Just Some Thoughts On The Weekend

by Achilles on Oct 5, 2009 11:27 AM PDT Comment 14 comments

Photo Credit: Telemachus

Spent some time on the other boards over the weekend, during the games and after. Also read what was being said here in the chats and in the aftermath threads. Later on, I chatted with Nestor and talked to a couple of friends about the game.

And I have to say, there was one theory or line of speculative thinking that I came across (on another board) that I found sort of intriguing. Actually, there’s two, though I’ve seen them discussed separately they have some merit when combined.I have to say upfront, that it’s going to be met with some opposition and I’m not exactly sure even how much I buy into it – though I’ll tell you right now that I don’t reject it out of hand and think there may be something to it.

Here’s part one:

We’re told that Craft is starting at quarterback because "he looks better in practice." The unspoken support for this explanation is that we, as fans, can’t second guess the Neuheisel/Chow decision making duo because "they’re the coaches and they know more than we do."

OK, they’re the coaches and they know more than we do. But does that mean they know more than the players do? The players are conditioned from the time they put on pads that the better player plays. Talent and skill trump seniority and maybe just maybe "knowledge of the play book."

So, this is what "they" were saying:

When Craft starts, the other players try, but their effort is muted by their knowledge that they can’t win with Craft or by the knowledge that, for whatever reason, the better quarterback isn’t playing. This doesn’t mean they aren’t doing their best. It does imply that Craft’s starting dampens enthusiasm and cuts the emotional peak necessary to win college football games particularly on the road.

There’s a lot of ways of interpreting that. What I get from that is that the author of that theory is saying that when Craft plays the other players basically feel (whether they want to feel it or not) that the team can’t win and therefore it throws them off their emotional game and impacts their performance.

Part Two goes like this:

A lot of people were wondering why Brehaut never got to play later in the game, when a rally was needed for victory.

The theory there suggests that if Brehaut had looked good in the fourth quarter, then the coaches would have had to explain why he didn’t start or come into the game earlier and it would also have created a quarterback controversy, something the team doesn’t need especially with Prince attempting to come back this week against Oregon.

I’m not sure how much I buy into this, but it’s intriguing. Soften it a bit and it says that the coaches basically felt like they made a decision to go with Craft and they weren’t going to back down from that decision no matter what. That’s a little easier to swallow than saying they refused to make a chance because if the change worked they’d look bad.

As we head into Oregon week discussions, these are a couple topics worth looking at.

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.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Say it ain't so...

Interesting take but I just can’t accept that CRN or Coach Chow would let ego get in the way of winning…I just don’t see either personality doing that. I still defer to them that they are doing what they believe gives us the best chance of winning. Maybe I’m just naive. However, from what we’ve seen, the offense is extremely limited. Not sure we have much chance to win many games with our offense but I’m not doubting our coaching staff and continue to pull for our team.

by BruinThenNowAndForever on Oct 5, 2009 12:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't Buy Either Theory

Everyone wants to win and no one wants to win more than CRN. In case some haven’t noticed, he is passionate about UCLA — this isn’t just a job.

Nothing looks worse than losing. I’m sure all of the coaches would rather have won — and have had to explained why they waited so long to play Brehaut if he were the substitution that won the game. Losing looks worse, short and long term, than making a late game substitution.

Lest anyone think we are shills for CRN and don’t criticize him — we do. But I really don’t see a solid basis to criticize a coach who inherited what he did and lost his starting QB and a key defensive back — in what we all knew would be a building year.

When we say we trust CRN and CNC (when we did not say the same thing about CTS) it is because they have shown to us that they are trustworthy — by their bodies of work and actions here. Not playing Brehaut is not like CTS forgetting he had Manuel White on the bench; there is a conscious reason that decision was made — one that I don’t think they need to explain to us, publicly — lest they damage Brehaut.

Yes, we lost a game we might have won. And, if I were to ask any questions of the coaches they’d not be about why Craft was playing. Mine are more fundamental. Why has our D not improved its play in the first half of the game. It is clearly not a personnel issue. It is a motivation or planning issue and for that, the coaches are responsible.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Oct 5, 2009 12:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I also agree with 66

And I probably do tend to put more trust in Coach Chow than I would in most other coaches simply because, for the last 10 years or whatever, the guy has been The Name in Offensive Coordinators in the country.

Does that mean that we cannot question or criticize his coaching decisions? Does that mean that he doesn’t make mistakes? Does that mean that he never calls the wrong plays or play the wrong players?

No. No. No.

I just believe that the coaches know something that we do not. And, based on Coach Chow’s resume, he gets the benefit of the doubt from me on why Brehaut did not play. Maybe not from you. And that’s ok.

by Barnes2JJ on Oct 5, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with BruinThen etc and sjh.

by Fox 71 on Oct 5, 2009 12:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm a big fan of pyscho/social dynamics in athletic competion.

but these theories go a bit too far and are nullified by the very nature of competition. These players and coach are competitive by nature and to par down performance or decide on personnel changes or lack of because of ego just cuts across the grain of the athletes and coaches, whose purpose is to improve and win. They’re fun theories to toss around while your numbing your brain with ethyl alcohol.

by brewnz on Oct 5, 2009 1:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

sorry for spelling errors, mobile commenting is tough on the road.

commenting

by brewnz on Oct 5, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

For part one: If Craft’s playing hurts the team morale, CRN and CNC would notice (they did worked with him all last season) – so that would be a a reason to play Brehaut not stick with craft.

