Some Thoughts On UCLA's Offense
The bowl picture remains cloudy for us and per the folks at the Irish Round Table (HT Magnusblitz), the news of Notre Dame players voting "no" to play in a bowl game looks very premature. Either way, I think it is time we start shifting the focus back on our team today. The defensive performance against Southern Cal was encouraging to say the least. Although the big question to ponder in the coming weeks (especially if we don't have a bowl game to play in) is how the heck we are going to replace Price, Jerzy and Carter next year in our front-7. I have no doubt CRN and his staff will put together a full court press in the coming days to find some DTs and shore up our LBs spot, but the inexperience in our front-7 heading into next year is going to be a huge challenge.
We will talk about the defense another day (unless one of you want to start the discussion in a separate fanpost today). I really want to talk about the offense today based on what we saw (or didn't see) last Saturday. Let's go back to last week and revisit a quote from CRN in which he conveyed that the Bruins needed more than Moline to beat the Trojans (emphasis added):
UCLA used a safe-and-sane offensive approach in a 23-13 victory over Arizona State on Saturday. The Bruins had fullback Chane Moline at tailback and ground out yardage.
"That remains to be seen," Coach Rick Neuheisel said when asked if a similar game plan would work against USC. "I don't think we can do it wholesale. I think we have to mix things up. I just think we're going to need more explosive plays. That's going to require more than just having our 'bigs' on the field."
Needless to say, we didn't see much of that on Saturday night. Chane had 12 carries for 15 yards (with a TD). JetSki got the ball 4 times for 28 yards (he fumbled in one of those carries), and Coleman got the ball one time picking up a single yard. So, during the game and for most of last couple of days I was pretty frustrated picturing Moline getting the ball in that "Cheetah" formation and going nowhere with it. I wasn't getting why the coaches were putting a big back in that formation who doesn't have the speed to get by defender or hasn't shown the ability to throw the ball. We didn't see any Knox or Thigpen at any point during the game. So yeah, I can see why so many of us would be so frustrated with that game plan (especially after CRN himself articulated the need for "explosive plays").
So how to explain the minimalist approach from a UCLA football program that has Neuheisel and Chow, two of the more aggressive and dynamic play callers in the game? Well we have to take in few factors into consideration.
Norm Chow was playing with the hand he was dealt with. He was going into this game with a QB who is still developing in his redshirt freshman season. His OL was completely rebuilt at the start of this season and is now just coming around in terms of pass protection. Among his running backs he has some speed in JetSki but doesn't have dependability given his fumble issues. Milton Knox from what I have seen in limited appearances hasn't show the ability to read defenses (get in the right position in blocking schemes). He did well in the Wildcat formation in the Washington game (so I can see the argument why he wasn't used in that form on Sat but then again it would have been predictable). Thigpen is still very raw as a freshman and needs to bulk up. As for Coleman, I think he is better suited to be a FB, and didn't exactly light it up when he played against faster defenses such as Tennessee and Arizona State (total 3 yards in 8 carries).As for our receivers, Pressley has been banged up. Randall Carroll is still getting up to speed on our playbook. Austin and Embree are servicable, but they have issues with getting separation in the defensive backfield. Then we have Nelson Rosario, who simply hasn't been consistent yet. He was showing signs of coming around this season and has definitely taken a step forward, but it seemed like the stage was too big for him on Sat. Add into this mix, our senior TE, Logan Paulsen has a habit of making crushing mistakes.
So, add in all these factors into the mix, I can see why Chow and Neuheisel decided to go with a minimalist approach. For most part they had a very good chance of pulling it out. Kevin Prince didn't have a good night. Yet, we were in that game. We were driving on those guys and certainly moving the ball on the Trojan defense. It was a freshman mistake on his first throw that did us in. If we didn't get burned by Rosario's fumble we probably would have gotten at least 3 in the first half. Same story in the second half, when Prince injured himself because of the difficult long yardage situation we found ourselves in due to Paulsen's brain cramp. Yet, despite all the adversity we were within 7 with lots of nervous Trojies in the Colosseum late in the game.
Now, as I mentioned above, I guess I can see reservations about why coaches didn't use Knox in Wildcat formations. Yet as I wrote, I think given that Knox at this point can only seem to handle that formation, it would have been predictable. I would also add that IIRC we were also making mistakes in terms of penalties and fumbles with Knox and Thigpen in the game in recent weeks. So, I understand if the coaches opted to go with the dependable handles of Chane Moline. The factor was paramount considerng the fumbling issues of JetSki and also the TOs generated from our own passing game.
