Big Picture Thoughts: Rick Neuheisel Needs To Deliver (At Least) 6 Wins In 2009
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 9:52 AM PDT
in Football
86 comments
Well losing last night was a surprise. It's sad commentary on the state of our football program (thank you Al Carnesale and Pate Dalis) when the Sunday after UCLA losses doesn't sting like they do after a tough loss in a basketball game. Years of mismanagement and I would submit total neglect from the UCLA administration has our football program the state it is in right now. It is not going to get easier any time soon.
I fully expect us to lose next weekend as well as we will probably see the two Kevins flail away leading an impotent offense, while the Bruin defense will probably get run around and marched on with easy as they look hapless (and kind of hopeless) under their coaches' not so inspiring bend-don't break boring schemes. Sure we might get some big plays here there with momentary flickers of hope but those of who have been around long enough will know better and not get too excited about more magic from the legendary UCLA kicking game.
So where are we in terms of big picture? We are 3-4 and tied for last place with a winless team in conference play. The expectations for this season remains the same. Neuheisel and his coaches need to bring home 6 wins. If he tries to spin anything less than that as a successful season, we are going to LOL at him or anyone else who tries to spin it as success. So anything less than 6 wins this season will the first strike against him in his UCLA career. Here is the schedule for next season (courtesy of BruinGold.com):
at Kansas St Wildcats Sep 4
Houston Cougars Sep 11
at Texas Longhorns Sep 18
Washington State Cougars Oct 2
at California Bears Oct 9
Stanford Cardinal Oct 16
at Oregon Ducks Oct 23
Arizona Wildcats Oct 30
Oregon State Beavers Nov 6
at Washington Huskies Nov 13
at Arizona State Sun Devils Nov 21
USC Trojans Dec 4
Looking at that I already see sure losses at Kansas State, at Texas, at Oregon. There is no way we are going to win those games with our current team (assuming those teams are in full strength). That leaves us 9 regular season games and I can tell you right now that depending on what we see in the next few months, the reasonable bet right now is that we will set an expectation level of at least 7 regular season wins and a victory over Southern Cal (at the Rose Bowl) in CRN's third year in Westwood. Those are very mild expectations IMO and if Neuheisel cannot meet them, we will count it as the second strike against him, setting him with an expectation of either a title run (for at least a Pac-10 championship) or bust in his fourth season in Westwood. If he can't win 7 games next year (and beat Southern Cal) and then follow it up with a title run (a legit one not the BS 10 win season from Dorrell's third year in Westwood) in his fourth season, he will get full fledged Dorrell treatment here on BN. In fact we will subject him to that if it becomes clear (number wise) that he is not getting it done.
As for the game for last night I don't really care much about micro-analyzing it at this point. It was ugly and uninspiring. We certainly didn't play with that "no fear" mindset we were hoping for. We looked unsure, sloppy and completely out of sync on offense while we looked tentative, slow, unimaginative until it was too late on defense. Although we can't pin the loss on this defense because they did get 3 picks, recovered 2 fumbles, and score a TD, they pretty much allowed the Arizona team slice it to shreds in the first half. More after the jump.
On offense there isn't much to say when we make Dorrellian move of kicking a FG on 4th and 7 at the 34, while down by 14 points. Of course there is the matter of the inexplicable decision to go with Kevin Craft, who was marked as the number 3 QB following the total lackluster and unispiring performance against Stanford. My passion bucket will always be full with Bruin pride. However, that doesn't mean I have to get excited about following a team with two Kevins who remind me the combinations of Jimmy Bonds and Brett Johnson or Ryan Fien and Rob Walker.
Tracy Pierson over at Bruin Report Online put up his extended analysis immediately after the game. It is not behind subscription firewall. So I will go ahead and share the obvious issues he toplined following last night's (not so surprising) debacle in the desert:
-- The offense is still anemic. There isn’t much experienced talent, and the offensive scheme doesn’t seem to be getting the most out of the talent that is there. -- The defense has been anywhere from a disappointment to a disaster. The play-calling isn’t aggressive, and the defensive coaches seem to need the entire first half before they understand what the opposing offense is doing. The players aren’t playing well, missing gaps and tackles. -- The team is just plainly not very talented on either side of the ball. At least the players that have enough experience to play aren’t very talented.
