Random Thoughts on the Arizona Game and Where We Are
We are where many of us thought we'd be. I do not like losing. There are no moral victories. But, I am not surprised by where we are today, 3-4 and at the bottom of the Pac 10. And, for that reason, I'll not make ultimatums or decide, today, that our season was a failure.
1. It's normal to make pre-season predictions and talk about expectations BUT they are but educated guesses (and to some extent wishes) as to how things will play out. We are pretty much on schedule except -- we beat a Tennessee team that many thought would beat us and we lost to an Arizona team some picked us to beat. I think Arizona is better than many pre-season people thought it would be and Tennessee might be a bit weaker (but, had they been able to win, yesterday, our victory would look bigger. We are in a strong conference. (Even UW looked good, in early games -- and probably because of Locker (we are learning that you cannot win the games you must win without great QB play). If you picked us to go 8-4 or 7-5, even 6-6, you picked us to beat some teams that are better than we are.)
Calling for 6 victories and a bowl game, before one snap, is built upon assumptions about how talented other teams are, how even the conference is AND which of our players will be injured.
I think the critical injuries -- that destroyed pre-season predictions and expectations -- were those to Hester and Prince. Prince is not the QB who played the Tenn. game. There is something different and noticeable. I think the injury took a lot out of him, emotionally, physically, and in "sharpness"; I question whether, under the pressure of "must win" games, he will get it back.
My point: I can't be disappointed in the players or the coaches for being what most of us thought they'd be -- a less talented, young team.
2. James Washington is right -- we are too young and lack the talent to do much more than we are doing now. (This is a negative way of interpreting his comments. He's much more positive about UCLA and every criticism has a tag line indicating that things are and will be better. I am amazed about his attitude, especially after he was passed over for a coaching position. He has every reason to be bitter or snide -- but he isn't. He is a Bruin.)
Washington continually pointed out that we are playing 33 freshmen and sophomores. And, channeling some of the comments here, on BN, he pointed out that we are not just talking about experience -- we are talking about body strength and size. Give these guys a couple of years in the weight room and watch out. (Where have we seen this before? On the hardwoods where we've seen some great transitions between the freshmen and sophomore years. Can we all say RW together?)
3. Washington was also on point on our QB position. We have inexperience surrounded by people who just aren't making the plays the QB's need them to make.
Let's not forget how inexperienced Prince is. He didn't even play his senior year in high school.
Kevin Craft is what Kevin Craft is. He gives us all he has but it's not enough. We should thank him for being the best he can be. A lot of his team mates haven't reached that point, yet.
Brehaut, in the best of all worlds, would have been redshirted. We couldn't do that because we are so weak at QB. It's no surprise to me, in his clean up minutes, he does not shine.
However, I'm sliding to the camp that would like to see him start a game.
How good are our seniors? We all seem to agree with the commentator who does not see an early round draft choice -- other than Price (a junior) -- on either side of the ball. Once more, Washington is channeling BN when he points the finger at CTS.
What few seniors are playing, with the exception of ATV and a courageous, playing hurt Carter, we are not getting a lot of leadership from our seniors. Logan Paulson has just never come into his own. Now, he's dropping passes and picking up stupid penalties.
As maddening as the young guy mistakes are, I really can't blame them too much. They should not be playing. They should be learning. Rosario will be an incredible receiver when he "grows up".
3. Randall Carroll's Tweet: I'm really torn about this. I resent it and there is a part of me that wants him sanctioned. Then, I realize that he is young and immature and that young and immature kids say stupid things. (Some of us Geezers do to.). I wish he had not done it, but I trust CRN and CNC to deal with it.
I really don't like Divos (male Divas). If this guy has a bad attitude, I trust they will get rid of him. He's already been sanctioned once.
But, I'm hoping he is just a young, disappointed kid with a big mouth, a kid who if taught correctly can channel that energy appropriately and help the team,
4. Finally, we are not "just like last year" or "worse than last year." There is one difference between this team, all of CTS's teams and last year. We are not rolling over and accepting defeat. We have been in all of these games and have never stopped playing hard.
That, to me, is the sign of growth.
I've said this before and it may be my mantra for the season: We are disappointed because we are losing games that we could be winning. Games that in the preseason we did not think we'd win. So we get close and lose and the disappointment is all the greater because -- with a few plays here or there, a few less penalties -- we'd win.
And, therein, I think, lies most of our frustration. I, for one, take this as a positive sign.