I also think we have reasonable grounds to be frustrated about continious use of Terrence Austin in kick and punt returns. I am not exactly sure why all season coaches didn't given Thigpen or Carroll legtimate shots in those departments. Austin is a great kid and he can be depenable (most of the times). However, it was frustrating to see us not being able to take advantage of any of the opportunities presented by our stout defense. Going forward, if there is a bowl game, I really would love to see Carroll and Thigpen getting legit opportunities to play a part in the return game. When we have that kind team speed at our disposal, I just think coaches have to find a way to leverage it on the field.
Also going forward, as encouraged as I am about the progress I have seen from Kevin Prince this season, I am really hoping Richard Brehaut is going to hit the playbook hard. I hope he got started on Sunday. I think it would be beneficial for the entire team (and Kevin Prince) if Richard can mount a ferocious competiton during spring ball (and perhaps even during December if we have practice weeks thanks to a Bowl bid). As for JetSki, Knox and Thigpen, those guys will need to hit the weightroom harder and study up on Professor Chow's playbook. They have certainly shown flashes of promise but they need to prove they can maintain it on the field. Thankfully they are going to get competition next year through Malcolm Jones and Jordon James.
Obivously, this post is just to kickstart the discussion on our offense. We are just scratching the surface in terms of issues we have to discuss around this side of the ball. We will have a lot to talk about in the coming days, weeks, and months going through (hopefully) bowl game, recruiting, spring ball, and 2010 kickoff season. I get the sense excitement level and passion around Bruin football (at least around this place) have kicked up to whole another level after last Saturday. Let's keep that fire burning.
GO BRUINS.
119 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Question regarding December practices and bowls . . .
Since the Bruins’ bowl prospects are cloudy right now, and teams can only continue practicing if they are bowl bound, what happens when a team is in limbo like UCLA?
Since UCLA is bowl eligible, is it permitted to practice this week until bowl bids are announced early next week?
Are the Bruins practicing this week?
What about teams (like PAC 10 1 through 6) that are already guaranteed bowl berths? Are they practicing this week?
Is UCLA being “penalized” because it is in limbo regarding a bowl due to the fact that the PAC 10 only has 6 guaranteed berths while the 10th place SEC team is permitted to continue practicing because the SEC sends 10 of its 12 teams to bowls????
I am in the process of writing an open letter to Pac 10 commish, Larry Scott, this week (which I intend to publish on this site) regarding the sorry state of affairs of PAC 10 bowls, television coverage, etc. and this information will help with the letter.
Week 10, actually
But true, I don’t know how many practices there would be if we could practice.
by Westwood Wizard on Dec 1, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions
it would make sense
if at least the 7-5 teams were allowed to practice, given that I’m nearly positive there are more 7-5 teams than bowl slots…but that would make sense, and we rarely see the NCAA do that. Bowl teams are only allotted 15 practices to prepare, so regardless I’d think we would wait until we know who our opponent is if we truly do get to a bowl.
formerly AZBruin
practice
CRN said on the radio yesterday that the team can continue to practice since they are in the running for a bowl game. It may be two weeks before that is decided; Army/Navy game.
Not sure when the clock would start on the “15 practices” rule.
by bornagainbruin on Dec 1, 2009 8:00 AM PST up reply actions
But it will get better...
Just to give you more info…
Next year, the pac-10 is adding the alamo bowl to the lineup, bringing the total to 7 slots. Our #2 team will head to san antonio, pushing the holiday bowl down to #3, the sun bowl to #4 (thank god), etc.
Dependable, but...
What we can depend on with Moline is that he is not going to get very far. Hard worker, tremendous work ethic, but not a tailback…at least not one that is going to win you a heated rivalry game against the Hated $C. I know that Franklin has fumble issues, and I know we kept it close the entire game. But honestly speaking, our only chance at victory was to put our speed on the field, and this includes Franklin. Yes he fumbled, but I think the coaches are partly to blame for that fumble (yes, it was his fault, but the coaches could have handled it in a better way). You take a guy who has been successful all season (but with a fumble problem), and you bench him, rather than scaling back his work load. Then, he is barraged with comments concerning his fumblitis (and rightfully so). This builds up his whole fumble issues in his head more than it needs to be. Cut to Saturday’s game where he sits cold on the bench watching the rivalry take place before his own eyes, with him being merely a spectator because of the fumblitis he contracted. He sits for half of the game, and then, the coach turns and says, “Franklin, your in the game!” And the very first time he touches the ball is an option play! A play where fumbling is highly probable! Really?! By the mercy of God, he secured the ball, but everytime he gets in the game, he is thinking, “this is my only chance to prove myself. I have to do something big! Don’t fumble, don’t fumble, please don’t fumble, ooooh there’s a hole, don’t fumle, don’t fumble, SHIT! I fumbled! I won’t see the field until 2010! Goodnight.” Not a healthy way to build the confidence of a young back with fumble problems.