Tracy doesn't have a lot of nice things to say about our defense: This says so much: Arizona ran the same end-around play 6 times for double-digit yards before UCLA did anything to stop it. Defensive Coordinator Chuck Bullough has a very conservative defensive philosophy. He’s more about preventing the big play, sitting back in coverage, bending-and-not-breaking, and making the opposing offense have to execute over and over to drive the ball down the field. From what I could see, UCLA only blitzed a couple of times in the first half. One of the seemingly first blitzes put pressure on Arizona quarterback Nick Foles, nicked his arm when throwing, which caused an interception by defensive tackle Jerzy Siewierski. On Arizona’s first possession of the second half, UCLA blitzed on a third-and-eight and the pressure caused Foles to throw incomplete. Just about every time UCLA sent pressure, it harrassed Foles into a mistake or an errant pass. Bullough tends to get more aggressive in the second half in his defensive play-calling. But that’s usually after opposing offenses have sliced through UCLA’s defense in the first half as if no UCLA coach had watched any film of the opposing offense. It’s as if the first half of every game is the first time the coaches have seen the opposing offense. Yeah, we know that there are different offensive game plans for every game and that you need to get a look at it to be able to adjust, but the learning curve is far too huge. It’s not unreasonable to expect UCLA’s defense to appear more prepared in the first half of each game. Still, as I said above I am having a hard time blaming our defense for last night's loss. They did hold the Wildcats to 27 points and got those 5 turnovers including scoring 7 points by themselves. In return our offense scored only 6 points out of the first 4 turnovers. That is pure impotence. Now, I actually don't have any issues with Chow's play calling. I think our play calling has been mostly OK. Although, I don't get why Chow hasn't decided to stretch the field with our running game by calling for toss or little sweeps, using the speed of JetSki and Thigpen. Still in general, I thought the calls he had out of the gate was fine as it was our players who were dropping balls, looking totally lacksdasical and unfocused to start the game (that falls on the coaches including the guy at the top: Rick Neuheisel). What I don't get is how Rick Neuheisel continues to play it safe looking Dorrellian and settling for FGs. What I don't get is how we stick with Kevin Prince who just doesn't look "ready" to be a starting QB. Once again in Prince we saw a QB, who just like Craft locks on to his receiver, doesn't pick up the blitzhes, and seems to be routinely late in his passes or just hurling flat throws. I have heard the argument about Richard Brehaut not being "ready." However, from what I have seen with my own eyes right now, I am seeing in Kevin Prince a UCLA QB who looks as unprepared as any UCLA QB I have seen in my 20+ years of watching Bruin football. He certainly doesn't remind me of Cade in his freshman year. So, the question if this kid looks so unprepared (and Craft is a known commodity in terms less than mediocre results), why aren't giving Brehaut a chance? Also, I think the coaches are really doing Brehaut a disservice when they are inserting him in hopeless circumstance when the game is all but decided. Anyway, I am not going to press the issue for now. All I can say at this point, I am going to wait and see whether the coaches can deliver 6 wins. I still think we have a shot of getting to 6 wins by taking care of business against Washington and Arizona State at home, and then executing our game play against (what I think will be an inspired Cougar bunch) Washington State in Pullman. If Rick Neuheisel wants to make a tangible case that UCLA football is headed towards right direction under his leadership, he needs to get us those three wins in 2009 and then build on it with at least 7 wins (and a victory over Southern Cal) in 2010. He has to get it done. End of story. GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
86 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
Ya
I doubt UCLA will get 6 wins. But as I said before. We said this about Howland too. I remember a time where howland was considered “on the line” if he couldn’t produce in two years.
As for 2010, we’ll start 0-3… That’s that. We’ll have to battle uphill as opposed to falling from 3-0
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 10:05 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Don't revise history
Where did we say that about Howland? Do you have proof? If you are going to make stuff up and use the word “we” here on BN on what we stated wrt to Howland then show us the evidence?
Howland made it first round of NCAA tournament in his second year. We were ecstatic about that and wrote as such over at FKD. We were excited with what Howland was doing in his second year when he had us going to the tournament.
So don’t come here and lie about what we said about Howland.
This is not the first time you have made up nonsense. You accused Brendon A for faking an injury without providing any kind of proof.
Consider this as a warning. I don’t want to see that again here on BN. Thank you.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just saying
I wasn’t even on BN when farmar was here. Excuse the “we”. I know the “straw guys” around me said it; but doesn’t that make it inexcusable.
Re howland: Wouldnt YOU be “excited” if we made it Into a bowl game? Wouldn’t you have been apologizing if we didn’t get into the tourney that year and then made the title run the next year? I’m defending my coach Nes. You should give him the buffer period that Howland (different sport) required, which in my opinion, requires less time because there are less people.
Oh, my logic is saying that a bowl=tourney bid
You tend to take me too seriously haha
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 10:32 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
I am giving him the exact same treatment as Howland
I will be just as excited about us going to a bowl game as I was about Howland taking our team to the tourney. I have maintained that standard all through this season reiterating right now that I am not going to call 5 wins acceptable.
As for Howland’s second season there was nothing to “apologize” for. It was getting clear through the season how our team was getting better when it was making its run, which included an inspiring win in South Bend.
If I were to be intellectually honest, then I would concede right now we are not getting better this football season as it is unfolding.
We are here at BN to call it as we see it not to offer up blind, idiotic support for our head coaches.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re everything
The apology was metaphorically speaking… a what if situation.
And improvement could be at a chemical level for all we know. From the UCLA section, I might not have seen a win, but I did see some heart on at the very least one side of the ball.
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brehaut needs to get a chance.
I totally agree with you on Brehaut needs to start. I really dont think we have anything to lose. If Brehuat is going to be our quarterback in the future I do not see why we are not getting him game time experience in this rebuilding season. Hopefully Rick and Norm will make the right move next week.
by bruins13 on Oct 25, 2009 10:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is Kansas State
a sure loss for next season? Making improvements in the shitty Big 12 doesn’t make that game a sure loss. That’s a pretty tough judgment to make right now since we don’t really know to what extent they’ve actually improved.
by mdjohns4 on Oct 25, 2009 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They have gotten much better since we played them
From what I have seen in our team, I don’t see us beating them in Manhattan.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
KSU is winnable, but it could be a very very ugly start next season
If CRN cant beat KSU in the opener, assuming he can beat WSU (which might not be a sure thing), we could easily start next season 1-6 going into games against Arizona and Oregon State. As ugly as this season has been, I don’t even want to start thinking about next season.
by bruinponcho on Oct 25, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see Houston as a more likely loss than K-State
we could lose both or none, but that offense they have in Houston is scary good.
