Raising Reasonable Questions Despite Staying On Track For A Successful UCLA Football Season
by Nestor on Oct 4, 2009 10:38 AM PDT
in Football
34 comments
So let's get something out of the way first. The season is not over. Not even close. I never expected our program to go undefeated this season or to make a charge to the Rose Bowl. In fact if folks go over my numerous off season posts going over season expectations, they will find people accusing me of protecting CRN and co. from high expectations (lol). I still believe that if CRN and co. can put together a 7 win season this year, he will have the program at a good place. That said, I think we have to be honest with ourselves with what we see with our own eyes.
One reason this blog took off during the dreaded Dorrell era was that we were always brutally frank and honest with what we were seeing with our own eyes on the field. Same factor has been in play during Ben Ball season. Even though we worship and love Coach Ben Howland, we have dished out our fair share of criticism of Coach Howland and our Ben Ball warriors after tough losses during last few years. So, if you are looking for a site which is going to blindly "trust in coaches" this is not the place to be. From what I saw with my own eyes yesterday, I believe that it wasn't Rick Neuheisel and his staff's best moments at UCLA. Till now Neuheisel has done a great job of rebuilding the program and getting the right pieces in place. That doesn't mean he can be immune from criticism from the world that bleeds blue and gold, when we think there are reasonable basis to raise questions. So let's go through some of the issues that are bugging me and hopefully we can have honest and respectful discussions on them and more importantly, the coaches will work on them even harder to address them during this game week.
Play Calling
I will start with play calling on offense. There are two specific instances during yesterday's game it became clear how vanilla/Donahuesque the play calling was under Nueheisel and Chow.
Offense
First, towards the end of the first quarter, UCLA got the ball down 3-7 on its 17 yard line. After couple of nice runs by Jet Ski and a completion from Craft to Presley UCLA had a first and 10 at its own 43 yard line. Here are how the plays unfolded to end the first quarter:
1st and 10 at UCLA 43 UCLA penalty 6 yard false start accepted.
1st and 16 at UCLA 37 UCLA penalty 10 yard holding accepted.
1st and 26 at UCLA 27 Kevin Craft pass complete to Derrick Coleman for 3 yards to the UCLA 30.
2nd and 23 at UCLA 30 Derrick Coleman rush for 1 yard to the UCLA 31.
We have already dinged the coaches over the lack of discipline, focus. For me though what drove me crazy was the last two play calls. It was indicative of an offense that was shackled with limited options and playing with a safe/Donahue mentality of not playing to lose. Running up 1 yard on 2nd and 23. I mean come on. Really? That's not Dorrellian/Donahuesque conservative? Then what is?
1st and 10 at STAN 33 Kevin Craft pass complete to Cory Harkey for 6 yards to the Stanf 27.
2nd and 4 at STAN 27 Johnathan Franklin rush for 2 yards to the Stanf 25.
3rd and 2 at STAN 25 Timeout UCLA, clock 05:07.
3rd and 2 at STAN 25 STANFORD penalty 5 yard pass interference accepted.
1st and 10 at STAN 20 Kevin Craft pass incomplete.
2nd and 10 at STAN 20 Johnathan Franklin rush for 3 yards to the Stanf 17.
3rd and 7 at STAN 17 Kevin Craft pass incomplete.
4th and 7 at STAN 17 Kai Forbath 35 yard field goal GOOD.
I don't believe the coaches made one attempt to take a shot downfield during that stretch. It was clear when we got down to 20 yard line the coaches were calling plays to make sure they were no effing up our chances for a FG. Again, no other way to describe that mentality other than Dorrellian/Donahuesque conservative. I saw it all too often during late Donahue years and it was frankly unpleasent.
