the field to run the good stuff," Price said. "I want to stop some good stuff. But I stay on the field longer and they've changed up my rotation. It's not a fact that I'm tired, but coach wants us at 100 percent."
Unfortunately for the Bruins, their opponents might have caught on to the rotation.
Never was it so glaring then against Stanford in Week 4, when head coach Jim Harbaugh said the team used a designed flea flicker on the exact play that Price went to the sidelines and David Carter came in.
The play's timing was not a coincidence.
We saw that pattern play out early on against Cal this past weekend. I think it was late in the first quarter or second quarter when ABC flashed an on screen graphic showing how Cal offense had piled up something ridiculous around 150 yards during Brian Price was off the field. It was pretty embarrassing. The last time I recall our defense making a big play while Price was off the field was during that goal line stance against Tennessee. Well that was ages ago. More after the jump.
Sticking with the defensive notes it looks like while Hester may be physically cleared to practice, the coaches are still holding him out. From the OC Register:
Hester, who was cleared to practice this week, was stuck on the sidelines and didn't get the chance of working his way back into the starting lineup.
"I didn't get any reps (Tuesday)," he said after practice. "I don't know what that's about." [...]
"I thought I was going to come in and have a chance to compete again but I guess not," he added. "I guess the coaches have their minds set on something else for this week. I just have to take it and go with it."
Hester like rest of us sounds frustrated:
"It's frustrating because I feel that I can help," he said. "I'm ready to go. I'm healthy. I'm probably faster than I was before I got hurt because I was doing so much speed work and cardio work. I'm ready. I'm physically ready." [...]
"I feel I'm ready, I just need the reps," Hester said. "How can I get back ready to compete if I don't get any reps at practice? I don't understand that.
"I'm not saying that I should just walk back in and be the starter right away. I think it should still be a competition. I can't do no worse than anybody else has been doing."
It's weird that the coaches didn't work him in at least for few reps. Here is the explanation from Bullough in the LA Times:
Defensive coordinator Chuck Bullough said Hester would be worked back in slowly because "we installed a lot of stuff since he's been out. He'll gradually work in." But the job that Hester won hands down in spring practice would be open for "competition, probably. We're always going to play the best," Bullough said.
Hmm. Not sure if that explanation makes any sense given what we have seen from Bullough's defense last few weeks. Installing a "lot of stuff"? That sounds pretty Dorrellian to me, particulary given the results we have seen from our defense in our last three games. And whatever "stuff" he has been installing, it's clear that it has been overwhelming Sheldon Price. So may be it makes sense to simplify it a bit or get in someone (I don't know someone like Viney perhaps) who seemed to be getting it done on the field when he was in the game.
I don't mean to pick on Sheldon. He is a true freshman. He is giving his best. However, from what I am seeing it seems to make sense to get someone like Viney in there who is more physically ready for Pac-10/D-1 competition than Price. Anyway, we will see how it works out against Arizona. I am not hopeful at all after what we have seen from Arizona in recent weeks and the shoddy performance of our defense in last three games.
Speaking of shoddy, Arizona's own defense embarrassed itself against Stanford. It gave up 584 total yards and 6 passing plays over 30 yards to Luck and co last Saturday. Here is the Tuscon Citizen on an embarrassed Mark Stoops (Arizona's DC and little brother of head coach Mike Stoops):
Arizona defensive coordinator Mark Stoops walked into the postgame interview room. He probably didn’t want to be there. He didn’t want to sit at the big table, just find a little corner of the room. Maybe no one would notice him.
"I’m not happy," he started, surrounded by a semi-circle of seven or eight media members with cameras and reporters.
"Let me rephrase that," he said. "I’m ecstatic we won. But I’m embarrassed."
Coaching defensive football is his livelihood, so a 43-38 victory in which his unit gives up a staggering 584 yards and six passing plays of at least 30 yards is going to create all kinds of conflicting emotions … which eventually gave way to a smile.
Well that goes back to our point from yesterday about the need for UCLA offense to take charge and strike early.
Can we get it done? I am not seeing any reasons for hope. If anyone has thoughts on how we should think differently let us know. We can use the pick me up (it has to be based on reality though) in the next two weeks because right now we are staring at a dreary 5 game losing streak.
GO BRUINS..
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Our offense will have to play defense
by engineering long, steady, scoring drives, keeping AZ’s O off the field. In Angels parlance, we have to play small ball (damn Angels, and damn Yankees too). Based on what I read here about AZ ’s D, it looks probable that we can march the field against them and consume chunks of time.
