Conservative ...
... is another word for Dorrellian Donahue football.
It's not something I want to see associated with Rick Neuheisel's offense at UCLA. From Tracy Pierson at BruinReportOnline.com (emphasis added):
I know, calling UCLA’s offense conservative is about the dirtiest word you could use to describe it, after coming off a long six years of a mind-numbingly conservative offense under Karl Dorrell. But, Bruin fans, sometimes you have to use dirty words to aptly describe how it is. Also, under the coaching-blame umbrella, you have to list the penalties and the poor management of the play-calling and personnel. After a bye week in which the coaches repeated that they needed to clean up the penalties, once again UCLA’s penalties were huge in determining the outcome of this game. And, it’s inexplicable that UCLA sometimes struggles in the management of the offense. In this game, and in previous games this year and last season, UCLA 1) struggled to get the play in, 2) struggled to get in the right personnel for a certain play, 3) had a number of mis-assignments or busted plays, 4) had to call a timeout to get everything right or 5) wasted precious seconds (in this game, 35 seconds on UCLA’s second to last drive) when it could have called a timeout but waited to do it, probably because there was a problem with one of the first four things on this list, or a combination thereof. UCLA seems to struggle with these issues more than other programs. And you really can’t blame the players; compared to other programs, UCLA is generally younger, but its players are generally smarter, right? There seems to be a problem with the discipline of the team. And that falls at the feet of the coaches. For most of last season, you could clearly see that UCLA was at a disadvantage in terms of talent. There was a clear talent deficit. But now, this season, and in this game, it’s clear that UCLA has some talent. Stanford was good, and actually pretty talented, and will probably fare pretty well against the Pac-10 (I’d be surprised if they don’t beat Cal). Last season the primary problem was the lack of talent on UCLA’s offensive line, but that really wasn’t an issue in this game. Early on, it opened impressive holes for its running backs, before Stanford adjusted and dedicated more defenders against the run, and it provided good pass protection throughout the game. Going up against the best team UCLA had faced yet this season, the Cardinal, it was clear that UCLA’s offensive line was now talented enough to enable the offense to be effective. There was no longer the talent deficit on the OL, which is the primary determining factor in how an offense will perform. So, really, you shouldn’t worry about whether UCLA is getting enough talent. It’s clear that, in just Neuheisel’s second year, he’s bringing in talent that can play at this level, and even be among the elite in the conference. In recruiting, the program’s on track. It’s clear that this season will be a step forward in terms of a talent upgrade, and it’s reasonable to expect that there will be another step up for 2010 and another for 2011. But for UCLA to go where we all want it to go, the issues that fall under the coach-blame umbrella have to be "cleaned up." Can't agree more with Tracy. You should read rest of his outstanding analysis over at BRO (which is not behind the subscription firewall at the time of this post). Let me make it clear. I still believe in Rick Neuheisel and am excited about the direction of our program under him. There is no excuse for what took place in Palo Alto yesterday. That was a winnable game.
Of course Staford deserves due credit for executing an outstanding game plan on their part and putting together a solid program with a great coach at helm (who IMHO will eventually end up either in Ann Arbor or the NFL). However, that doesn't mean we will stay quiet in the name of blind supporting our head coach for putting together a questionable offensive game plan and an unprepared and unfocused team after two weeks off.
The good thing about Neuheisel is that he seems to be the first UCLA head football coach in decades who is in tune with Bruins Nation and who is aware of the existence of an "entire world that bleeds blue and gold." While we have been dying for what took place in Neyland stadium three weekends ago, what we have been really dying for is a team who gives that kind of effort every Saturday (not just once or twice a year like the listless UCLA football teams have done since the departure of Cade McNown).
Hope you get the message coach. We are counting on you (and rooting for you) to prove yesterday's conservatism was an aberration.
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
19 comments
|
Comments
Nice post
We’ll just have to see what happens now, we’re on a clean slate for the next 8 weeks
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 4, 2009 9:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure
that conservatism was a bad idea when relying on a backup quarterback and many new players. We all know Neuheisel and Chow have a lot of plays in their repertoire, but not sure the team is really ready for all of that. What would you have said if they put in some quadruple reverses and 99 yard flea flicker pass plays only to see a game with 20 turnovers. Would that have been more pleasing? Let’s be patient for this team to progress a bit each year.
by Joe Bruin on Oct 4, 2009 9:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 4, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the offense is so shackled by Craft
Then why haven’t they worked on getting Brehaut ready for this game and give him a look for a series or two? We defended Neuheisel/Chow when they burned his redshirt against San Diego State. If they intended to burn it all along, they should have given him a shot and see what he can do.
by Nestor on Oct 4, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah that's what I don't really get
I totally understand sticking with Craft if Brehaut wasn’t ready, but then, as you said, why burn his RS in the opener? The only thing would be if he actually has regressed that much over the past 3 weeks, which I find pretty unlikely
Has there ever been a player better than Detlef Schrempf?
by bucknellbruin on Oct 4, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The conservatism here
Is in starting Craft. When you start Craft, you’re limiting yourself to a 7-yard offense. Yes, it would’ve been nice to come out of the 2nd half with another 2-minute offense to try and quickly change momentum, since that offense worked the previous 3 times against the Stanford D (going back a year). The refusal to roll the dice was extremely frustrating.
But playing Craft (and I’m not saying we had a viable choice, though I suspect we did) is playing “not to lose.” And continuing to return kicks with Austin instead the far more talented, far faster Thigpen is ridiculous if you ask me. Austin is not a playmaker. He doesn’t even make good decisions, almost losing the ball on that last punt. A guy like Thigpen can change the whole game with one breakthrough, but he’s not playing because he’s a freshman?
The personnel decisions (and somebody please explain Price over Vinney) are the real conservatism here.
by bluebland on Oct 4, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why can't Chow overcome Craft's Limitations?
If Craft is the better choice (over Brehaut) then why can’t Chow run a better offense? Chow is an offensive genius and Craft’s arm isn’t his only weapon! What up? We may not be able to win a Pac-10 championship (or even beat Stanford’s team) with Craft but we should be able to do better than we did yesterday.
If Craft isn’t the better choice, why is he starting?
I think we can rule out that Craft is so bad we cannot do anything with him but Brehaut is even worst.
This one is 100% on the coaches
by JonnyG on Oct 4, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All This Emphasis Is In the Wrong Place
If I have time, I’ll write up a fan post: Our problem was not with the conservative offense (for which there are explanations that are debatable.)
Our problem is with a defense that, for years, has been over rated and over praised. A defense that cannot get itself off the field — from the first snap of the first quarter — without giving up long drives and being called for stupid penalties.
I’m stunned that there is so much focus on the O and the QB when, in reality, the D is equally to blame for the loss.
Given the assumption that we have far more D talent, shouldn’t we be asking questions about how we are using it?
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 4, 2009 9:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well,
The defense lost a starter in the first few minutes, and the Discipline was horrible, so I get what you are saying, but the 2nd half turnaround was great
There's no one in the world that wants to beat UCLA more than _______.
by ucla13_usc9 on Oct 4, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Simple, really
You won’t win too many games with just 16 points.
Our defense is overrated relative to an awful offense for four years. The bottom line is, this is not an offense — nor is Craft a QB — that can win games.
by bluebland on Oct 4, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hate to disagree SJH
but when it comes to measurables like scoring defense or points scored, our defensive unit is the better of the two. Sure, our defense could be better, but if we keep settling for field goals we’re never going to win a big game. Twice yesterday we settled for field goals, leaving 8 points on the field. Exactly the margin Stanford beat us by.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Oct 4, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still undefeated by $C logic
Seeing how $C (and their media enablers) has started to and will continue to make the argument that the only reason they lost to Washington was because they were without their starting quarterback and star safety, I am very proud of our still undefeated Bruin team whose only loss was without its starting quarterback and star safety. In keeping with $C mathematics, we will still count wins without our starting quarterback though, so congrats everybody, we are still 3-0.
:)
by bruinponcho on Oct 4, 2009 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Somewhat puzzled
I actually did not know what to expect coming off of a bye. I actually think deep in my heart of hearts I did not believe we could win on the road against a very good team with Craft at the helm. We appeared unenthusiastic early on D. I thought we ran the ball very well at the start and for some reason stopped running on 2nd and 5 in the RZ??
I anticipated a much more creative package on both sides of the ball by our coordinators.
We had been very bland for 3 weeks and I thought maybe we were saving something for league play. This was not the case. The onlly time the O sparked was at the end of the first half in the 2 min drill and when they brought in Thigpen. I believe that sometimes a change of pace on offense can change the momentum in a game. Why not start the second half in a hurry up O, or use Thigpen then. That in my opinion was the game folks. We are down 14-6 and get the ball to start the second and the best we can do is a very uncreative 3 and out???