I am not surprised or disappointed about where we are now. We are where I expected us to be. And, in a few years, we will be where I expect us to be, back on top where all UCLA teams belong.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
8 recs |
35 comments
| Add comment
Comments
Rec'd
You nailed just about all of my thoughts. Patience isn’t fun, but it’s necessary and while I still think six wins is a reasonable expectation, I’ve seen nothing to make me question CRN’s long-term plans for the program and where it is going.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 25, 2009 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree
But I also agree with N when talking about our vanilla D. I was literally BEGGING my TV for a friggin’ blitz in the first half. One of the most frustrating games to watch in a long time.
Patience is certainly required, but we cannot compare this team to CBH’s second season. He had some legitimate leaders in DT, CB, and RH. We have ZERO leaders on offense. Tough to win like that.
by hicalliber on Oct 25, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was yelling at the TV and for a blitz
and I watched the game, by way of a DVR, hours after it was over.
What are we missing. These things seem so obvious to us, and they worked later in the game. Why wait so long to adjust?
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 25, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really care much for the young excuse
Never bought it during Dorrell era and don’t care much for it. Sure we are young but that doesn’t explain the vanilla schemes especially on defense.
Moreover, if our talent is young, then our coaches should scheme in a way to fit the skill level of our players and put them in position to succeed.
The critical fumble and drop yesterday came from Christian Ramirez. It is befuddling why he started over JetSki. Nick Ekbatani started over Hasiak and kind of stunk up the joint with stupid penalties. Speaking of stupid penalties, Paulsen – a senior – stunted another drive yesterday with dumb mistakes. Being young are not excuse for those players.
As for Brehaut, Neuheisel made a huge mistake by not playing him against Kansas State. Craft is a good kid but playing him doesn’t send the indication that Neuheisel is playing to win and it is extremely disheartening.
I will treat Neuehisel under the same standards I approached Dorrell. I appreciate his passion and love for UCLA, but that doesn’t mean I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he makes questionable decisions on how he is managing the program.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 12:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I am treating CRN the same as I treated CTS
but there’s a big difference. CTS inherited talent. CRN got almost none — and had gaping holes to fill in places like the OL.
If we give CRN the same amount of time we gave CTS — he will have us where we have been trying to go — whereas CTS had absolutely no chance of getting us there.
As to schemes, where do you place undeveloped bodies? No one told CBH he had to find a scheme to feature Bobo. Fortunately, he could play around him. CRN can’t.
I think you and I agree on a lot of things — especially on the D. I’ve not been a fan of this D for the last 3 years. I raised it, over and over again, and have only shut up about it because others are shouting it, today.
And, I’m somewhat convinced that it is time to start Brehaut — but, in doing so, we may give up a game we might win, just to get him some experience. There is a reason he is not playing — I amy not know it but the coaches do. As much as we want to win so do CRN and CNC. Both are “wiinners”. This must be hurting them a lot.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 25, 2009 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Talent argument
I know Dorrell left this program devoid of talent. That is why we had a joke OL and inexperience issue at QBs. That’s just for starters.
Then that leads to the question why the heck are we playing Ekbatani? Why the heck we keep sticking with Austin at return? Why the heck aren’t we doing more to incorporate Thigpen, Knox, Presley in our passing game?
Where the heck is Milton Knox? He made spectacular plays in Tennessee keeping drives alive. He clearly has the physical ability to play D-1. Why are we seeing Ramirez, fumbling and bumbling around instead of Knox on the field?
Why did we burn Brehaut’s redshirt if we were never going to give him an adequate opportunity to prove himself on the field?
Those are serious questions I have with how this staff has managed personnel in this program. So far this season, I haven’t gotten any kind of satisfactory explanation.
Also, you bring up Howland. The greatness of Howland is that he had no problem starting young guys from the get go. He basically threw in AA, JF, and JS from their first year … sitting down the Lavin holdovers. I haven’t seen much of that in key positions from Neuheisel.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am willing to go young and live with the consequences
But, those consequences are not a 6 win season and a bowl game.
I don’t think we can have it both ways. And, I think that’s where the staff is stuck.
Also, I have a feeling that they will not “bench” the older players out of some sort of respect for their commitment to UCLA. I have mixed feelings about that. I think we should honor that commitment WHEN the younger player pushing for a position is of equal talent. But, if the younger player is playing harder or wants it more, or if it is going to be a push between an underachieving senior and a freshman who is playing his best and learning, I’ll take the younger player.