Rhetorical Turn Around From Years Past
Interesting that now we hope the O can keep the D off the field. We are so used to hearing that the D was carrying the burden of keeping us in the game in hopes that the O might, occasionally, score.
Few of us would have thought we’d be in this position this year.
Actually, we won’t be any good until all facets or our team play the way they are capable of playing and pull their own weight.
The D has the players — they need to play to their potential. Wasting potential is a sin.
The O is much improved; they young guys on the line and backfield are pulling their weight; the O needs the more experienced guys to play like they are the more experienced guys.
Special teams — two great anchors in Forbath and Locke — need to build on that strength and COVER.
And, the coaches need to make sure that they do.
sjh
Price
Seems like there is a simple solution to the Brian Price issue – keep him on the field.
In theory, it sounds great to keep everyone at 100%, but not if it means your defense is getting smoked because Price isn’t in the game. Therefore, I’d much rather have Price at 98% (he said he’s not getting tired) for 100% of the plays than Price at 100% for 70% of the plays.
Seems like a no-brainer.
I have watched Price closely this year
He seems winded after roughly 3-5 plays. I know what he is saying, but my eyes see differently. I just don’t think he has the stamina to be in there 100% of the time.
by godblesstyus95 on Oct 21, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
B. Price is good, but he is not a panacea
He was on the field during Best’s 93 yard scamper.
by Give me a B... on Oct 21, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the solution is much simpler
our safeties and corners should cover their man. it was a pass. bp only has 4 sacks on the year. not sure if having him in would have made much of a difference.
No way he'll last.
He reminds me of Kevin Love, very talented, but out of shape. Price needs some work before making an impact in the NFL. I wonder before the NFL combine if he’ll put the proper work in. Much like Love did, he looks great now. Far better than when he was here.
Our defense has good players...
…but run piss-poor schemes. Too many opposing receivers are finding space and our reserve defensive linemen need to man up. Opposing teams know when Price is on the sideline. It’s time to reach down, find a pair, and get the job done when he’s not on the field. Period.
Sheldon Price needs to hit the bench. Period. Kid has a great future, but he’s obviously not ready now. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong, but until I see him shut down an opposing WR and make meaningful contributions to shutting down the run game, I think Viney or Hester should be back in there.
There is absolutely no excuse for our defense to be as bad as it is. Of the 11 starters, 5 are legitimate NFL quality guys (Brian Price, Reggie Carter, Akeem Ayers, ATV, and Rahim Moore). Jerzy and Datone Jones are no slouches either. I’m not sold on the Bosworth brothers (they play hard and with a lot of heart, but I don’t think either really has the foot speed to shut down the modern college spread offense), and the jury is out on Tony Dye. Sheldon Price isn’t ready yet. Except for a few questions marks, we have pretty good talent in our defensive line-up. Better than most NCAA D-1 squads. Yet, we can’t shut anyone down.
Why?
Our defense is vanilla. There’s a simple rule in college football. If you give any QB enough time in the pocket, he will find an open receiver. Guaranteed. Look at some of the losers that looked great in college: Matt Leinart, John David Booty, Ryan Leaf. Those guys looked pretty good, sitting in the pocket, waiting for someone to get open. Now we know all three suck, now that they’ve been exposed to real competition at the next level.
It’s time to quit being so conservative. We need to bring the heat. I want to know why Bullough isn’t telling Reggie Carter to kill the QB on every other play. I want that maniac rushing through the pocket every opportunity he gets. It worked out pretty damn well against U$C during 13-9. He has a a nose for a sack, for knocking the QB around, for getting into a QB’s head and screwing up his timing. Rushing four men and hoping Price alone can create pressure is stupid and it’s killing our defense.
Dye and Sheldon Price aren’t going to make great coverage decisions. They’re young guys and that’s to be expected. We have to help our secondary out by forcing the QB’s hand. We need more blitzing, more of an attack mentality. Too often, our defense is sitting back, waiting to react to what the offense does, rather than attacking the offense and distrupting what they want to do. We’re too damn passive and I put that blame squarely on the shoulders of Bullough.
I have also wondered what happened to our blitzes.
Playing defense is about taking the initiative away from the offense. I feel we are playing too much ‘Read and React’ when we should be forcing the offense to react to our pressure.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
Viney
Since Viney got suspended, he hasn’t played again. Why are the coaches keeping him off the field? I can imagine, if he had a bad attitude, this isn’t going to help him. Also, why don’t they let Crissman have a chance at QB? He is a tough kid and got things done at Edison. Brehaut, too, should be getting more playing time.
by Forever a Bruin on Oct 21, 2009 11:40 AM PDT reply actions
How are we supposed to run 3 QBs
I mean realistically, we have a hard enough time inserting Brehaut into the game without potentially shattering Prince’s confidence. Now we’re supposed to find snaps for Crissman?
Those were Hester's comments
Not Viney’s.
by gradstudentbruin on Oct 22, 2009 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Why not!!!
Prince is doing a good job at QB but not winning us games. Why not use Brehaut and Crissman more? I don’t think they could hurt us. We need to get more out of our offense.
by Forever a Bruin on Oct 21, 2009 11:54 AM PDT reply actions
Yeah, three exclamation points...that's necessary
In any case, you have convinced me that you’re absolutely right. I mean, either Brehaut or Crissman would have obviously been able to stop our defense from giving up 5 touchdowns in the first half. Those guys would have also forced Rosario to catch that TD pass and make Austin run through his route for another TD grab. Prince is clearly the sole reason for the 3 game losing streak (even in one game he didn’t play in!) and he needs to be replaced. In fact, let’s rotate all three of them in one down at a time. That’ll really confuse our opponents and it won’t have a negative impact on QB rhythm or playbook familiarity or offensive continuity at all.
Don't act so smug
I am only suggesting that maybe by using the other QB’s during games (not on every down or catching the ball or on defense) like you wrote, maybe then we could find some chemistry for scoring. Right now our offense needs to score TOUCHDOWNS. Our defense was very poor last week and I hope that doesn’t happen again. I am not suggesting that Prince is to blame for our 3 game losses. Football is a team sport and everyone has to keep his head in the game and run correct patterns, block their man, etc. I just want us to do better, just like you do. I can feel your frustration. We are all feeling it.
by Forever a Bruin on Oct 21, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Then answer the question
You got a snarky response from me because I asked for a reasonable and realistic way you see us getting snaps for a THIRD quarterback when our starter clearly needs reps as does his backup, and all you responded with was “WHY NOT? LET’S JUST DO IT!”
That’s not an answer. Nor do you logically explain how throwing a QB into the mix that you’ve likely never even seen in practice up against the other two is going to help the offense instead of hurt it by disrupting the rhythm of all of the QBs, as well as deny the starter in game snaps and stunt his development and familiarity with the offense. See, that’s an argument against a 2 QB system, let alone the madness of a 3 QB system. Your move.
All I'm saying
All I am saying is that our #1 QB isn’t getting it done. Yes, his receivers aren’t helping with their lack of focus in the game and not holding on to balls that should be caught. All I am saying is give the other QB’s a chance to play and learn. Yes, Prince should not be thrown out but give the others a chance. They might help us down the road. Hopefully, UCLA will win with them all. I just want to see us win and maybe by giving them a chance it will happen.
by Forever a Bruin on Oct 22, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions
That's still not an answer
It’s a scattershot argument from ignorance that assumes because we aren’t winning with Prince that he’s not “getting it done”. Unfortunately for you, that does nothing to convince anyone that your proposed alternatives would be better; that’s what this is all about. I remind you that Brehaut also played against Oregon. By your logic, he didn’t “get it done” either as he was responsible for exactly 0 points.
Have you observed better pocket presence from Brehaut? Have you observed better understanding of the playbook, checkdowns and hot routes from Crissman? Have you observed anything at all to justify putting either of these guys in the actual game over Prince? Who says that these other guys aren’t getting opportunities to play and learn in practice?
You just took an entire paragraph to say exactly what you said before albeit with more fluff and unjustified personal conviction, and if you’re planning on doing it again, then spare us all and just don’t post it until you have legitimate backing behind your proposal because I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
The "well, we didn't win the game, so ANYTHING have been better!" argument
is retroactive decision making at its worst and doesn’t hold water. Prince was helping to keep us in the game until late in the 4th quarter. To say we should have had a backup QB in that situation instead, who (by our own coaches’ estimation) gives us a smaller chance of winning the game, is nonsense. Give a better reason than “he’s doing a good job, but we ended up losing, so playing the other guys couldn’t hurt!” to take out the starting QB.
by gradstudentbruin on Oct 22, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
My last word on the subject
Our starting QB hasn’t proven to be that much above the others. We have 3 good QB’s that are all young. One of them just might blossom into a great QB. Sometimes athletes in a game situation do better than in practice. Anything is worth a try at this point. Sorry, but that is my take on the situation. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. I LOVE everyone on BN because we do get the chance to talk to one another about our games and teams. Keep up the good work.
by Forever a Bruin on Oct 22, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay then
Assume for a second that we have young QBs that are all about the same, which I believe is partially true in that they aren’t all that far apart, but only Brehaut and Prince have proven to be close (Crissman hasn’t proven anything). Even assuming your premise is true, it is still not a great argument for just trying them all out in game. What you may call giving each of them a shot is actually denying a fair shot at development to the starter. How do you expect an offense to develop a rhythm with the signal caller and deliverer of the ball when you keep switching that person out and swapping him with someone else? This problem is still there whether you’re swapping QBs within a game or from game to game. This players on this unit desperately need to develop a familiarity with each other.