For part two: if the coaches played Bre and he did better than Craft they could come up with a ‘face saving explanation" for the team. CRN has a degree in law and has been coaching since before the players were born – he could come up with a satisfying answer why they switched QB’s

Besides, the team and CRN called Craft a “man among men” for getting up off the turf after every play last season – he has mental toughness and grit. How would Bre react to being sacked so many times a Trojan has to take off his shoes to keep track?

by JonnyG on Oct 5, 2009 1:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oops.

The last sentence (beginning with “Besides”) belongs with part one – the team respects Craft; I don’t think he hurts their morale.

by JonnyG on Oct 5, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can understand theory 1

knowing that emotions play a big role in football. And knowing Reggie Carter’s comments of wanting a QB who just doesn’t give the ball away. However, I think KC should have their trust by now: in 2 games, he’s 35 of 58 for 390 yards, 1 TD and 1 INT.

But I can’t see theory 2 at all.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Oct 5, 2009 2:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Frustration at the outcome should not confuse us

Craft led a nice drive at the end of the first half. He led a nice drive at the end of the game. The final drive was not great but he has proven he can do a drive at the end of a game.

So IF CRN/CNC thought someone else was ready, it was in the middle of the 3rd quarter that they would have put them in. No explanations would have been necessary — you are getting experience for the new guy in the middle of the 3rd quarter.

To me this particular conspiracy theory is silly.

Plenty of reasons to criticize the coaching. 1) PENALTIES are not getting cleaned up. 2) Play calling and playbook maybe should have more creativity — Stanford did the flea flicker, not the struggling UCLA offense and 3) Where was the on-side kick with 4 minutes left — everyone knows this offense needs more time??? But some conspiracy to save face about quarterback substitutes is not one of them.

by Bruin Dad and Grad on Oct 5, 2009 3:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We lost this one

To say that we could have won the game with a better Quarterback is like saying we could have won the game if we had better players. A moote point. Coaches call plays that respond to the player’s ability. Well that is intelligent coaching. At least you have a chance of winning.

The consensus of Wahington players is that Stanford is, by far, the best team they have played. And they played LSU, U$C and Notre Dame. Stanford is a more experienced team. They have maintained a near balanced run/pass Offense against some good Defenses including the Bruins.

We are a less experienced team than Stanford. And it was manefested by costly penalties. That is what less experienced teams do – especially when playing more experienced teams.

It is fun to speculate how could we could have played better. A worthwile pursuit. My opinion is that this game was just not winnable – not this year.

Go Bruins !!!

The great coaching we had and the heart that the Bruins showed are represented by the fact that we lost by only 8 points. Anyone watching the game might have thought it should have been a blowout.

by northbaybruin on Oct 5, 2009 4:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well said

While I personally believe the game was winnable, I am sure there must be some Stanford fans out there who cannot understand how they only won by 8. Stanford probably should have won this game by a lot more than the final victory margin. The whole game felt like it was in Stanford’s favor…and yet, they only won by one TD.

We lost on the road, to a good team, by one TD, using our 2nd string QB who is all guts but who has limited skills.

No disgrace there, sports fans. We could have played better and won, but I learned a long time ago that someone has to lose.

by Barnes2JJ on Oct 5, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The thing that made it unwinnable

We got out muscled. Lets hope, and I do not believe it is that big of a stretch, that Stanford’s offensive line is the best we will see this year. They man handled us.

I was surprised to see all the back and forth on the QB. Tell me when you were the most frustrated: when we were on offense OR when Stanford kept sticking it down our throats with their running game. I, at least, held out hope for a drive on offense. If we had gone to overtime, I would have worried that they would have stuck down our throats again.

We will get better over time. We will get stronger. But we did not man up well against Stanford and could have still won. So clearly it was winnable, but they would likely have won 7 out of 10 times we played them.

by Bruin Dad and Grad on Oct 5, 2009 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Coaches Need to Win

If there is one certainty in college or pro sports, it’s that coaches who lose get fired. Even if coaches didn’t want to win, self-preservation would motivate them to win. Thus, I have absolutely no doubt that Neuheisel is playing the guys he feels give the team the best chance to win each game. Doing otherwise would not only be foolish, it would be suicidal. The only logical conclusion is that Craft gives the team the best chance to win now, plain and simple.

You can slice it in other ways (As I did here), but rather than conclude that a conspiracy is afoot, I think we should apply Occum’s Razor and conclude that the coaches must think Brehaut is not ready. And they must have good reason to think that, for if they are wrong, they are killing themselves.

Finally, I note that when Prince went down, the initial sentiment was that the coaches would give Brehaut every chance to start. Reports form BRO are that he struggled, so they turned to Craft.

by BruinsRule on Oct 5, 2009 9:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs