What's going on here?
by ambitious on Oct 5, 2009 11:47 AM PDT
22 comments
Fac t: CRN and NC have had to modify strategy to accomodate KC's ability
Fact: KC is not getting the job done
Fact: College football is big business, which sometimes requires very tough decisions.
A lot of you out there had no problem second guessing Dorrell (rightfully) even though you did not have access to HIS data points. Yet, you sycophantically protect poor decisions by CRN. The object is to win. CRN's refusal to play RB is mystifying to me. They literally had nothing (more) to lose. In playing the Stanford game, UCLA had the opportunity to be sitting atop the PAC10 and earning a modicum of respect. One would think that they would have been more aggressive in pursuing that goal. Instead, they dumbed it down, played safe, and look where it got them. It was apparent to me very early on that this was not going to go our way. CRN knew that as well. Why not roll the dice on RB? With so much at stake, why just roll over and take the loss? Others have pointed to a possibility of attempting to reinstate RB's redshirt. I have no knowledge of the requirements that may permit that, however, it would seem the only accepetable reason for keeping KC at the helm.
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 |
22 comments
Email
Print
Comments
What's going on here is that you're not reading
If you don’t see second guessing here, then it’s pretty clear you’re just not reading a damn thing that’s been posted in the past couple days and just decided to throw this up here to complain.
by Tydides on Oct 5, 2009 11:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Yeah, we have been defending everything CRN has done like a sycophant. This fanpost has a classic “Bill and Ted” quality to it. Doesn’t it?
by Nestor on Oct 5, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually it kind of reminded me of the exit press release from forcier.
Go Bruins!
by Harsha on Oct 5, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's just ridiculous
That people think they can come on here and just spout their nonsense and at the same time make it clear that they haven’t read what has already been posted here about the topic. Pretty much everything that’s on the frontpage proves this guy wrong, but that doesn’t stop him from making an incredibly ignorant statement.
Reading is fundamental.
by Tydides on Oct 5, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
incidentally a few more facts
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.
(hope y’all catch the reference)
Go Bruins!
by Harsha on Oct 5, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could it be that Coach Neuheisel and Coach Chow know the players better than ambitious?
I can just hear the conversation by these two novice coaches.
“Say, Norm, we have some tough decisions to make, but first, I gotta know. Is college football big business?”
“Yeah, Rick, it’s big business, it sure is.”
“OK, Norm, so let’s make the tough decision. We’ve seen Craft in practice and we’ve seen Brehaut in practice. We know, based on our combined century or so of experience in college footbal (which is big business), that Craft is doing better at all the things that we want our quarterbacks to be able to do. But there’s this guy on the BN that says we should start Brehaut.”
“Well, Rick, if it’s Bill and Ted, we don’t have to worry about it. But if it’s ambitious, then by golly we gotta do what we gotta do. Craft goes to the bench, Brehaut starts, and the two of us need to learn how to evaluate and develop talent at the quarterback position.”
“Norm, when you’re right, you’re right, ’cause college football is big business.”
by Fox 71 on Oct 5, 2009 12:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Could it be?
“Craft is doing better at all the things that we want our quarterbacks to be able to do.”
That comment in itself demonstrates the standards to which the Bruin coaching staff appears to be embracing. Nothing like shooting for the moon!
by ambitious on Oct 5, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s your suggestion then? We can only play the guy doing better at the things we want our QBs to be able to do on our roster.
Go Bruins!
by Harsha on Oct 5, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate your temperate reply, and believe it or not, respect your opinion.
You state that “we can only play the guy doing better at the things we want our QBs to be able to do…”. But, IMO the guy doing better in practice isn’t all that hot on the field. Is it possible, just possible, that RB might not perform as well as KC in practice but light it up on the field in a real game? Unfortunately, we’ll never know the answer to that question if he isn’t given the green light. What seemed impossible to me, was that the Bruins had any chance of winning that crucial game. It frustrates me that CRN wouldn’t pull out all the stops in order to win. BTW – I enjoyed your facts, and it taught me to never state any more facts LOL
by ambitious on Oct 5, 2009 4:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Come on
We definitely had a chance to win the game. While we didn’t play well and appeared to be unfocused at times, etc., we could have tied the game up with time to spare. And if we had executed better in the red zone in the 1st half, we would have been right there.