In particular, I have a problem with this false characterization of Prince’s play as if it couldn’t possibly be any worse. You have repeatedly failed to show that this is the case, and I suspect you are purposely dodging this because you know that we only have to look back one year to see how QB play can indeed be worse. Prince may have trouble getting us into the endzone, but that problem is also the burden of the entire offense. He mostly avoids the big and costly mistakes that plagued us last year with his arm and has shown an ability to sustain drives, even if they do stall inside the 20.
I am not a big believer that “everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion”. Not all opinions are created equal, and the ones that are not based in reality and have no logical foundation deserve to go to their Darwinian grave, and the fact that you have apparently chosen not to defend your position speaks volumes about where yours is going.
I saw Prince yesterday walking on campus after practice with an iced shoulder
I wonder if that potentially changes his status for the game or if it’s just a routine prevention for soreness.
Athletes walk around with ice packs all the time...
…nothing to be overly concerned about.
Go Bruins!
I saw CC Sabathia with an ice wrap on his shoulder last night during the postgame interview...
Enough said.
by 84 on Oct 21, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I was sipping iced tea at the time as well.
But I was able to go the full 18 holes today.
Wow DBL...
maybe that type of info should be kept to ones self??
Reality-based pick me up
The only thing I can point out is that if we do indeed lose, it will be a 4 game losing streak, not 5. ;-)
I’ve got nothing else.
by godblesstyus95 on Oct 21, 2009 12:43 PM PDT reply actions
Oregon State is after Arizona
so…not looking good…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Hope lives eternal in a Bruin football fan
This team has been embarrassed enough. The coaches have been embarrassed. Enough is enough. We will play with pride this weekend and give it our best shot. We may not win but I don’t believe the team will allow itself to be blown away and embarrassed again.
I too have wondered
why we don’t blitz more. Of course blitzing against a passer like Foles might be very dangerous, but playing to just keep everything in front of you is a sure way to lose, too, as your opponent moves steadily down the field, putting you in worse and worse field position while using clock. We all realize that our D has to make some big plays for us to have any chance to win, so turn ‘em loose from time to time, Coach B. I kind of like our linebackers against screens. I think they will enjoy the opportunity to break in and bust them up. I also agree with the observation that Price tires after 4 or 5 plays, because he makes a maximum effort and gets a lot of special attention from the opponents, so he is always working hard. Still, he is young and strong and should recover quickly, so he does need to be used more. As to the corner situation, the freshman is not the answer; but I have watched Viney closely, and, while I think he should be starting, he is a long way from the ideal solution. As far as I am concerned, there is no QB controversy; KP is the QB. Nothing against Brehaut, etc. but there has to be a Number One. I think he’ll have a good day against Arizona. I know we all remember that disaster in the desert a few years back and no doubt that is contributing to our general uneasiness, but this is a game where expecting a loss, while still distasteful, is what most of us think is realistic. But I can’t say that a loss is inevitable, because a top effort and a few breaks could turn things our way. So concede nothing.
If they're trying
to keep things in front of them then why do they always seem to end up behind them? At least if your blitzing you have an excuse for your big play disasters…and maybe a chance to stop them. Crissman? Is that a joke? Prince is your guy the rest of this year with Brehaut getting some shots possibly. AZ is beatable. We need to get out on top early and then play game mangement. We have to do whatever it takes, trick plays, 4th downs whatever to keep our offense on the field. Someone said reach down and find a pair. The season isn’t over. One unlikely win can puff some wind back in the sails.
Go Bruins!
cts part2
i hate to bring back bad memories but our dc reminds me of cts. how do you explain the above comments from price & hester? words like “stuff” & “gradually” from our dc to explain dorellian behavior.
Blitz
Well timed blitzs are a cornerstone to every good D. Our coaches need to improve on scouting the opponents tendicies so we that we can blitz in well timed situations. Our defensive packages are also a joke, same sets all the time = far to predictable. As others have pointed, defense needs some work. We should see some changes Sat. If not, going to be a very long year.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