by westwood78 on Dec 1, 2009 8:07 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
You lost me
at “Yes he fumbled…”
Seriously, how do you handle a guy that has a fumbling problem like Franklin? These guys are taught in Pop Warner football that there is a technique and discipline in preventing most fumbles. If your not benching him and telling him he has to improve in this area, what other way is there? I’m not buying the notion that a collegiate player’s mental state is too fragile to handle in the manner that he is being handled.
While your at it, maybe you can also explain how Howland can improve our Free Throw shooting?
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
I don't know the answers, but I'm a lawyer, not a coach
If you were to ask a legal question in my field, I could probably answer. (Well, I could definitely answer, and the the answer could probably be correct.) Anyway, I assume that our coaches (both basketball and football) know the details of their professions, which would include explaining how to shoot free throws and how not to fumble. (Actually, I’ve been told by a former coach that you have to coach a positive, not a negative (the negative in my case being “Don’t look up” when I’m swinging a golf club, but I digress. So it should be “… and how to secure the ball.”)
Does anyone really think that either of our coaches are unaware of theses pretty basic issues – fumbling both on the football field and at the free throw line? If you assume that they know of the problem, I’m for leaving it to them to work on and solve the problem, which doesn’t really need constant input from us. On the other hand, if you think our coaches do not understand the importance of making free throws and holding onto the football, then it’s time to get out the “Fire the Coach” webaites.
I’m in the first group. I have confidence in our coaches and ultimately in the players they’ve selected to play for us.
A propos of nothing
It may be the geezer in me speaking, but fumbling used to be something that “happened.” Nowadays, it’s a defensive strategem. We speak of “stripping” as a variant of tackling technique. Players are taught to poke, wrest, and yank the ball out.
We’ve seen defensive players fail to bring a guy down because, instead of wrapping their guy up, they were trying to separate him from the ball. This, I suppose, is a natural deterrent against over-emphasis on causing fumbles.
Still, a part of me wishes that players would just tackle the player, and let fumbles happen when they happen, rather than tackling the ball.
There was a play this past weekend, an NFL game I think, where a runner was stopped cold by three defensive players. One had the runner by the knees; one had him by the waist. This runner was going nowhere, yet no whistle as he was not down.
Meanwhile, the third defensive player was standing erect next to the runner, reaching in with both muscular arms trying to free the ball from a pinned runner with no legs, which he did. Fumble. Turnover. Under these circumstances, even the strongest running back with the best no-fumble technique is going to yield.
I know it’s part of the game. I know there’s nothing to do but play the hand (rules) that you’re dealt. But, it just doesn’t seem right.
Not too fragile
but when you only get 2 carries a game, you have to make them count instead of letting the game come to you. Because of that, you try to do too much and then get yourself into trouble. Plus, fumblitis isn’t cured by sitting on the bench and then being thrown to the wolve all of a sudden. you build confidence in the game, not on the pine. If the thought is to bench him, he should stay there. Putting him in during a crucial situation is only setting him up for failure IMHO.
Wildcat
One minor disagreement with Nestor. If I understood his comments correctly, he’s saying that the Wildcat is predicable with Knox in the game. If so, my question in response is, how is the Wildcat any less predictable with Moline?
by bornagainbruin on Dec 1, 2009 8:16 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Not any less predictable
I am guessing (again just guessing here) coaches thought it would be a little more dependable with Moline as the play would run more smoothly without being sloppy.
Again, I kind of wish we had scrapped that formation with Moline and stayed within our rhythm to try out something else (ala reverse with Carroll or Thigpen, bubble screen). But I am with you and others in that I didn’t care much for that formation with Moline in it (even though I understand a bit why coaches went with the “dependable” factor w Moline).
Wildcat with Moline felt like a wasted down before they even snapped the ball!
by Orz on Dec 1, 2009 8:36 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not that big of a fan on the Wildcat
I agree that it’s a nice change of scheme to the offense to keep the defense on its heels, but given the penalties each time we run it, I’m not a big fan. I was in the RB for the UW game where I believe we ran it the first time, and it seemed there was a flag for every other Wildcat play. But I didn’t see the full WSU and ASU game, so I don’t know if we really improved the execution.