Has there ever been a player better than Detlef Schrempf?
by bucknellbruin on Oct 25, 2009 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The sad thing about the state of UCLA football right now
is that even if we win in the next couple/few weeks, I hardly see it as being inspiring enough to offset the abject disappointment I feel right now. Kind of like how the two losses in 2005 completely ruined the rest of that otherwise exciting season.
Sure, I’ll still watch and root. But it’s kind of how I would imagine it’d be after deciding to continue a relationship with a spouse you caught cheating. Something is just lost about this season.
by Scotucla03 on Oct 25, 2009 10:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If we can get 3 wins out of our next 4
I think the dynamic around our program will change from its current state … and will have us in an interesting mindset heading into that last game.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
three more wins would be great, but I think our assessment of the team should be more in-depth. eg—have we established a passing and running game? does the defense give up several big plays? up till now, the team hasn’t looked very consistent, even in their wins. honestly, I’d rather make incremental progress toward a solid foundation for next year’s team than end up with an even W-L record this season. just reaching six wins won’t matter if fundamentals are in place.
by 8_clap on Oct 25, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
W/L criteria and over all assessment
are not mutually exclusive. However, for the bottom line we need baseline expectations. 6 wins is more than reasonable.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but...
I’m afraid we’re setting ourselves up for further disappointment.
I would be thrilled at this point to see some god tacking, or a nice drive that yields 7 points (not 3)
by 8_clap on Oct 25, 2009 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
That is fine
We are used to disappointment. That doesn’t mean we keep lowering our expectations to give the coaching staff a break and not hold them accountable.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The goal was 6
I’m going to stand by that, I’m with you Nes.
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agreee
6 is definitely the goal. but from the looks of it, it’s slipping away, and we can shout about that until we’re blue in the face but that is self-destructive. on the other hand a focus on more fundamental issues might get us 7 wins next year.
by 8_clap on Oct 25, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
CRN himself set as a standard
And forgive me if I don’t remember this word for word, “Anything less than 6 wins and a bowl game would be a dissapointment.”
I would agree except that I feel anything less than 6 wins and a bowl game would be unacceptable.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 25, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
more to the point
I want a team that’s fun to watch. someone made the point yesterday that our games are not exciting. at the end of the day your win some, lose some, but the point is to enjoy the process of watching your team. i’ll be honest and admit that yesterday’s game was boring, and I ended up watching the boys from across town play their thriller with OSU
by 8_clap on Oct 25, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
blasphemy
haha
At least washington had some fun games this year
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
N -- I'm going to respectfully pose an alternate ...
scenario.
In the grand scheme, maybe it doesn’t matter if RN gets to 4 or 5 or 6 wins this year. I mean, even if we get to 6 wins, there is no guarantee we get a bowl game because we’d be 3-6 in conference and that might be like seventh place. Six wins does not guarantee a bowl (and I realize you didn’t say it did, I’m just noting it so all of us are on the same page with my thinking.)
The team is not good. The program is building towards the future. And, if you believe some of the prognosticators on the message boards (I’m thinking of one whose initials are TP) we’re not even playing for next year due to the murderous schedule. We might be building towards 2011 — when Brehaut and Prince are juniors and the freshmen and sophomores on the current oline are juniors and seniors.
If that’s the case, maybe the best thing the team could do is not worry about getting the six wins — and I think you and Neuheisel are thinking exactly the same way on that, he has circled six wins on the schedule, too — and start building for the future.
The upper classmen are not getting the job done. Maybe it’s time that Carroll start getting Austin’s plays. Maybe Pressley should get more of Paulsen’s and Moya’s plays. Certainly Brehaut should get Craft’s plays. And I could go on.
Obviously, some of the players like Price and Carter and some others like the Bosworths have earned the right to play out the season. But other upperclassmen like the one’s I named and maybe some others (I’’m loathe to call out too many players by name) should start to get eased out of the line-up in favor of the players of the future even if — and here is the rub — it reduces the chances of getting to 6 wins.
I’m not sure I’m right about this, I really just want to make this part of the discussion. And it may be that this is right, but not yet. For example, if we lose a few more and it looks like we’d need the SC game to get to the mythical six, maybe it would be time to cut our losses metaphorically and start playing for 2011 right here and now.
Maybe the best way to measure the progress of this team is not by W/Ls but by how many young players get minutes that prepare them for the future?
by Achilles on Oct 25, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thats great and all...
But, in football at least, the best way to attract recruits is to pick up W’s. I guarantee you that if a 5 star was picking between a 9-3 team and a 6-6 team, he’d pick the 9-3. The future will be awful bland if we don’t put in the best players right now.
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well ...
what if you could clearly demonstrate to recruits that the reason you weren’t winning is that you played for the future?
Like I said, I’m still working this through, so I don’t have this line of thinking fully fleshed out.
