More Thoughts On Goal Line Dynamics Around UCLA's Offense
by Nestor on Oct 21, 2009 4:30 PM PDT
in Football
23 comments
As you can tell the pace of this game week here on BN is a little different than the usual ones we had to start up the season. Normally by this time of the week we are completely focused on the opponent. This week has been different. Perhaps the obvious explanation is that it is very tough right now to be hopeful about stealing a win this Saturday in the desert. I am going to be watching the game. However, right now I am anticipating it with a total sense of dread with visions of either a debacle or another dispiriting loss in the hands of the Arizona Wildcats.
Another reason, I think it has been hard (at least for me) to get fired up about how our guys match up with the Wildcats is that right now I am not exactly sure what we are going to get from our team this coming Saturday. So perhaps it makes sense to keep the discussion going on what we can expect from our team. We have talked a lot about our defensive issues from last three weekends. Let's talk a little more about the offense. I will specifically try to tie up couple of thoughts I have read this week and then would love to hear what rest of you guys think.
Don't think I have seen any of you flag this yet but I thought a comment Baca made to the local reporter (in this case to Jon Gold in the Daily News) was kind of interesting:
"This offense is built to get first downs," Baca said. "We like to create drives; we're not that explosive offense that, say, an Oregon is. They make big plays. Huge plays. We put drives together and when we get in the red zone we struggle."
That comment kind of stood out to me because it seems like this year except for the Stanford and California game, our offense actually has done ok. Not steller. Just ok. They have been able to drive on the opponent and get down to the red zone. Even against Stanford and Oregon we had the chance of taking control of the game early when we were in the other's team end zone (well knocking on the door for 7 points). The outcomes of both of those contests had lot to do with the goal line dynamics of our offense. Which brings me to the second thought that I will share after the jump.
jtthirtyfour put up a great post on CRN's decisions on 4th and goal. Obviously there are reasonable disagreements on whether CRN should have gone for it in the three situations I singled out from last weekend's game. To me though BruinsRule's thoughts really resonated with me re. what kind of mindset the coaches need to have from hereon out:
Contrary to what Neuheisel said last year, punting is not winning (unless the alternative is throwing pick sixes so maybe for the 2008 Bruins it was true). Nor is kicking field goals. A field goal from inside the red zone as a net loss of 4 points that you had the opportunity to score. With all due respect to our All-American kicker, I don’t ever want to see him run out there to kick a 26-yard FG. I don’t want to see him more than twice in any game. 26-yard field goals lead to losses and exemplify failure (unless in the final 5 seconds of a game with the team tied or down 1 or 2 points). I’ve posted it before, but our biggest problem is not that we don’t score or that we give up too many scores, it’s that our opponents have a normal ratio of TDs to FG attempts (16:9), while we have an inverse ratio of TDs to FG attempts (11:18).
We are the only Pac-10 team with more FG attempts than TDs. We are tied with WSU for fewest TDs scored with 11. No other conference team has fewer than 18 TDs. Just how out of whack is our TD/FG attempt ratio? The median of the other 9 teams is 2.1 TD per FG attempt. The average is 2.2 TD to every FG attempt. Our ratio is 0.6 TDs per FG attempt.
I’ll end with one other chart. If you add up the number of TDs and FG attempts (scoring opportunities) per game for Pac-10 teams, we are in the ballpark of offensive success:
Cal: 5.83
AZ/ORE: 5.67
Stan 5.43
USC 5.33
OSU 5.17
UCLA 4.83
UW 4.71
ASU: 4.67
WSU: 3.17Cal, leading the Pac-10, averages only one more scoring opportunity per game than we do. Cal has had, in essence 1.2 scoring opportunities to every 1 that we have had. Cal has scored 197 points to our 127, for a ratio of 1.55 to 1. If we scored TDs at the same rate as Cal does with its scoring opportunities, we would be scoring an extra 6.3 points per game.
Coach, we have a problem. We settle for too many field goals. Field goal kicking is losing. Punch it in. Do everything you can to punch it in.
Can't agree more with him on this. Of course this all comes back the point about execution:
"It's not about getting angry," Baca said. "We have the potential, we have the talent. When we get down there, on some drives, we just don't do it. One drive, we go offsides on first down. That killed our drive. We can't do those things - we don't execute our plays when we need to."
So what does that mean for our team? What can they do this week and beyond to ensure they are doing a much better job of executing and punching it in against future opponents? Is there a reasonable basis for being being hopeful that our offensive execution will improve dramatically this coming weekend giving our team an early start this weekend? Any more thoughts on the the goal line dynamics around UCLA offense that we have been witnessing during this football season?