Of course, an explanation is the coaches were working with what they had in Kevin Craft. Well in that case would it have been the end of the world if they tried out Richard Brehaut and see what he could do? I mean if they are going to have RBs slam up the Stanford wall for 2-3 yard gains in late Q1, then why not bring in Brehaut? What are they so afraid of? Losing? That's the exact mentality that ate up UCLA football during Dorrell years and eroded it until Toledo injected some life into it (with a huge assist from McNown) during Donahue's later years. It's not fun to watch or pleasent to follow and as I noted earlier today, I sure hope it's an aberration.
Defense
Moving over to the defensive side of the ball, it just reminded me of how the Walker coached UCLA defense usually forgets to show up in one or two games every season. Until the defense tightened up later in the second half, the way I would characterize is tentative and unsure. It appeared as if Chuck Bullough was coaching scared and as if he had to wait until the first few series to figure out what Stanford was scheming up. That is inexcusable given we all knew what was coming from Stanford and had two weeks to prepare. It's clear to opposing coaches that they can run on this defense by going outside. It's not clear whether our coaches have done anything to adjust to that.
We didn't see any kind of creative stunts or blitz packages and our DEs were getting mandhandled all over the place. Our LBs were lining up to far from the LOS. By the time Gerhart was blasting up he was running downhill and was gaining additional yardage from his explosive momentum. Again, I didn't get why Bullough didn't shake things up to disrupt Stanford's rhythm. The way we played it allowed a red shirt freshman QB to get comfortable and pick us apart the whole day. Lot of folks have rightly questioned why coaches didn't try out Viney when Sheldon Price at times was looking overwhelmed. And that takes me to personnel decisions made in that game.
Personnel Decisions
Yes, coaches have some explaining to do wrt to personnel use with our current roster.
Craft/Brehaut
First and foremost it starts with Craft/Brehaut situation. I understand and appreciate the argument on Craft's side. I also recognize how Craft yesterday perhaps played one of his best games (if not his best) as a UCLA QB. His numbers would have been better if Taylor Embree had made the trip to Palo Alto or Morrell Presley was not making freshman mistakes. Still, what is obvious to me that the offense is shackled with Craft at the helm. Coaches are not taking downfield shots with Craft because they just don't have the confidence in his ability to connect. If that is the case, then why didn't they try out Brehaut? Why didn't they try out Brehaut in late first quarter or during third quarter when they were dialing up one unimaginative running plays after another.
Also, on that note why UCLA offensive line had opened up some nice holes early on, it was clear Stanford made their in game adjustments and basically challenged Bruins to beat them with Kevin Craft's arm. Given the plays our coaches dialed up, it was evident they didn't have the confidence in Craft's arm, which in turn doesn't explain why they didn't try out Brehaut. BTW preserving Brehaut's redshirt season argument doesn't fly, given Neuehisel/Chow burned it in our first game.
Rosario/Carroll-Embree/Austin
It was clear from the first series that Embree's head wasn't in the game. Meanwhile, Rosario made an obvious impression during Kansas State. Yet didn't seem like he was in their much. And when he was in there he was making plays. It seems like Rosario is always racking up more YACs than Embree. Same goes for Terrence Austin. I get that Austin is a senior and a leader in the team. But from what I am seeing both Embree and Austin are running vanilla routes not getting much separation with the opposing DBs. So why not shake it up by trying out Randall Carroll and Nelson Rosario. It would have been nice to see if the coaches made an effort to take advantage of Carrolls' world class speed. We didn't get a whiff of it. Speaking of speed ...
Thigpen/Austin
... I think it's clear the kind of potential Damien Thigpen has. He was electrifying in the touches he got yesterday. That brings me to the question why not try him out more on special teams and have him return kickoffs. From what I am seeing from Austin when he is returning kickoffs he is dancing around a little too much and not returning with a lot of determination. So again why not shake it up and go with the young talent that's available. I'd think that if the coaches went with the young talent, they would be able to entice recruits even more. No?
Focus/Discipline
We have alluded to this issue few times already since the end of yesterday's game. We talked all week about how important it was for our defense to set the tone. Many will argue that it was Rahim Moore's play (in which he suffered a concussion) that set the tone for the game. After the Cardinal converted that first down, then went on to drive right down our throat to score a TD. It was a statement that resonated throughout the game.