The running attack never really
developed any consistency. I don’t really know where the blame lies, though I suppose the conventional wisdom — that it all begins with the OL — applies. Still, to have Chane Moline as the mainstay of your running attack, is really disturbing. Of course, I respect Chane’s consistency, hard work and short yardage ability, but even with great blocking, it is hard to imagine him going more than twelve or fifteen yards. So CRN couldn’t have had him in mind when he called for more explosiveness. Then, as a natural consequence of posing no running threat, the passing attack is hampered, too. I have always felt that the lack of a running attack was the biggest problem facing us on offense; without it, you have little choice but to go for a run-and-shoot style attack, dinking and dunking your way down the field, but that is not exactly our style, either. So there you are — nowhere, really, against any good defense. We did show flashes of good offense, but Chane Moline in the cheetah/wildcat/whatever? Against the despicable Trojans? That speaks volumes. I can’t resist speaking up for Christian Ramirez one last time. He was a big back with good speed who could move the pile sometimes. Banishing him forever may well have instilled fumble paranoia in all the backs. But what do I know? My role is to keep the faith. So, Go Bruins! Wait til next year.
I think Ramirez had problems on number of levels
Most importantly he just couldn’t stay healthy. The coaches anointed him the number 1 back during spring but he couldn’t stay healthy. Had the same issue during fall camp and once the season started he never got going and when he got in looked fairly ineffective. It’s a tough game I guess but I understand coaches going with options who turned out to be more dependable. It also shows the lack of talent at skill positions left behind by previous regime.
Whatever yards we get from Moline, at the end of his carries we still have the ball.
Turnovers killed us in the game (and a few bad calls, penalties and drops).
A fumble would have ended it.
sjh
You can take a knee every down
and still hold onto the ball, doesn’t mean that you will get anywhere. Fumbling is something Franklin must work on before next season. But our speed backs are our only way that we will have a chance to win. As the saying goes, scared money don’t make money. If you sit at a blackjack table betting 5 dollars a hand, no you won’t lose a whole lot of money, but you won’t make any either. The funny thing is, in our quest to avoid turnovers in the run game, we put the ball in the air more than we should have (40 times in a close game is inexcusable) and turned the ball over there. In the end, grounding Franklin didn’t prevent our turnovers.
Yeah, because that's the same thing as what he said
We are not at a point physically where we can impose our will and our gameplan on another team. If our opponents stack the box, then we must go to the air, and we must execute. That last part is where we failed in this game. Maybe you won’t make a ton of money betting 5 dollars at a time, but there’s a chance you might come out ahead, if only by 5 dollars, and in the game of football, if you’re ahead by a penny at the end of the day, that’s all that matters. Not taking what the defense gives you is tantamount to doubling up your bet every time you’ve seen a bunch of face cards and aces come out on the previous hand.
Unless you expect speed backs to break something out of nothing
then they are not going to make much of a difference in extra yardage, and do run the risk of fumbling.
Did you see Moline running through holes, but not have the speed to break it to the next level?
Where speed backs are useful, even when the D-line is dominating the O-line, is on the plays wider out, swing passes, option plays etc, where if you can make a player miss, then you can make some yards. You can’t run that every play, and when we did run it, we didn’t execute, and ran the risk of coughing up the ball.
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions
but when you are the only guy at the table betting $5 and everyone else is betting $1000
you’re going to lose. $C’s D had been struggling. Why give them the respect of nickel and diming? We didn’t do that to either Washington schools, so why here? And yes, there would have been holes for Moline if he were faster. Linebackers were getting to the hole faster than he was. I know Franklin fumbled on that play, but did you see what he did with that run? Besides, which turnover hurts more, dropping it on the carpet, or a pick taken back to the house? you’ve got to roll the dice and hope that he could give you more. 40 attempts combined between a Freshman QB and a noodle-armed senior isn’t exactly conservative either.
Because we weren't physically outmatched against the Washington schools
Those were two teams that we could have some success imposing our gameplan on and doing things that they were trying to take away. SUC’s defense is better than UW’s or WSU’s. We no longer have that luxury and must execute on what the defense is giving, which is nickel and diming. If we were to move the ball more consistently on those nickel and dime plays, SUC would be forced to adjust, meaning they’d have to give something else up, and we’d be able to go to that instead. Obviously that didn’t happen.