I think my honest opinion is that we probably won’t get to six wins no matter what. If Craft for example is playing over Brehaut because he gives us a better chance for six wins, he’s really only increasing our chances from 20% to 22% — is it really worth it?
by Achilles on Oct 25, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All three stink
After all the practices, exp, etc… all three are bad and can’t make basic plays in this offense. What is everyone smoking regarding Brehaut, he’s not even close to being ready to even get a series of snaps.
Prince, looks like he has post traumatic stress syndrome. First couple weeks he could actually make a few plays, not sure whats up in his head. Missing Paulson last week with 10 defenders?
Craft, we all know the results. Even with time and the perfect play called he still can’t get it done. That pass to Franklin was a perfect example of a easy play for at least a first down if not a touchdown. The guy is 10 yards away, but gets overthrown by 5 yards.
Once again there is always next year.
by Bruin'96 on Oct 25, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I totally respect that take A
I actually think you probably should put that up on our homepage later today or tonight and keep the discussion going.
For me it’s a matter of having a set of metrics and use that to evaluate. To me set standards are important for measuring both short term and long term out looks. Of course there are other factors that need to be taken into account as you outlined above. That is fine. I agree with the argument that it’s not just getting Ws but how we win. It’s the same reason, I never cared about Dorrell’s “10 win” season.
However, at the end of his second, third and fourth season … if we were to discern whether we are making progress and he has us on the right direction … to me the W-L numbers are going to stand out.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I get the metrics thing ...
but maybe the metric we should be looking at is how many snaps freshmen and sophomores get and not wins and losses.
Because in the grand scheme, 6 wins is not that much better than 5. Other than getting us “bowl eligible” but not in a bowl game, it might be a bit of an arbitrary line on the gridiron, it might be a short term goal that stunts the eventual long term success.
by Achilles on Oct 25, 2009 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
to me
There is a big difference between a 6-6 and 5-7 season. 5-7 is a losing season and is not an acceptable outcome in RN’s second year at UCLA.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm still holding 6 wins as the bar
and if we fall short, then it’s a disappointing season. As for strikes, I don’t think I would get into that. It would be a disappointing season, but I had very low expectations for this year and I think that so long as they don’t lose 8 games or more, that this won’t be a major indication as to the future of the program. Don’t get six wins and you didn’t do the job, but I wouldn’t consider it an indictment against what CRN is building.
As for next season, I don’t think I’m ready to set a bar yet. I’m going to wait and see if Price leaves, as well as how our opponents shape up in the offseason. Regardless of what happens there though, I’m not setting a win over SC as part of the expectations yet. It will be CRN’s third year taking over a disaster and expecting him to beat one of the nation’s top five teams is too much IMO. As for year #4, it depends what you consider contending for the Pac-10 title. I say a top three Pac-10 finish is a good level of expectation there.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 25, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we don't beat U$C this season ...
I am not going to be ok with Neuheisel going 0-3 against them after three seasons. He has talked the talk, he needs to walk the walk as well. UCLA needs to beat U$C* at the Rose Bowl next season.
If Neheisel can’t accomplish that after three years in Westwood, I will take it as a significant negative mark heading into his four season. I feel pretty confident in saying going 0-3 against U$C will not be acceptable for UCLA alums who follow this program very closely.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm probably going to get stoned for this
but I don’t put that much weight into the $C game these next few years. I agree with rye. U$C is a top five team in the nation this year with a true freshman at QB. I can’t see them getting much worse next year, while we haven’t even cracked the top 25 this year. Even though, as a UCLA Bruin, I do place a lot of weight in the $C game every year, I also think we should take into account the reality that the talent gap between $C and UCLA is very wide. There will be a time and a place where I expect us to beat the trOJans, but that time is not now, and honestly I don’t see it in the near future.
by Centric on Oct 25, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I think "few years" makes it sound much longer than it actually is.
I think I can forsee expecting a win over U$C after next season.
by Centric on Oct 25, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One way to describe this comment
Dorrellian.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not even close SCs level.
With the product we have had in the last eight years, we deserve to lose to SC every year. (one year was a fluke)
Right now, we need to get this prgram back on track. Centric is right, lets try and have a nice winning season before even caring about SC.
Even the recruits we stole from them at the moment look like busts. One can’t catch with incredible speed, and the other can’t break a tackle.
by Bruin'96 on Oct 25, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
13-9 was no fluke.
Perhaps you have forgotten the ill fated day at the Rose Bowl in 2004 when the SPTRs robbed us of TWO fumble recoveries. One of which provided our player a clear path to the end zone.
I will always believe the Pac 10 knowingly allowed this to happen to allow USC and by extension the Pac 10 it’s first and only BCS National Championship.
13-9 was no fluke. We beat them in 2004 and repeated the act in 2006 with one of our worst coaching hires ever. Talent has nothing to do with it when hatred is your fuel.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 25, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess by this comment
We might as well just ask Neuheisel to take the Dorrell route following Notre Dame game and just gush over and say “oh what a great college football atmosphere that was. I was honored to take part in the game.”