However, that wasn't the only demoralizing penaties that hurt us yesterday. Early in Q3 when Stanford had the ball on their 46 yard line, the defense stopped Gerhart for a loss, putting them at 2nd and 13 on their 43. Of course in the very next play the defense gave up an offside penalty to turn it into 2nd and 8, making it more managble for Luck and co. The next play was the flea flicker to Whalen, that effectively seem to decide the game.
As I have said in the comment sections, I don't have an explanation for these penalties. Sure we can chalk them up to youth. However, at the same time if the coaches are looking to bank on a shackled offense, then they also have a responsibility to make sure the team is playing smart and focused football, to make up for the limited abilities of its backup QB. They didn't seem to get it done.
Other Observations
As for penalties, yes as usual we were burned by SPTRs. However, I am not going to complain about it. Good teams play through BS refereeing particularly in the pathetic Pac-10. We didn't do it yesterday.
Speaking of pathetic, David Norrie is probably the worst UCLA alum broadcaster. He is the Karl Dorrell of UCLA broadcaster. He is terrible. Unlike media personalities such as MJD, Bill Walton, Reggie Miller and Rick Neuheisel (when he appeared on media as a commentator during his non UCLA coaching days), Norrie calls our games as if he is ashamed to admit his UCLA connections. In his effort to make himself look impartial, he makes it worse. I really hope we don't have to hear him broadcast other UCLA games. He sucks. Plain and simple.
Postives From Yesterday
Well I do have couple of positive notes to share from yesterday. Forbath is awesome. However, at the same time I feel like our coaches are getting too much in a comfort zone, counting on his gimmes. The guy who gets the game ball from UCLA pov yesterday is Jeff Locke. He had a great all around game. Sad that we are celebrating kickers again. What's that word again? Dorr ... never mind.
Also, the defense does deserve some credit for making it a game and fighting back in second half. However, as I suspected all along their late starts would eventually cost us. It did yesterday.
Lastly, as I said above, the season is not over. Not by any means. We have an extremely tough football game coming up next weekend. I am not sure right now whether we can win it. However, I would like to see us come out and fight like we did against Tennessee from the opening kick off and play smart football. I want them to play their hearts out, play with fire, and eliminate as much "what ifs" as possible. CRN knows it. He is on record. The Bruin Nation is "dying for" it.
GO BRUINS.
0 recs |
34 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Here's an idea
Now, we all know about Craft’s limitations. We know that those limitations limit our playbook somewhat. We know that opposing defenses know about KC’s limitations and crowd the LOS because of it. But what if KC is playing because what he does have a grasp of isn’t what Brehaut is good at at this point? KC is pretty money if you dial in short passes and don’t give him too many options to confuse him. Brehaut is probably better at putting touch on the deep ball (because let’s be honest, he couldn’t be much worse), but what if he doesn’t yet have the confidence to fire off those short passes into traffic? Our QB needs to be able to threaten a defense with both if we want to be able to open up our running game. That’s why getting Prince back is so important at this point because we know he has the tools to hit receivers all over the field.
by Tydides on Oct 4, 2009 10:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree that there *has* to be a reason ...
I am a newbie here but after reading comments about Craft & Brehaut I signed up just to say: Neu & Chow are great coaches, their records speak for themselves. There has to be a reason they didn’t play Berhaut for a single snap. If we all thought "Let’s See what Bre can do. " then they had to think it, evenly passingly [lol]. You know they didn’t forgot about him on the sidelines.
Maybe we won’t know the real reasons – I’d rather Neu & Co keep our team’s weaknesses secret from our opponents than to satisfy my cuiriosity.