Lots of “ifs.” Just like, “If RB had played, we might have won” or “If RB had played, he might have thrown 6 INTs and we could have lost by 42.”
I understand everyone’s angst but guess what? Over at $C, their 2nd string guy, Corp, played like crap at Washington and $C lost. You would think that $C’s 2nd string guy would be an incredible QB. Talk to anyone from $C: They want to stuff the guy in a knapsack and toss him over a bridge. Hell, Petey Pie won’t even talk to their 3rd string QB.
Craft is a gamer with limited skills but, according to the coaching staff, he is #2 on the chart. He could have led us to victory. RB could have led us to victory. Coulda, coulda, coulda.
Who’s UCLA’s 4th string QB? Maybe that guy REALLY sucks in practice but if he is put in during a game, he might be the next Joe Montana?
by Barnes2JJ on Oct 5, 2009 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, if there's anything that $C and UCLA grads can agree on
It’s probably that Brehaut is a better quarterback than Mustain is – even without having seen Brehaut play.
I don’t know about Brehaut’s ability to punt, though. So Mustain’s got that going for him.
by CAJason80 on Oct 5, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’ll get the green light once he’s demonstrated he’s earned it. This isn’t about winning the game in front of us – it’s about getting these kids to strive for the best and achieve. My boss assigns work to those who’ve proven themselves in the opportunities (i.e. practice) I get, and assigns future projects based on that. If I’m not the best person based on recent history, why would I get the best projects? Likewise, RB “might” be better, but he’s not proving that. While it’s probable he’s part of the future of this team, it would be a poor strategy to discard the senior who was battered around last season behind an extremely green o-line. He’s earned a shot at redemption.
Also, “disagree” with your first fact – every good coach tailors his game plan based on the talent around him. If Tebow doesn’t start Florida’s next game, do you think they’ll change their game plan? You betcha. You think they’ve altered their game plan to accomodate for a young, green, offensive line? Absolutely.
And glad you’ve taken my “facts” in the jest they were intended.
Go Bruins!
by Harsha on Oct 6, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been giving this situation some thought
and I have to say, it at least makes sense to keep Craft in. As has been stated several times before, our defense has to keep us in this to give us a chance to win. Our offense merely has to be serviceable. The fact that we were in it late in the game speaks to the soundness of this strategy. Even if Prince was in, this would have been the same strategy with perhaps a few more tries down field.
I understand the argument for wanting Brehaut to be put in. If we are going to lose, then he should get some snaps and it might have provided a spark that could have won us the game. But don’t forget that we have sage coaches who know how to win. Upon thinking about the situation further it makes perfect sense to keep Craft in that game. For one, we don’ t know when Prince is coming back. He might be out another game. From what I understand about his injury, starting him next week might be pushing it as far as his recovery is concerned. Our coaches understand this and are better at it than us and have a more profound sense of the game week in and week out. Instead of leaning on this argument, I will suggest a plausible explanation for CRN’s and CNC’s reasoning. Craft is the best we have right now. Craft may have to start next week. If you take Craft out you risk destroying his confidence for next week. All for a game that Brehaut probably won’t win anyway. CRN and CNC are just giving us the best chance we have at winning.
No one is above reproach and I think us debating about what our coaches could have done is fine. If there is any blame then they might deserve it. However, a student athlete deserves very little blame if any. I know most at BN agree so I state this for anyone who even thinks about blaming that kid.
Winning is an important part of playing the game but we should be more circumspect in our arguments if they even mildly vector towards blaming these kids. Craft has given his all. He’s taken his shots. He rode the bench without complaining and rose up again to take the starting spot. Imagine the courage it takes to do both of those things. He deserves praise for these actions as well as praise for giving his best for our school. That’s all that matters.
If you ask Coach Wooden, he would probably consider himself foremost an educator of young men, guiding them towards manhood and, through athletics, shaping them into persons of good character. Winning is secondary to this. Playing for the sake of merely winning is something those bastards across town do. At UCLA we believe in athletic excellence and winning comes as a byproduct of that.
Have faith in the character of our kids, they have given us victory more than any other school. I tell you, have faith in athletic excellence. Have faith in UCLA.
Troy will fall...AGAIN!
by Bruins102NCAA on Oct 5, 2009 7:15 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I Logged In Just so I could Rec This
I have wanted to write a post just like this in response to those among us who have chosen to take potshots at our kids and coaches in the past few days, but I couldn’t figure out how to word it. You’ve expressed my feelings more eloquently than I ever could. Thanks!
by snorkeldorf on Oct 5, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
That is high praise and I appreciate it even though I feel I don’t deserve it. Thank you.
Troy will fall...AGAIN!
by Bruins102NCAA on Oct 5, 2009 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks N
I greatly appreciate that
Troy will fall...AGAIN!
by Bruins102NCAA on Oct 5, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's Simple
Do you accept the premise that Neuheisel wanted to beat Stanford?
I do. He has almost a million dollars a year, his reputation, and his love of all things Bruin on the line. Any of those things (and probably in that order) would make him want to win as many games as possible, including the game against Stanford.
Do you accept that Neuheisel has a better understanding of the strengths and limitations of his players than Ambitious (or any fervent Bruin fan) does?
Well, he attends the practices and meetings, reviews the films and dedicates what I would imagine to be at least 70 hours each week ot understanding that very thing. So, I don’t think I’m going out on a limb in accepting a premise that the coach knows more about the team than any of us knows about the team.
And we all know that this incentivized, knowledgeable coach has played Craft over Brehaut for two straight games. What, fellow Bruins, can we conclude from those premises and observable facts? Put aside your true blue and gold colored glasses and put on your thinking caps that were developed at this higher place of learning we love so much. The only conceivable logical conclusion is that the coach (and his assistants) believe that Craft gives the team the best chance of winning. If Craft plays the entire game, I think it’s safe to conclude that the coaches believe that Craft gave the team the best chance to win not only at the outset of the game, but in the middle and at the end of the game as well.
The coaches have seen Craft enough to know what he brings to the table. And what he leaves behind. Heck, everyone who has seen UCLA play in the last two years knows that Craft can’t throw downfield (among other deficiencies).
If the coaches keep running him out there, you know what that means? It means that Brehaut, though reportedly (and in his two career throws visibly) more talented than Craft, is not ready to quarterback the team for an extended period of time. That is not an indictment of Brehaut but really just an indication that the college QB position is difficult, and some QBs pick it up better than others. If a QB is thinking through his progressions instead of reacting to situations, he is not ready. I have to believe that Brehaut is in exactly that spot. I’ve often heard QB gurus like Tedford (who appears to be trying to shed this label) say that ideally a QB would watch for two years and not have to start until his redshirt sophomore year. Many QBs have not started until that time and still proven to be excellent.
I’m not saying we have to blindly follow what the coach does on each decision. Certainly coaches make decisions all the time that reduce their chance of victory as compared to the decision they could have made. Decisions to punt on 4th and 1 have been proven to be detrimental to the team’s odds of winning.
But in this case, the “why didn’t he play Brehaut” question I’ve seen for the last two days has a simple answer: Because the coaches believe that Craft is better right now and gives us our best chance to win now. Our not having seen Brehaut for more than those two plays may give him an air of mystery. We’ve seen the Yugo behind door number one. But unlike the famed Monte Hall show, we don’t have to guess at what’s behind door number two. The coaches have made it clear that it’s not as good as the Yugo (at least not today).
by BruinsRule on Oct 5, 2009 8:22 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.