So freaking pathetic and a joke.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't even understand how my comment can lead to
someone saying “oh what a great college football atmosphere that was.” I’m just trying to say that I don’t quite agree with your assessment that UCLA should beat SC next year. Sorry if my comment could’ve been misread as a Dorrellian justification for mediocrity. It was not my intention at all.
by Centric on Oct 25, 2009 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Being ok with losing to USC on our home turf
is Dorrellian. It reeks of the same Dorrelian mindset we saw when he and his lackies would try to justify losing in huge games. It reminded me of Dorrell’s infamous quotes after choking against ND in South Bend and sending signals how he was ok with it.
Losing to SC – especially at home – should never be ok if you consider yourself a Bruin.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
since my last post got a warning...
The friendlier version would read:
We’re not ready to compete with USC. Yes,we want them to win at home vs USC. But the reality is we can’t even compete in the PAC-10 yet. Sad reality at the moment, hopefully RN and others can stop the sinking ship before years end.
by Bruin'96 on Oct 25, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're entitled ....
I’m just not sure I see it exactly that way.
by Achilles on Oct 25, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wanted to add ...
I do see the symbolic value of 6-6 versus 5-7.
I’m just weighing that value against the value of playing the younger guys — risking 6-6 a bit — so that we get 10 or 11 wins two years from now … or beat SC next year.
Consider this one:
Why would we give snaps to Ramirez over Knox?
by Achilles on Oct 25, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Asked the same question
re. Ramirez/Knox here.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Missed that ...
when you wrote it.
So — we’re really not far apart in our thinking.
I think one thing on my mind is that I don’t have confidence in the older players. If the older players could get the job done, the coach that recruited them would still be here. I think because I don’t feel the older guys can get us to six wins necessarily, I really lean towards getting plays for the younger guys.
by Achilles on Oct 25, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
I want 6 wins but I also want to see tangible signs of better game management from our coaches. I want to see them showing clear signs of building foundation for the future. Just getting 3 more wins but getting blown out in the other 2 will not be signs of progress.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doom and Gloom
Gloom and Doom.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 25, 2009 11:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Negative
I know our team is not good. But you’re already talking about “strikes?” What do you expect the coaches to do?
I don’t think you could put any coach in place and win with the players we have on offense. The receivers right now are basically non-existent. The offensive line is still a work in progress, but is still much better than last season’s line. And quarterbacks?….lets not go there.
What do you expect? a 9-3 season his second season? In fact, I don’t even consider last season as his first season. Last season’s recruits was not his recruits…..last season’s players were not his players. The only players on offense that is left over from last season is 1-2 offensive linemen and the receivers, and the running backs (who aren’t bad).
We start judging him and the program next season. If they look this horrible next season (unlikely) then that is his first strike.
You can’t question play calling, because you have a legend on the sideline (or press box) calling plays. And you’re not a coach.
GO BRUINS!!!
This offensive is CRN’s offense right now, and they are basically still Freshmen and Sophomores
by LoveMyBruins on Oct 25, 2009 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
This is one of the dumbest comment I have read in a while (that we usually see pop up in post game threads). Where did we expect a 9-3 season? Do you want to point to that? If you can’t don’t come back here and offer silly takes again.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disregard last line lol
Forgot to delete the last line
by LoveMyBruins on Oct 25, 2009 11:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ok, used that as an exageration
Well, I was exaggerating, I apologize for that. Just a little upset. The goal was 6-6, it’s still possible. Just don’t appreciate talking about “strikes” when it’s this early in the rebuilding project.
Just putting in my opinion that it’s way too early to be this negative about the program.
by LoveMyBruins on Oct 25, 2009 12:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Calling it as it is
If we don’t get 6 wins, some will consider it as a “disappointment.” I will consider it as a strike.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
We’ll see. Hope we go 6-6. Also, hopefully you didn’t mean my posted comment as a whole was dumb, but rather the 9-3 remark. lol
by LoveMyBruins on Oct 25, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
6 Wins or bust
I agree with you Nestor if we dont get six wins out of Rick in this season I consider this season a disapointment. From what I saw from the Arizona game I cannot say we are progessing.
by bruins13 on Oct 25, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Here’s what I don’t get about CRN’s offense (and CNC). When I think back to his time at UW, I seem to remember fun teams. Teams that played with enthusiasm, and there was an unpredictability to the play calling. Now, this year’s team plays with almost a sense of doom. Franklin runs hard, but right when it looks like he’ll break out, they go away from him. The TE makes some plays, and then the WR’s then drop passes.
Next year’s schedule is a BEAST and I’ve tried to see seven wins. Normally, I would have definitely put Houston in the win column, but despite their one blip, they’ve been damn good. Of course, I don’t know who they lose next year, but they’re a spread offense and that’s given the Bruins problems. After that, I’m trying to see where they get wins.
That said, each season is different. I’ve gotta think that there will be more raw talent on the field next year than this. Sort of a go for broke. That’s all I can give as hope today. My Manchester United lost today, so I’m pretty pessimistic on life right now.
by BlackandOldGold on Oct 25, 2009 1:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
CRN
Remember CRN was his own OC back then. I think what is going on right now is CRN begged CNC to come abroard and now he is letting CNC call the shots. I think if CRN was calling his own plays you might see some of what you wrote about.
by Rico Bruin on Oct 25, 2009 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh ya
because Norm Chow is just so terrible, that’s why Neuheisel hired him
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 30, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Norm Chow is a $uc Mole!
After another game watching our milquetoast offense run less complex plays than a Pop Warner team, a thought struck me. What happened to offensive genius Norm Chow? The obivious answer is that this is an evil plot hatched by Chow and sneeky peety to ruin the CRN legacy before it can get started. What better way to undermine a new coach than to have his offensive coordinator create on offense like…..well, exactly like ours!
This comment is made with my tongue half way into my cheek. But you guys come up with a better explanation.
by beetsc on Oct 25, 2009 1:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Strikes and 6 wins
Strikes and 6 wins are really irrelevant at this when we have a team that is unwatchable. The offense stinks pure and simple. No production and no execution. The QB position is a joke. Meanwhile SC has a freshman QB who is mentioned in the Heisman conversation. The media keeps saying this team is too young. That is bullshit. Teams across the country are winning with freshman in key positions. Can you spell Tate Forcier? The defense has great personnel but they are outschemed every week. I don’t care how many games we win (and I only see 1 more possible win, WSU) but I want to see us execute and play inspired on both sides of the ball. At least under Bob Toledo, the Bruins were exciting to watch. Maybe it is a blessing the OSU game is not televised on Halloween. It is gonna get freaky ugly—early and often. Now I’m done.
by bruin75 on Oct 25, 2009 1:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
re: tate forcier/matt barkley read my article
they don’t run the complex offense that we do; sark’s offense warped U$C’s offense to fit to dumber QB’s
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?
Why not use a simpler offense until the qbs get up to speed?
by Bruin'96 on Oct 25, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are
And Chow isn’t as good of a coordinator because of it. Read my article
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too much emphasis on winning,
I think. And, I’m including CRN in that characterization.
I think that the coaching staff started the season with conservative plans, and after a 3 and 0 start, got conservatively entrenched. Bring the kids along slowly. Don’t give them too much. Work within our limitations. Don’t take chances.
We would feel very differently if we had an identical record, but had arrived at 3 and 4 with obvious improvement from week to week.
Coach never set winning as a goal. I think CRN and company should get numbers of wins out of their heads, inject a bit of nothing-to-lose swashbucker mentality, and focus entirely on every player and every coach becoming the best they are capable of becoming.
Success is peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you did your best to become the best you are capable of becoming.
by Bruinut on Oct 25, 2009 1:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
As you might guess from some of my other posts in this thread ...
I find much wisdom in your words.
I’m not as pure as Coach Wooden — I do talk about wins and winning and national titles and I do desire that my team wins them — I also am wondering if progress for this group has a measure other than record.
by Achilles on Oct 25, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coach was also extremely competitive
And if his players were dropping passes, missing blocks, arm tackling, run wrong routes, etc; He would be the first one in their ears and have no hesitation sending under performers to the bench.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 25, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where did you think we would be
Honestly, to everyone.
At the beginning of the season, everyone was saying 6-6 and be bowl eligible is the goal.
Does anyone really believe we were going to be much better than 3 and 4 at this time if we were looking for 6 wins?
We thought SDSU and KSU were definite wins.
Tennessee was supposed to be a concession loss.
Even at home, I think most would have agreed we were probably going to lose to both Oregon and Cal (both preseason top 25).
Between Stanford and Arizona, I think most would have taken a split.
If you look at that, we would be (guess what) 3 and 4. The fact that its been 4 in a row is hard to take and I’ve said before, my biggest concern after 3 straight wins was the schedule and possibly forgetting what winning feels like.
The coaches still have WSU circled, ASU at home circled and Washington at home circled to get to our 6. It that happens and we end up playing Fresno State in the Las Vegas bowl, everyone labels this a—that’s where i expected to be.
We had two true freshmen, a true sophomore and a redshirt sophomore starting on the O-Line.
Don’t tell me Barkley is wonder kid. If he was playing for UCLA he’d be flat on his back half the time. The uncredited superstar of USC is their O-Line. Count gators for how long Barkley gets protection. Do the same for Prince, Kraft or whoever is in there. Same goes on the run. Those SC running backs get huge holes opened for them. The thing about SC is that they always have the best OL and they are willing to wait their turn for their shot. So they always have 6-5, 320 lb linemen that are juniors and seniors giving their QBs all day to throw.
We need to CONSISTENTLY recruit talent and get our current guys bigger and stronger. RIght now, they are barely the size of your average D-1 defense so they are getting overrun. A lot will happen between the Freshmen/Sophomore season and I’m really looking forward into our stength and conditioning coaches putting some bulk on our young OL (hopefully Su A Filo sticks around and doesn’t head off on the mission).
Support the team. ASU and Washington home games will be critical. Focus on WSU. If we somehow pull out a win next Saturday against OSU, look at it as a gift. I hope we do, but I honestly can’t think we will.
by ylbruin on Oct 25, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I Agree With You
As disheartening as it was to watch yesterday’s game w/all the gimmes from AZ we could not capitalize on, I’m tired of bashing the defense…(Rahim Moore, Jerry S. with 3 passion plays,etc.) were playmakers yesterday. I’m putting myself in their shoes where they are giving their all, and know they want to win. I also saw Austin play with fire yesterday and be bashed in these posts for a replacement….I thought his returns yesterday on special teams were better than average. Must be a bummer to be a UCLA player and read some of the posts here. Obviously the team is not a cohesive unit, but I feel like veterans like Austin, Paulsen, etc. deserve more support than they are getting here. The freshmen need their time, but don’t give up on our seniors that have literally “been through it all” as UCLA players.
by bruinmom on Oct 25, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the point you are missing
in your assessment is the progression, not the record. Yes, winning the first 3 may have raised expectations unjustifably higher, but it is the overall impression made by dropping the next four which creates the discontent. It screams two things, loudly: 1) the team is not really ready to compete in the conference – top to bottom – even if the defeat margins have shrunk; 2) overall the team is not getting better. Stagnating or decaying are the options, as the offense remains ineffectual, and the defense is showing signs (last 2 games particularly) of cracking under the strain of carrying the team. Expected better/more from CRN and OC Chow than that. Perhaps not much better, but better. Improvement – it is not forthcoming.
The Mad Bruin
by lostnacfgop on Oct 25, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, its forgetting how to win
I understand about progression. Look at the last 4 games.
Against Stanford and probably one of the best running backs in the conference on the road, with our starting quarterback out, we still had an opportunity to tie in the final 2 minutes.
Against Oregon (granted sans their starting QB), a special teams screw up and an interception cost the game. Sure the D could have played a little better under the circumstances, but its a game you look at like we played decently until the first minute of the 3rd quarter. Then mediocre after that.
Against Cal. Yes, we all say that CRN should have gone for it on 4th and inches, especially what happened after. That was almost season defining because it really made a statement about where he felt this team was and he did not have confidence. I won’t say it would have changed the result of the game, but it clearly had an impact on the psyche of our young team. If anything, this is what stands out the most in my mind other than the fact that no one respects our D when Price is out of the line up.
Against Arizona, all I can say is, I have yet to see a team with such happy feet. They weren’t a step ahead of us, they were like a block ahead. As for the offense. I will say I agree that our offense is not ready to compete because the offensive line is not big enough or strong enough. How many of our pac 10 competitors are starting 4 underclassmen on the O Line?—I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was 0. I don’t want to make excuses for these guys. They are a significant improvement over last year, but they do have a long way to go.
by ylbruin on Oct 26, 2009 2:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Six wins is the standard,
but it’s not what I really want from Neuheisel. In my mind, this season is not the test. Our problems at the moment seem to be so numerous and so severe that even the sharp eyes and minds at BN can scarcely do more than suggest that we take more chances. Try this player or that, this scheme or that. Blitz more, open up the play book, put this or that Wunderkind in the game. Get smart, get tough, get desperate. And so forth. Maybe some of this will happen and we’ll finish the season looking a lot better, maybe winning the three games we all seem to want. Maybe it will all come together and we’ll seriously challenge the despicable Trojans. Honestly, I can see that all happening. And I can see it not happening. But to get to the point. Here’s what I want from CRN. Change the culture, so that in three years UCLA will be taken seriously in the world of college football because we will be good enough to pose a serious challenge against any team in the country. That’s all I want. Take your time.
by ReineSeite on Oct 25, 2009 3:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We need 6 wins as our goal this year
After 7 games, my conclusion is that we might win 6, but realistically I only expect 5 wins. My personal evaluation on the team is as follows: Quarterbacking, F; Offensive Line, C+ but improving; Receivers, D; Running backs, B; Defensive Line, C; Linebacking, C-; Defensive backs, C+; Kicking Team, A; and Special Team, F. In the Arizona game, they tried to give us the game and we can not capitalize it. Those interceptions were lucky picks, definitely not by skills. The defense looked so horrible that we can not stop their 3rd down conversions at all. I turned off the TV set after the 3rd quarter and I had never felt so bad before, but I am still hoping……..
by NNL on Oct 25, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
seems ok
but the QB’s should be at least D+
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 25, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
passing game
yeah, QB needs to be at least that… or combined QB + receivers around a C and that would equal at least one more win.
Improving the offense in anyway would boost the defense a grade by just keeping them off the field more.
by Bruin'96 on Oct 25, 2009 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Six = Zero
With this flop of a team we have on the field this season, the important questions to ask are: Is this team’s performance and it’s W/L record acceptable to CRN? I don’t think it is, and that’s important, because it was acceptable to the last guy. Is CRN bringing in the talent that, as it matures and gains experience, is going to enable UCLA to field very good and possibly even great teams? I believe the answer is yes, at least based on how highly our recruits are ranked and which other schools (re: the prison crew across town) are chasing the same recruits. Is this team showing an improvement over last year? According to our W/L record, no. But play in and play out, on both sides of the ball, yes. So, let’s see what the coach can produce next year before we start setting artificial benchmarks.