But why didn’t Chow come up with some plays using our strengths? Craft isn’t a first string QB, but he did OK and we have enough talent on the offense that we had other options.
by JonnyG on Oct 4, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Bre definitely has the overall tools to succeed, but QB isn’t like any other position. YOu could probably put Usain Bolt on a plane to LAX tomorrow and he would have a 100+ yard game for the Bruins on Saturday. But the psyche of a QB, and his learning curve is much different than any other position. It is my belief that the coaches wanted Bre to be their guy. They groomed him to be their guy. He just didn’t pan out to be that guy…yet. As a QB, you have to have the confidence of a bank robber. That confidence develops over repetitions, and isn’t something you necesarily want building In-game. It could be disastrous. Not only would it ruin any chance of ever going back to Craft because his confidence would be shot, but maybe, you lose the team. Maybe they’ll see it as a sign of giving up on the season. The fact that Bre couldn’t beat out Craft (and you would think that anyone with a pulse and an arm attached to his/her body could do it), there’s gotta be a reason for it. Maybe, Bre isn’t decisive enough (even Craft is going 100 mph, even when he’s making mistakes). That could in fact kill the team.
As far as Austin is concerned, I know everyone loves him, but I’m really not that impressed. He tries hard, but he isn’t blessed with the speed that a return man should have (if he is invited to the combine, I would bet my house that he falls in the 4.6-4.7 range). His all-purpose yards last year were a result of sheer volume, not speed and ability. I too would love to see Thigpen in the return game (I think the coaches are making a mistake by deferring to the Senior leader out of respect). He is a burner, as made clear by the run he made (I don’t even know if you could call that a counter play) in which he started off running to the right, stopped, and went left! On purpose! A designed play! Coaches would only institute such a play for someone with that kind of speed. I would also like to see less of him at tailback and more of him in the slot running quick slants, or out wide with hitches/bubble screens (same w/ Carroll, although I don’t know if he’s as quick as he is fast). We’ll see what happens.
by westwood78 on Oct 4, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Solid Post
I respectfully disagree with you on the Craft/Brehaut issue. And, Ty, I truly hope Prince can get back, soon — but I wonder how long it will take him to get back to where he was.
I think we all agree that there are great improvements in the play of the O line and the running game. And, I think we are all disappointed that with all the talent we have at WR, our WR’s are not fulfilling their potential.
To me, Locke is the most valuable addition to the arsenal. He is forcing the other team to start on the 20 yard line — starting us off in the battle of field position in a great place.
To me, the underachieving unit is the D. I do not care how well they can play in the 4th quarter — this is a 4 quarter game. The failure to play a solid first quarter — not only in this game but in others going back for years — empowers our opponents and gives them hope and life. I know that we are missing Hestor and “lost” Moore, yesterday. But, with Moore, we played poorly on the first series. Yet, somehow, everyone has confidence in the D — so much that when we win a flip we put the D on the field — and more often than not, the other team drives for either good yards or a score. From that point on, we have lost the upper hand Locke has given us in the battle for field position.
All that said, I think it good that we, as fans and commentators, are so disappointed after a road loss to a good team. It shows that far from dumbing down expectations, we have been elevating them — and I think properly so. We are so much better than we have been. And, while watching the dvr replay of the game, I kept telling my cousin “not a test” that we will be much better next year and great in 2 years. Our future is strong.
One last point, I agree with Nestor about Norrie. The dick head even wore a red tie, yesterday.
sjh
by Class of 66 on Oct 4, 2009 11:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yep
Absolutely 66. I think wrt to Brehaut/Craft issue there are genuine disagreements. I think rye and others disagree with me on it. That is totally fine. I am really anxious to read his and yours (if you want to expand on it) thoughts on it. Hey, this is what makes sports (specifically UCLA sports) so much fun.
by Nestor on Oct 4, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bruin Blues
It’s amazing on how much I agree with you. I especially agree with your main point about how much our offense looked like Donahue’s conservative approach and reminded me how much I hated it. I think you will get wide agreement on that. What needs to happen first is that CRN has to take a hard look at himself as a coach and strategist. We need a major shakeup in our offense. A little fine tuning is not going to do it. I have to believe, whether or not any of it is his fault, Craft is done as our starter. If we don’t win another game, we have to develop our new quarterbacks with game experience. We have sooo much talent on our team that it is a crime to see it wasted with a mediocre offensive approach and QB. We will be lucky if we can keep up with Oregon next week.
by Keptycho on Oct 4, 2009 11:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Could you give specifics?
You say a “major shakeup”, but what options do you really have? At QB it’s either Craft of Brehaut right now, and putting Craft in almost ensures a conservative gameplan (unless you’re itching for a repeat of last year, which I for one am not). My fear with Brehaut, as I speculated above, is that when they say he’s not “familiar with the playbook” that he wouldn’t be able to go through his progressions to second and third options in the short passing game. That’s just as limiting to your playbook as Craft’s inability to throw past 15 yards. If we can’t present a legitimate threat with either the deep ball (Craft) or quick releases (maybe Brehaut), then our run game is going to struggle as they stack the box. I don’t see any of the tools available for a “major shakeup” right now.
I think there’s a perception here that the conservative mindset has resulted in the selection of Craft. I see the selection of Craft as the source of the conservative mindset.
by Tydides on Oct 4, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta admit
As much I’d like to know why Brehaut hasn’t been playing, have to give Craft some kudos for not throwing so many picks this year (knock wood).
by BruinFanGA on Oct 4, 2009 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Craft
has his best game in a UCLA uniform yesterday. The reason for this, of course was the obviously limited gameplan that Chow and Neuheisel designed for him. He executed it well – unfortunately, the gameplan didn’t really give us much of a chance to win once we got behind. I assume Neu and Chow were hoping that we could control the game on the ground (which – surprise! – we actually have the capability to do this year), and once we got down 14-3 the wheels pretty much fell off that approach, but the gameplan never adjusted.
I’m not sure whether I should be annoyed at the coaches for not opening it up after that point – pretty much because I’m sure if they open up the gameplan with Craft in the game, he’s throwing pick-sixes all over the place. What I do question is not even trying to go with Brehaut. I will make the assumption that the only reason this is the case is because Brehaut still doesn’t understand the playbook – at all – and the offense would be even more limited with him under center.
But he’s been here since the spring. Unless he’s a total idiot (and I really do doubt that), I think this is a deliberate attempt to keep the gameplans super-conservative until Prince gets healthy and back on the field. Not sure I agree with that approach – especially given the fact that our defense, while strong – has had a pretty enormous tendency to put us behind the 8-Ball early in games (even against SDSU). Not sure how running a ball-control, run-first offense with no deep passing game is going to win you many games if you’re constantly down 14-3 after the first quarter.
I’m certainly in Nestor’s camp – look, if the coaches don’t even trust Craft to throw a ball downfield over thirty yards at this point (and it’s painfully obvious from the gameplans that they don’t trust him to do just that), why not put Brehaut in? What’s the worst he can do at that point? Throw an interception? That’s basically what Craft is going to do in that situation….and look, I’ve got a lot of respect for Craft, but his physical skill-set is very limited.
by CAJason80 on Oct 4, 2009 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good stuff Jason
Here is the thing. I don’t even think it’s about being in any someone’s camp. Because when it comes down to it I will defer to the expertise of Chow and Neuheisel wrt to QBs. They have access to datapoints (results from practice during game weeks) which none of us (unless you happen to be coaches, players, and folks with credentials) do. So, I will defer to them based on what they see at Spaulding on daily basis.
However, based on the reasons you outlined above, I am just scratching my head to come up with an explanation on why we didn’t try out Brehaut at least for a series or two specifically in third quarter. I hope the reporters ask some substantive questions (not the a$$holish kind we get from Simers) during the press conference this week. Really interested in hearing what CRN has to say.
by Nestor on Oct 4, 2009 6:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You called Simers a reporter.