I will stand by my team through thick and thin. I am just very puzzled by the game plan .
by Rico Bruin on Oct 4, 2009 9:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree with Nestor
The game plan was conservative. Too much so if we expected to win the game. The point above (Re: Craft) was a good one: yes, you have to be a little more conservative with a back-up than with your first guy. But once the team is getting blown up, you have to recognize the fact that if you want to win, you have to put your faith in Craft and let him go for it.
Some things I noticed.
(1) The Bruins did a good job at the very end to keep in interesting. But, in my opinion this game wasn’t close. Stanford dominated on both sides of the ball and on the sidelines. You got to credit Gerheart, who absolutley dominated. But he also had some big holes to run through, which credit goes to Stanford’s OL. Our defense just got beat by a better offense. Even their freshman QB beat our secondary when he had to.
(2) Our defense is good, not great. Great defenses don’t get manhandled. But they are still good, and will surely help us win games.
(3) Craft stayed within himself, and I liked that. He played with some poise. But there is a reason he wasn’t the starter this year. He is just not a Pac-10 caliber starting QB. Stanford’s freshman is, Prince looks like he is. Just not Craft. That is not a knock on Craft, that is just the truth. Once we got down, Craft was put in a horrible position—to win he had to play not just like a Pac-10 starter, he had to play like one of the best in the game. And that was just too much to ask.
(3) We tried everyone at running back, and we had some good runs. But I didn’t really see us controlling the line of scrimage with our running game. We couldn’t guarantee 4 yards, or even 3. A little too hit and miss, probably because Stanford knew it was coming. I think we might be better off not playing everybody. If Franklin’s our guy, let’s see him all the time. Knox looked to be the weakest, so why is he still getting reps? And the only back with size seems to be Coleman. I’d like to see more of him, as everyone else seems to be small and fast, but lacking great power.
(4) We were never going undefeated, so this wasn’t a big surprise. But I think we are still ok in Neu’s 2nd season. The real surprise here was how good Stanford was (at least to me). They look like a top-3 team in the league. So before we get to down on the Bruins, consider that maybe we lost a game on the road to a potential Pac-10 contender. Not so bad.
(5) UCLA is still waiting for a top-notch talent to emerge on offenise. And its been awhile. We aren’t bad, but in reality, we aren’t going to really shine until someone emerges. Maybe that will be Prince. Mabye that will be one of the backs (some of which have shown promise). Maybe Carroll. But if we are going to play a complete game, someone will have to step up on Offense. For all the talent we have (and we have some), I still can’t point to a GREAT skill player. College teams need one, two, or three of those to get to the top. So we have a ways to go.
by rfirpo on Oct 4, 2009 10:01 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
Great post
That should also go up as a fanpost. Don’t want this to get lost.
by Nestor on Oct 4, 2009 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Exactly what I was thinking. Coaches had a gameplan that was totally derailed wheb Dtanford went up big early on the game. sin my mind if you are coach with a qb as limited as Craft do you attempt to force the issue by throwing the playbook at the opposing team thus forcong craft to make throws you are well aware he has a hard time making? Then, when this fails, you find yourself so far down that you reach the point no return. I think the coaches were right in calling the game the way they did others will disagree, but towards the end of this contest I do believe that we had ourselves a winnable game.
To me, the turning point was Rahim Moore’s totally boneheaded play in the 3rd.
Oh UCLA you sweet bitch, you've BRUINed me for anything else.
by bruin8uclap on Oct 4, 2009 1:38 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Stanford was a better team
Lets face it, Stanford played a better game than we did. I don’t want to blame the coaches to play a conservative game, and please don’t blame on Craft for a bad game ( I think he AGAIN played a decent game). We just simply cannot handle Gerhart and Luck at all. All we have to do is to look at the time of possesion. How can we score if the defense played the entire game? Poor defense and one bad penalty did us in. Now that Prince will be back, and we fortunately have Craft as a backup with good experience, maybe we can open up some offense to see what might happen. I feel that we have nothing to lose at this point. I am very confident that we will win some good games and go to a bowl game. Go Bruins!
by NNL on Oct 4, 2009 10:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Defense lost the game
The game plan was designed so Kevin Craft and the offense would not lose the game which they successfully executed. They could have been more productive, but they had zero interceptions and fumbles. However, the defense was outplayed and outschemed. The DEs and LBs were MIA on many plays. Another point, the defense didn’t successfully adjust to Stanford using an unbalanced line on all or most of their short yardage situations. What troubles me most about this game is that UCLA looked slow compared to Stanford, both offense and defense. I hope we have better games against Oregon and Cal.
elsobrantebruin
by elsobrantebruin on Oct 4, 2009 10:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 




