I am a huge Knox fan and wish he were playing more.
Did anyone ever learn more about the violation committed by Knox and the others? It seems the penalty was more than a one game suspension. Knox has been dropped from the rotation. (Wasn’t he sick one week, too?)
BTW — didn’t read the game day threads. Were people pleased that we “played to win” by taking on some 4th down conversions? I think some of those decisions showed foolish bravado.
I think we have to decide this is a development season and play the young guys into experience OR keep pushing for a bowl game and take the guys who, by experience, seem to give us a better shot at that goal.
But, simply stated, we don’t have a quarterback who can fit the latter scenario unless Brehaut becomes Cade in the next game and leads us to 3 wins in the remaining games. Are we willing to give him that chance even if doing so ruins his confidence and destroys his future potential?
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 25, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually by the time we went on 4th downs
It was too little too late. We showed our total lack of courage when we kicked a FG down by 14 on 4th 7 at the 34. Once again we looked Dorrellian. By the time we started going for it on 4th they were obvious 4th down decisions in desperate situations. It didn’t show any sense of bravado.
by Nestor on Oct 25, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing CBH to CRN is the wrong way to go IMO
The difference between football and basketball is drastic. Whether it be the number of players needed to turn a program around, the number of games basketball players get to develop over the course of the year or the difference in physical maturity needed to succeed early on in each sport, I think it’s a poor comparison. They are vastly different games. How many freshmen come in and make a major impact around the country in football? There are a few exceptional players, but you see a a lot more redshirts and mistakes. In basketball, it’s not the strangest thing for freshmen to lead a team or have a freshman as your best player. I don’t think there’s any comparison to draw in the building of a football and basketball program.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Oct 25, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Rye is onto something remarkable here.
“The difference between football and basketball is drastic.” I agree. I’m pretty sure that a football is not even the same shape as a basketball. And it’s very hard to dribble a football. Rye, when you’re right, you’re right.
by Fox 71 on Oct 25, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fox
It’s a little late for you to agree here considering you had also used Howland to bash Dorrell. You are being intellectually inconsistent.
by Nestor on Oct 26, 2009 4:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was KIDDING.
And anyway, I’m a lawyer. I’m supposed to be inconsistent when necessary.
by Fox 71 on Oct 26, 2009 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
by bruin8uclap on Oct 27, 2009 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Intellectual?
Basketball round. Football not round. If that’s intellectual then Two and a Half Men is the smartest show on television.
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
by bruin8uclap on Oct 27, 2009 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Syracuse 2002/03 is a great example. Team was unranked in the preseason and rode a freshman all the way to the National Championship. You don’t see that happen in Div I football.
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
by bruin8uclap on Oct 26, 2009 1:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tebow, Maurice Clarett
It’s been done.
RIP #34
by linkbruin on Oct 26, 2009 3:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitt this year
There’s a piece in today’s NY Times about a freshman running back out of tiny Blair Academy in New Jersey who’s been sparking Pitt to its 7-1 season so far—5’8", 195, hardly recruited. Not the Pac-10, but if the Panthers can beat Cincinnati and West Virginia—a tough order—they’ll be in a BCS bowl.
by Herodotus on Oct 26, 2009 5:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tebow was a back-up quarterback
the year Florida won the national title in 2006.
Chris Leak was the Gators’ starting quarterback. Tebow came in an basically ran the wildcat about 5 plays a game that year.
by CAJason80 on Oct 26, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope
OSU was ranked 6th to start that year. Syracuse pretty much came out of nowhere. As for Tebow, read below. Your welcome to try again though.
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
by bruin8uclap on Oct 27, 2009 1:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I missed your unranked portion of the stipulation
RIP #34
by linkbruin on Oct 28, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
my only point is that in basketball, a sport where only 5 players at a time take the court and play offense AND defense, a team can go from nowhere to National Champion due to that one great player. This is a lot more difficult to pull off in football.
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
by bruin8uclap on Oct 28, 2009 9:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We will have to agree to disagree
Wrt to how coaches from major revenue program build the foundation of their teams, use available talent at key positions, and change the culture of entire programs, there are room for comparisons.
by Nestor on Oct 26, 2009 4:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The culture changes when
All of the talent recruited from the previous regime is vacated. We still have a lot of holdover “talent” from the Dorrell regime including Austin, Ekbatani (cringe), and our scholarship long snapper (gag). IMHO, I think Neu is dealing with having to play a lot of players that he never would have taken a look at in recruiting. Players like Gavin Kechum who really have no business playing at UCLA.
My point is, the foundation is forming already, only a year and a half into the new regime.
I must agree though, the playing of Ramirez is a travesty, and frankly it’s embarrassing.
by inhowlandwetrust on Oct 26, 2009 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree wholeheartedly
and I think that’s what CRN means when he implores the fans to stick with them and that we’ll get there.
CTS basically recruited leftovers and second thoughts, kids of high character and great Bruins, but clearly not the caliber of football players that should be at UCLA.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
by tasser10 on Oct 26, 2009 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haven't noticed any problems with our long snapper ...
Are we playing a non-scholarship long-snapper vs. a scholarship long-snapper who is incompetent? Thought I saw a post here recently praising our long snapper who had an eye towards an NFL career.
by snorkeldorf on Oct 27, 2009 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hes an all american
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 27, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you have to separate the two...
being young IS an excuse in many ways because as 66 pointed out, a lot of these kids are now being forced to learn-on-the-job as opposed to in the classroom, possibly risking injury, etc. One can only ‘scheme’ so far before youth actually does play a significant role. Now you DO bring up a good point re. the older group of players who literally have stunk: Ramirez, Paulsen, etc. Ramirez, as you point out, is beyond me why he is even starting, let alone, playing. He’s injury prone, not as fast, and simply not as good as Franklin. You and i and a few others called for Brehaut to start back in game three. I still believe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, esp. since they already burned his RS year. We’re last in the Pac10 with five to go, we have nothing to lose at this point.
I don’t think CRN has yet proven, however, to be MISmanaging the program. I think he’s if anything realizing how weak this team was (the one inherited) and how young it really is.
W.S. Montano Class of 1994
by wsmontano1994 on Oct 26, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The merry-go-round
approach to our running back situation this year is befuddling.
Johnathan Franklin is far and away the best running back on this team, as shown in the numerous amounts of time he’s touched the ball in game situations. He is pretty much a lock for a 5-6 yard gain every time he touches the ball and a hole opens up.
I am amazed we continually sub him out in critical game situations. I understand the need to keep people fresh, but when your #1 option is that much better than everyone else, give him the rock and keep him on the field. We’ve killed drives all year by taking him out of the game.
by CAJason80 on Oct 26, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Milton Knox is also very good ...
perhaps not quite as fast as Franklin, but extremely elusive. Thigpen may be the fastest of the three, but I haven’t seen his elusiveness yet. Coleman appears slower than he probably really is because he is so much bigger. Perhaps he’d be better suited as a fullback, but not sure if his deafness allows for flexibility there (does a fullback have to adjust more than a tailback based on play change audibles at the line?).
by snorkeldorf on Oct 27, 2009 6:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man i think
they give C ram the benefit of the doubt and he eats up carries deserved for coleman and knox. It seems they feel they owe him playing time but i don’t care if that kid eats bench for the rest of the year, I WANT KNOX!!!!!
by AMM19 on Oct 25, 2009 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Knox...
…screwed himself when he got suspended. There is no doubt in my mind that he would be getting some carries if he hadn’t done whatever he did to get suspended. I look for Knox to be the #2 back next year and make a difference. This year…remains to be seen, but I just don’t see him being a big part of our offense (unfortunately).
by hicalliber on Oct 25, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What were the coaches thinking in the Spring
When they had settled on C-Ram as the no. 1, with Franklin down to 3 and Knox 4? Hate to say it, but good thing C-Ram got injured. We can bring up countless excuses at this point for this or that decision — injury, minjury, whatever — but there’s an obvious flaw in coaching judgment exposed by the fact that our best RB was sunk to THIRD in the depth chart after spring, and was likely to stay there if not for injury.
There is clearly a fear factor with this staff. I just hope they get over it. A good sign out of practice today that Knox was apparently involved in a lot more first-team reps.
by bluebland on Oct 27, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don't really mean that I am guessing
When you write it’s a “good thing” one of our guys got “injured.”
by Nestor on Oct 28, 2009 4:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course I don't really mean it
I’d never wish injury upon anyone. Just meant to point out how frustrating it is that it took an injury to allow our best player to play, when the coaches should’ve known he was better regardless.
Good lord. All this losing can make an asshole out of any of us.
by bluebland on Oct 28, 2009 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