Simers is not a reporter, he’s just an a-hole with a laptop.
I enjoy everyones opinions on this site, which has made this season that much more enjoyable.
I agree with Coach Chow, a main concern is drives stalling in or toward the red zone. Take the 3 field goals and turn just one into a touchdown, and the entire complexion of the game changes. Play calling, ball control, and defensive alignments are totally different, perhaps to the extent that the game is a W.
I truly feel that the Bruins could have successfully run the ball, but it’s hard to run downhill when you are playing uphill.
Craft, as I have stated before, could make a wonderful coach (and I really envision him joining the Bruins staff next season). I’m serious: he doesn’t have an exceptionally accurate mid to deep ball arm, but he clearly learned the offense (as much as he is allowed to execute) compared to last season.
7 – 5 with a bowl win is below what I want, but I will take it.
by sam_in_hb on Oct 4, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The defense...
…decided to stay in Westwood. The offense did not exactly light the world up but they have not been all season. The defense, supposedly the strength of the program, did not play well at all. Everyone knew what Stanford was going to do yet we still could not stop it or adjust accordingly.
UCLA - Champions Made Here
by seernst on Oct 4, 2009 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
Stanford’s offense was mainly Toby running the ball. Why couldn’t we answer that?
What did our coaches do with those two weeks? They didn’t use them planning our offense or defense.
by JonnyG on Oct 4, 2009 12:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why are we talking about stopping Gerhart
Like it’s something easy to do? Clearly it isn’t, and the only way to really ensure that they don’t use him is to get ahead of them on the scoreboard so they have to pass the ball. Let’s not go scattershot in trying to figure out what’s wrong here. It was pretty clear to me anyway that the key was making sure Luck couldn’t hurt us, because that would make Gerhart’s running hurt all that much more. I would have rather seen us try to get into their backfield with our LBs rather than as N mentioned, have them sit back on our side of the line and hope we guess right on which gap he’s coming through. That would have at least put some pressure on Luck when he did have to throw the ball. By the time you’re figuring out where the hole is, it’s too late; Gerhart has a head of steam going and he’s going to pick up yards.
by Tydides on Oct 4, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You got me.
Toby Gerhart deservedly should be a Heisman candidate – you don’t just come up with an ‘answer’ for him. plus, Luck isn’t bad, either, he was ranked #4 at rivals.com We were not going to shut them both down.
OTOH: our D started slow and killed us with penalties – again. They put us in the hole early on.
by JonnyG on Oct 4, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Penalties are definitely killer
We may not even be talking about this right now if we played a cleaner game. But hey, it’s not like that’s abstracted from our performance. We earned those penalties and it’s just one more thing we need to improve.
by Tydides on Oct 4, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Luck played well
Give Luck some credit. I believe he passed for almost 200 yards, I do believe. Gerhart was able to have success because Luck kept the defense honest.
The gameplan was to force Luck to beat us. Unfortunately, he did.
by CAJason80 on Oct 4, 2009 1:10 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
even Harbaugh made that point
about us having TWO solid weeks to prepare. He definitely has a chip on his shoulder, but I suppose this is warranted given how well his team is playing. I don’t like the fact that we didn’t stack the line a bit more in prep. for Gerhart carrying the ball. After all, we knew, they knew that’s what they were going to do the majority of the time.
I hate to admit it, however, I think this SOMEWHAT proves our D isn’t as SOLID as we thought. It’s a good, defense, but still young and prone to more than a few boneheaded mistakes. As much as I attribute this loss to our lack of a firepower offense, I also blame the D for not sending a message earlier in the game. There were spurts (the fumbles they caused) of solid play, but they needed to come through with one big punch in order to intimidate Stanford a bit more. Growing pains, I suppose.