Quite frankly, six wins and a Las Vegas bowl berth this year would have been an improvement and satisfied CRN’s benchmark. But to me it’s just as good as zero. I’m more interested in seeing CRN build a program that wins 9 – 12 games every year and competes for a BCS title. So the question should be, not, are we going to manage to eek out six wins and a bowl berth, but is this coach building a foundation for consistent success and greatness. As an aside, I think it’s important to point out that, if CRN is taking us on a journey to somewhere, I still hate losing along the way and it’s never, ever, OK to lose to SC. Ever. That game matters every year.
by Bruin Die Hard on Oct 25, 2009 6:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Talent
I get a little tired with the lack of talent assumption being the cause of our team’s problems. Come on. Does anyone really believe Boise St., or Fresno St., or TCU has so much more talent than we? Do you think the players believe they are so devoid? Any effective coach knows and understands the assets he possess, their limits AND strengths, and how to employ them most productively against an opponent he fully understands. CRN has not as of yet created a team. Think of the mental errors; penalties, blown coverages, misunderstood pass patterns. What does that have to do with talent? Think of what many of us see as dispirited play. What does that have to do with talent? And even if we aren’t loaded with 4 and 5 star recruits, where is the creativity and inspiration that makes players believe in themselves and achieve beyond their talent? It all starts with coaching and it all starts at the very top. I feel that more than once now I have seen that “deer in the headlights” stare signifying on the sidelines that we don’t know what to do.
Just one more thought. I also believe that if CRN “instructs” Richard Brehaut on the sidelines the way he has the Kevins, he too will wind up with little confidence and happy feet.
Sorry you all, it’s how I feel.
by Harco on Oct 25, 2009 8:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you can't compare!
Boise St., Fresno St. and TCU have coaches that have been with those programrs forever. You can’t possibly compare them to a UCLA team that is going from a ridiculous coaching regime to one where they are trying to instill the right system from scratch.
I agree with your argument about talent for the most part, but comparing UCLA to those programs is a fallacy right now. Not to mention that they play in weaker conferences.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Oct 25, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brehaut
I think we should stick to Prince. Everyone says Brehaut should get a chance, but even with the garbage time he plays, he gets sacked all the time and just looks inexperienced. I don’t think any of our QB’s have the ability to step in and contribute right away, meaning we have to foster our players instead of just dropping one for the other the second they screw up. It’s just frustrating in general how a football program takes years to build, but you just have to take those lumps with the process. I never thought this was going to be the season where we’d become a contender, but just because we’re not, doesn’t mean that it’s completely the QB’s fault.
Or maybe I’m just defending Prince because I just bought a #14 jersey two weeks ago, because it’d be a complete waste of money if he got benched…
by all hail westwood on Oct 25, 2009 8:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Brehaut gets put in bad situations
The limited action that Brehaut has gotten has been when we are already down by a lot and at the end of the game. In other words, obvious passing situations. Consequently, since there is no concern of us running the ball, they bring blitzes leading to sacks. I think this is why a lot of commentators here have said its unfair to Brehaut and impossible to judge him on the limited action he has had because even though he is getting game snaps, they aren’t really in the flow of the game. I’d like to see him get the start next week and see how a backfield of Brehaut and Franklin can do. It could be a disaster, but it cant be much worse than what we’ve had the last few weeks.
by bruinponcho on Oct 25, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nestor
I remember being here in December 2007 when Guerrero hired Neuheisel and we had been talking about coaching possibilities, naming coaches around the country. Neuheisel seemed like a good deal, considering we knew our AD wouldn’t put the money out to get a Mike Leach-type here. I remember him doing some good things with Washington and thinking he had the perfect charisma to compete against PC.
But the game management has been bad and our guys look weak and unprepared. The product on the field looks kind of worse than Dorrell’s teams, except the offense does look more hopeful. I heard a guy on the David Vassegh show after the game say something to the effect that these are D-1 level athletes, guys who had been recruited by top-level schools; and they can’t make tackles or catch passes; or make a pass for that matter.
I just can’t believe that’s my team out there and I’m hoping Neuheisel has a plan like he said, because I’m having buyer’s remorse. And in my opinion, if Neuheisel doesn’t pull this off, then Guerrero goes as well. We’re UCLA. We deserve a good team. I just want to see them compete and have a chance. It’s frustrating.
by bruin95 on Oct 25, 2009 9:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What doesn't kill us will make us stronger
Everybody take a deep breath and let it out slowly. It is just a game. What is going on right now is what is laughingly called in the teacher trade as a learning experience. Prince is what, 18 or 19 years old. The coaches and fans and teammates put the whole reputation of the institution of UCLA on his shoulders. Anybody would whither under that kind of pressure. I suspect the coaches are putting a lot of pressure on these kids to be outstanding all the time. That excessive pressure is what causes mistakes and poor performance. What they need to do is dial it back and let the players’ natural athletic abilities take over. It is not the play calling or schemes or even the coaching. I see players making mistakes because they are overly concerned with trying do exactly what they are supposed to do.
After the disaster of last weekend, I see the players and coaches coming to realize that it is time to let it all hang out and just go out and play. It is actually a good thing we are playing an away game because they won’t have a lot of eyes staring down their necks expecting miracles. It is just a game. Let the kids enjoy playing it.
by Keptycho on Oct 25, 2009 10:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It is just a game
Talk about looking past an upcoming game ! We are looking past the entire season. Now two seasons.Skip prognosticating on the number of wins and when will be a “great team” and concentrate on playing good football. I agree. if the team has more fun playing the game they are going to learn more. This team is just too uptight. And maybe the coaches, too. And maybe the fans. I think at this point in time the coaches should use some finessing and not just pounding. Same with the fans !
by northbaybruin on Oct 26, 2009 2:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm fine with learning experiences...
Provided that we actually learn from them. So far, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that is indeed occurring.
by insomniacslounge on Oct 26, 2009 2:27 AM PDT up 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.