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
23 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Every time I see the numbers
I just keep going back to both 4th and Goal against Oregon and Rosario’s dropped pass last week. The first one tells me that we’re not strong enough yet to impose our will on other teams physically. The logical counter to that is that you don’t have to outmuscle them; go with a rollout, but then the dropped pass reminds me that plays that don’t require brute strength do require execution, another department we have been lacking in.
I’m encouraged that we’ve moved the ball a lot better than we did last year, but we get largely the same results in terms of points because we can’t punch it in for whatever reason. I don’t want to think that we’re all searching for an answer offensively that doesn’t exist (this year anyway), but that thought is in the back of my mind and it won’t go away until we demonstrate an ability to put up 6 instead of 3.
by Tydides on Oct 21, 2009 4:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Remember in the Stanford Game
When JetSki got bottled up, broke it to the outside and evaded an excellent safety in Bo McNally in the process. That was pure athetic ability making something out of nothing, and we do have that potential with some of our younger players.
What I don’t understand on many of our goal line calls is not why we don’t roll our fairly green QB (with a recent broken jaw) out, but rather why we don’t quick pitch the ball to JetSki, Thigpen, or even Knox and let them head for the pylon with their speed.
Another very effective play we have seen many, many times is the playaction toss to a TE on a little waggle or buttonhook route. With the experience and (at least previously) good hands of Moya and Paulsen, I’ve got to believe a play of that nature might have had a chance. Sort of similar to the TD toss to Moline (another good option) at TN.
Far be it from me to be able to have “read” the D in those situations, so I don’t know what might have worked, but just a couple of pretty straightforward calls that could have been tried on one of the available downs.
by bruin4life1993 on Oct 21, 2009 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because I think they'd have to break at least one tackle to get there
At least on a toss play, I don’t think they respect our line enough to have to commit more than 9 guys to a sneak so we’d still have to beat at least one guy. Now, while I think our RBs have moves, there’s still a good chance that we lose yardage on a toss. If we’re not going to pound it right ahead with the Train, then I at least like the playaction with the buttonhook that you mentioned. Our TEs seem to have the surest hands on the team, and I at least have faith that we will be able to complete a quick five yard pass to a TE.
by Tydides on Oct 21, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice read, but I expect us to win.
I don’t care if it’s a realistic expectation. Arizona, Stanford and Cal should not be in our league. We get better athletes, always have. Until now the problem has always been the coaching. Well, now we have the coaches (by resume anyway) but we are calling “safe” games, playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Our guys are fine. It’s our coaches that have to play like they have a pair.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 21, 2009 5:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
First and goal at the one.
Assume we have the good fortune to get first and goal at the one. We run a sneak and get stuffed. We try a pass and its’ incomplete. We try something else and it’s stopped. (Or make it all sneaks – it doesn’t matter.) After trying three times without success, is it OK to try a field goal?
I see that scenario as different somehow from first and goal at the nine, and we take three plays to get to the one.
I can see arguments for going for it in both scenarios or for kicking a field goal in both. Going strictly by the numbers from those charts that have been posted, we should go for the TD each time. But somehow I would feel more confident if we had progressed from the nine to the one than I would if we had tried three from the one without success. At the same time, you have to figure that your office ought to be able to generate one yard in four tries.
Anyway, that’s the conundrum. I still want Coach Neuheisel to go for it, and I still say I will support him if we’re unsuccessful. But if he wants to kick the field goal (or in a different context to punt), I’ll support that, too, but without standing and cheering for the decision.
by Fox 71 on Oct 21, 2009 7:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Psychological component
We talk about changing the play calling or the players or the training – and I’m sure the coaches have tried all of that. We’re still not getting it done.
I bet, on top of other issues – which will be solved with experience and adjustments, the team has a ‘mental block’ which causes them to choke in crucial moments. You can call it a ‘Dorellian attitude’ but I think its roots go back to Terry Donahue. When since Donahue’s days has UCLA (football) played up to its full potential for a full season? Maybe once under Toledo… but that Miami game was a let down in that crucial moment.
It would be interesting to see if they make those mistakes as often in practice – or if it gets worse in games.
by JonnyG on Oct 21, 2009 7:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Call me Judge Dread...
I have a baaaad feeling about Saturday. I hope the kids don’t get too down on themselves…that’s four straight tough games in a row…with another one coming next week. No kool aid for me. I just hope to see some of your young players make some nice plays.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Oct 21, 2009 8:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Low Expectations Rule
This is a game played by very young men. Any thing can happen. If we let it all hang out who knows what can happen? Nobody. I think we spectators have put the onus on the players and coaches now. That’s where it belongs. They have to play and execute to get back a little pride. We’ll see what kind of character they have now.
by Keptycho on Oct 21, 2009 8:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ESPN Mag article by Bruce Feldman
Going to paraphrase something interesting I read.
Urban Meyer actually calculated that college teams only have a 20% chance of scoring on drives with no plays over 15 yds. It increases to 50% if you have just 1 play over 15 yds. If you get 2, the percentage jumps to 80%.
Therefore, Urban recruits speed, speed, speed. Feldman noted 3 reasons why speed is such a huge advantage in the college game v pros.
First, the hashmarks are wider in college. So if a team runs a toss sweep or a stretch play from one hashmark to the other, the defense has to cover an extra 60 feet. This allows the team with the speed to gain an advantage.
Second, the limitations in college football in prep time which results in more blown assignments by the defense.
Third, the talent disparity between schools in college. NFL teams, no matter how sorry they are, have speed on their rosters. They may not be good “football players” but speed is not really an issue.
I read this and the Baca quote and it made a lot of sense. We have a lot of issues and improvements we can make which I don’t care to get into. But, right now, our offense is built for sustained drives as Baca said. The guys on the roster that can provide the “Explosive” plays are not ready to do this on a consistent basis. The upperclassmen are solid to good players but they aren’t the type of playmakers that the NFL drool over. Our offensive issues are compounded by a RS FR QB and a line that is still in the rebuilding process.
When I look at our offensive team, I see the speed/talent in our youngsters but they lack the experience. While our experienced players lack the gamebreaking speed/talent. Our team speed has increased but I personally want to see the youngsters get more PT so that they make their mistakes and gain the experience needed to lift this program.
by BlueReign on Oct 21, 2009 9:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
Very good take BR.
I definitely see the wisdom in Urban’s words. I suppose there is a reason he made Alex Smith look like a stud (even though we Niners fans know he sucks), had Utah go undefeated, and oh yeah, has those two rings on his fingers.
We have playmakers. Unfortunately, they’re our youngest guys. We have speed guys (and it looks like more will be coming next year), but again, they’re young. With patience, I like where our offense is going long-term.
The biggest problem for me, aside from our inability to punch it in once we’re in the red zone, is our defense failing to show up. Look at our point totals: they’re not that bad and against Oregon and Cal, we were close and in a position to take advantage. However, whenever our offense stalled and got us only 3 points, the defense would go out and let Oregon or Cal get 7, and usually in a very fast, ESPN highlight friendly way.
I guess I’m not surprised. We have CRN and NC. Two offensive masterminds. On the other end, we have Bullough, who well, is stinking it up in his first gig as a college DC. CRN is the man in charge. He needs to have Bullough get his act together or start looking for his replacement.
Bottom line: if our defense could hold opponents to 10 to 13 points, we’re looking at either 5-1 or 4-2. The sad thing is a lot of opponents’ points are coming on one or two huge plays where our defense is completey out of it. Despite our terrible defensive play calling, our talent isn’t doing too bad. If our guys could focus, execute, and get some more aggressive play calling, it would put our offense in a position to have to score only 17 points or so to win, which, even with our young offense, is attainable.
by Bellerophon on Oct 21, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's like what Seth Davis said to CBH after he watched them practice
“Your most talented players are not your best players”
This is going to be true for Ben Ball this season, and I think it’s apt in describing the offense for our football team as well.
by Tydides on Oct 21, 2009 10:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offensive Personality...
Here’s my main question: What is the offense’s personality? Off the top of my head, I can go through the conference and answer the question pretty fast.
1. USC: Power running/multiple, huge linemen and speed
2. Stanford: Power running, execution
3. Arizona: Spread, small scat backs
4. ASU: Speed (and futility)
5. Cal: Balance run/pass, fast running backs
6. Washington: Power running, qb centered
7. Oregon: Fast spread
8. Oregon St: Fly sweeps, scat backs, discipline game plan
9. Wazzu: They have an offense?
10. UCLA: I just don’t know. Sometimes it’s put on Prince’s shoulders. Other times, they’re suddenly throwing to the TE.
Anyone think this is a problem?
by BlackandOldGold on Oct 21, 2009 11:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that's the problem
A style or personality comes from a coaching staff’s system and the players to fit it. The problem is we either have young and inexperienced players or more veteran players who aren’t as talented. We also have a system that’s been in place for a year and a half. If this were CRN’s 8th year and we were like this, I’d call it a problem, but a personality is something that grows and we haven’t given ours the time to grow because our program is doing so much growing at the same time.
Look at Norm Chow going to SC. He had his system, but he also had Carson Palmer, Justin Fargas, Mike Williams and some big boys up front to run the system. It was really just system installation at that point. We’re doing player development, player integration, system installation and QB grooming all at the same time. Look at our OL. Hasiak, Baca, Sua-Filo, Maiava and Harris will all be here in two years as either juniors or seniors (I’m going to pretend nobody goes on a mission). That’s a possible road grading OL and with Franklin, Knox, Jones running behind them, we can have that power run game and have that identity. We could also have other things going for us. Just as our program grows, a personality will come with it. It’s frustrating, but it takes patience.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 22, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, nobody has a blank slate - including the institution
Anyone who has tried to quit smoking can tell you how hard it is to break habits… well changing an attitude is harder.
The attitude of UCLA football has been ingrained by 5 years of Dorrell and before Toledo by Donahue for 20 years. It takes time to replace something that old and institutionalized with something new.
The young players pick it up off of the older players (who were recruited and trained under Dorrell). These players can transmit it like a disease to the next class of recruits. None of the players want this attitude but it infects them.
I believe that Neuheisel is the man to cure this – I suspect that is what he was really talking about with his passion bucket and relentless positivism. Alas, just like quitting smoking – or eradicating small pox – even after you have the solution (and recruit kids who are resistant to self-defeating attitudes) it takes time and lots of work to stamp out that old attitude.
As ryebreadraz said: It’s frustrating, but it takes patience.
by JonnyG on Oct 22, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's another point in my mind
This might be a stretch, but in a way it goes back to not having a stadium on campus. That in and of itself is not really the problem. But here’s the thing, at schools where football is big, people recognize the players on campus because they care and follow the team. Students can see the team leaving the stadium onto campus, whereas at UCLA the players are bused in and out of the Rose Bowl. There’s something to be said for pride, and having to face your peers for a week after a shitty game. I feel sometimes that the football players at UCLA get a free pass in that respect, unlike the basketball players whom more people recognize.
So, at UCLA, it’s the coaches who must play that role. They are the ones who must drill into the players the very bad taste of losing, and the consequences of losing. Instead of running the perimeter and “sleeping well at night”, waiting to discipline the resources and turn the corner. I know that CRN hates losing, and hopefully his attitude is infectious. They should all feel the way Arron Afflalo feels after a loss. College football is not just a game anymore, it’s a bit more than that.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Oct 22, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Westwood Stadium
Too bad it will never happen, downside of having the campus in such a nice area. Over the years the area had probably even gotten too nice for a proper college atmosphere. Westwood is way too dull.
by Bruin'96 on Oct 23, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We've never hat football in westwood
It might have been a nice idea in the 60’s or 70’s; but would it work now? Where would you tailgate; the IM field?
by 10amla on Oct 24, 2009 2:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna say this for the ****th time.
We need to run the ball more in four down territory. MORE, not less. And in the red zone I would almost always go for it on less than 4th and 2, for sure. And run the damn ball.
We need to make a commitment to scoring touchdowns or die trying. Our attitude should be we’d rather not score a point than score a weak *ss FG inside the 20.
We need this mental toughness, this commitment, to score TDs and make our offense more efficient. It’s the only way we can put pressure on other teams. They need to know once we get in four down territory we are committed to TDs only.
A true commitment to scoring TDs “only” and running the ball on the short field will at least give our offense some character, a dimension, that once established, we can exploit other ways later.
AND I DON’T MEAN JUST RUN UP THE GUT OR SIMPLE COUNTERS.
And when we do pass in the red zone, it should be into the end zone, almost always. Pressure, pressure, pressure.
It may seem more conservative. It’s really not.
I think we have the talent to make ten yards in four down in the red zone. But we almost never try it. Never.
If the other team stops us a few times, fine. You can always try the weak *ss, pitty-pat passing later if you insist.
I’m just tired of us giving up on our running game ourselves in the red zone almost every time.
Just my opinion. Someone please tell me why I’m wrong.
GO BRUINS
by uclahy on Oct 21, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Red Zone Success
To be successful in the RZ, you need either a good power running game, or a go to receiver, and we all know we have neither.So in lieu of those components you must be creative, shot gun direct snaps to RBs, a la NE Pats, or maybe a Philly Eagles shot gun shovel pass, or something the D has never seen before.
We do not have the talent, or power, to just impose our will or out execute our opponents with basic plays.
For Gods sake we have CRN and CNC. Put on your Boise state hat if you have to!!!
by Rico Bruin on Oct 22, 2009 12:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
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.