W.S. Montano Class of 1994
by wsmontano1994 on Oct 5, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Craft/Brehaut
is a symptom of the conservative offensive mindset. Craft is the safe choice. IMO he has become a very good back-up QB. He knows the offense and he has learned what NOT to do. But, as has been well detailed, he does not have the overall skill set to elevate the offense. Given an extended opportunity to play, Brehaut would probably make some of the same mistakes Craft made last year. But, this coaching staff seems more committed to limiting mistakes than to discovering and unleashing potential. It appears that they are biding their time until Prince is ready to return.
My biggest concern offensively is that we seem to have no ability, no “knack” for scoring touchdowns in the red zone. It was a brutal contrast to watch our offense struggle again in the red zone and watch Gerhart score almost at will. Despite the defense not stepping up yesterday, turn those two field goals into touchdowns and that final drive may have been to set up a game-winning Forbath field goal instead of a game-tying TD and 2 pt. conversion.
by kkucla on Oct 4, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You wanna know why teams lose games?
Because the plays the coaches call were ineffective. Even though the play was designed to be effective. If a run on 2nd and very long were to surprise the defense and coleman gained 20+ yards then you would be calling chow/neuheisela genius. But because he got wrapped up its a bad call.
Fans know very little about football when compared to division 1 pac10 head coaches and coordinators. Let them do their jobs and have faith that they know what they are doing… If coaches take into account what the fans want, they will be fans themselves. Realize that the team is still a combination of dorrells guys and young talent. These guys are going to gel and eventually be great.
This is going to be a good team, you just have to wait. Remember how bad we were last year? I think we are much off now than we were then. That is a sign of good coaching.
Have faith, go bruins!
by MaltBaa on Oct 4, 2009 12:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually thought our team looked good, but was outplayed.
C’mon, no one reasonably expects our offense (KC or KP at the helm) to be something magical until 2010-2011, but they are showing a remarkable amount of growth over each and every game. I expected us to lose a closely fought game, and I think it was a lot closer than it seemed. We were playing with consistency at a good level – there were tons of 3rd and manageable situations where we just came up short. We were showing the ability to move the ball down field and had we come up with a few more of those 3rd down conversions, we’d have won that game.
That being said, the Stanford offense was geared to beat the UCLA team. You’ve gotta be an insanely good D to stop a pass-balanced power running game when you’re O isn’t making those 3rd and manageable conversions. USC is the most comparable D to ours, and the only way Stanford won’t run all over them too is if the ’SC offense can manage a few first downs. Our D played well. Look at the film. DL stayed on man and took up space on the LOS. LB stayed home and rarely over pursued. DB stayed on man, which is all you can ask for when you load the box. It was a defensive scheme tailored to stop a power run game. Unfortunately, Stanford O came to play too – and they were just plain better.
We played them tough and should be proud of our team. Watch the balanced Stanford offense dominate league play this year. That being said, watch UCLA go 2 for 2 at home these next weeks because neither CAL or OR, while admittedly explosive and exciting, has the tough grinding offense that will beat our D with TOP. If we lose those games it will be because of turnover margin.
by hwn44 on Oct 4, 2009 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
there's plenty oif blame to go around
a lot of inopportune penalties may have done them in.
but it’s clear opposing d’s are aware of craft’s inability down the field and that makes things tougher on offense, just one less variable. but craft didn’t do much to lose the game or win it, which is what our coaches are going for. however on the first drive he threw some nice passes on those corner routes, why was that not available the rest of the game?
i too was very disappointed with the play calling on both sides of the ball. we could have exploited the perimeter with our superior talent and athletes with screens and quick hitches, involve our te’s more- but we rarely did
and on d we seemed complacent with a base rush. it wasn’t until the 4th that stubts and blitzes seemed visible.
we just seemed to lack aggression on the field and on the sideline. they scored td’s and we got field goals in the 1st half and that was all folks
Across The Face
by rb bruin on Oct 4, 2009 1:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
When to switch from conservatvie play calling
The switch to a more aggressive play calling strategy occurred two series too late. Recall the last series of the first half. Craft and the offense did a good enough job getting three points. Then at the beginning of the second half the play calling went back to its conservative game plan. Rewind the tape, the first play of the second half should have been a pass. Stanford was not expecting it. I=The pass would halve opened up the run and more passing. The offense had its confidence going from the end of the first half. Up tp that point the game plan was ok—-the coaches blow it.
by DrKahanamoku on Oct 4, 2009 2:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Can't blame play calling for individual mistakes
The overriding image I have from this game is of us needing 4 or 5 players to make one tackle. The yards after contact killed us. That isn’t on the coaches, that is on the players.
And if the defense had stepped up and made plays through the first three quarters, we would be praising the overall game plan of “play field position; limit turnovers; win the game with defense and special teams” rather than criticizing our offense for being conservative.
I would have liked to see more of our hurry-up offense, as it worked well at the end of the first half; but I have no desire for Coach Chow to ‘take shots’ downfield with Craft under center.
by britishbruin on Oct 4, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
questioning play calling is a slippery slope
because its always easy to question what didn’t work, and if it would have worked, it wouldn’t have been questioned , Without a doubt penalties, confusion, etc is on the coaches and players and should be called out, and the defense, and the base defensive set itself, did not seem up to the task of stopping Stanford.
One thing that is disconcerting is our poor 1st quarter start on defense in many of our games this season.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Oct 4, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the d
i gotta take bullough’s side for not running more stunts and blitzes. when you run stunts and blitzes it really puts a lot of pressure on your secondary to make open field tackles. with gerhart running over people left and right yesterday and with Moore out, it made sense. but what didnt make sense was why we didnt have nine in the box on running downs. that should have been an adjustment after the first quarter.
by beeru on Oct 4, 2009 7:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oklahoma #2 QB appears to have had his hands tied yesterday, too.
At least from the box score, he didn’t exactly light it up, either.
I love being an armchair coach, but glad I don’t make a living doing the real thing.
Just realized, UCLA lost to BYU last season coming off a bye week (I am certain that has been reported here often, but I have selective memory).
by sam_in_hb on Oct 4, 2009 7:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
QB's
We also have Crissman from Edison High in OC. He took Edison to the CIF Finals. I would like to see him and Brehaut be given a chance. Craft is a great person but I feel the coaches don’t trust him much and they are conservative with him. We can’t be conservative with Oregon this week. During the game, we were getting a run, run, pass and then kick. That is not hard to defend. Even Pom Pom would see that.
by Forever a Bruin on Oct 4, 2009 8:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Crissman had a shoulder injury
I’ve also read that he has problems with his throwing motion. I don’t think he’s completely recovered yet, and when he does it may take a while for him to reach a point where he can compete for playing time.
by SuperBruinMan on Oct 4, 2009 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know
He looked fine in the spring games.
by captainqtp on Oct 5, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We Have to Believe
that our coaches, though not perfect, are well-qualified and experienced and have more data than any of us on which to base their decisions. That emphatically does not put them above reasonable questioning and criticism. However the idea of putting Brehaut in to see what he can do is the antithesis of coaching. It’s not coaching at all, but just rolling the dice. However, Brehaut could be given a particular set of plays to run,be drilled in them, and put into the game when the situation was right. That would give him the best chance for success. But suppose it worked, then what? In a sense, a monster would have been created. The best situation is to get Prince back and let him continue his development. That’s what we should be rooting for. I agree that the playbook has to be expanded a bit, and Chow probably feels the same way. But penalties kill drives and take away options, so that has to be cleaned up, too. But I think the Stanford game became unmanageable when, with two weeks to prepare and a reputedly strong defense, we still couldn’t stop Gerhart from doing exactly what we thought he was going to try to do. I honestly think that was a surprise. It wasn’t really about who was playing QB for us. I mean, they had the ball so much! You can’t call any plays when the other team has the ball.
by ReineSeite on Oct 4, 2009 10:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
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.