I beg to differ
Their D hasn’t stopped anyone since October 3rd! Yes they have the horses, but just like we were early in the season, they weren’t ever in the right spaces and didn’t know what they were doing. But when you reduce college football to 3 yards and a cloud of dust, anyone can stop that. Doing what we did was similar to fouling a jump shooter who had been previously out of rhythm. We helped them to build up their confidence. They didn’t do a whole lot to us on Saturday…but then again, neither did our Offense.
What other teams do has nothing to do with us
It’s about matchups. Let’s look at who they played:
Notre Dame: While they’re not a great team, that’s mostly because they’re terrible defensively. They do, however, have offensive firepower that we do not yet possess. So unless you believe that we have the same offensive capabilities as the Irish, we can throw this example out.
OSU: They have the Rodgers brothers and some guy named Sean Canfield who happens to be a big time threat with a 19-6 TD-INT ratio. Next.
Oregon: They can score points in their sleep. Next.
ASU: Their D stopped this team. Their O is bad. No surprise here.
Stanford: Gerhart. And a beastly offensive line. We know this first hand.
To think that you’re going to walk in with no self-awareness and do the same things that others have done is coaching negligence, plain and simple. You must not only be able to scout your opponents, you have to scout yourself, and know your own strengths and weaknesses. To try and duplicate the gameplans of any of these teams you’re trying to use as an example is foolishness.
in retrospect
Tangentially – Our defensive performance against Stanford back at the start of the season looks pretty good, once you’ve seen Gerhart and Luck light it up against most everyone else
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 11:52 AM PST up reply actions
Add to that mix
Notre Dame: has a junior QB (who has been the starter for three years)
OSU: you already mentioned the offensive experience at key positions
Oregon: one has to be delusional to make the argument we have the same backs with the skillsets of Lamichael James and oh yeah there is Masoli
Stanford: again one has to be delusional to expect Stanford’s offensive success with UCLA’s OL/backs.
Indeed.
I understand all of that, and what I said was an oversimplified way of saying that their past defensive performance doesn’t warrant dives up the middle with Moline. When we actually opened up the playbook, there were openings. We didn’t take advantage of said openings, but there were openings none-the less. I find it hard to believe that CRN & CNC thought before the game that running it 12 times with Moline and putting it in the air 40 time would net us a victory. At least I hope that wasn’t the game plan.
if you're the only guy betting $5...
… it doesn’t make a difference what anyone else is betting. You’re unlikely to make the most money, and you’re unlikely to lose the most money, if other people are betting more. But whether you come out with more dollars than you started with is not influenced by anyone else.
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
and
poker is a better ‘scared money’ analogy. Whether you bet $5 a hand or $500 a hand on blackjack you end up losing in the long run.
If you want to go the blackjack route, though, then you have to change the amount you bet depending on the situation with the deck and the cards that have gone by.
To bring it back to football – you need to be able to execute depending on the situation in front of you. If you can’t take what the defense is giving up, then you can’t dictate to the defense and open up the other facets of your offensive game.
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I know
but I don’t really play poker, so I didn’t want to look like too much of an idiot speaking about something I didn’t know!
...and, we didn't dictate anything on Saturday!
When your tailback runs a 5 flat, the only thing you dictate is where behind the line of scrimmage you want him to tackle you!
... because we didn't execute
I think the argument made by Tydides is spot on. We couldn’t make them change their defensive gameplan because we couldn’t take advantage of the gaps their defense was voluntarily giving up.
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
True,
but that did not just happen because Rosario Dropped passes. We called a horrible game. Period. Dives with Moline all day, really? A fumble prone RB gets his first carry late into the game and it is an option play. Moline in the wildcat? A middle TE screen to Paulsen? I don’t get it. I’m sorry. I honestly think that this was one of the worst called games of their tenure in Westwood. I understand being a little gunshy because of our fumble problems and what not, but its a rivalry game. Balls to the wall! Get our speed on the field. I laugh out loud every time Austin is preparing to return a punt or a kick and the announcers say over and over again how “dangerous” of a return man he is! And it looks like he’s doing a whole lot out there, but he doesn’t get anywhere. Let’s see them mix it up a little.
I don't get these suggestions
What is getting speed on the field going to do when we’re not opening up holes and their safeties are playing deep? Not to mention that our “speed” guys have been less consistent catching the ball/hitting the holes correctly.
Holes don't stay open forever.
Speed guys get to the small holes a lot quicker. They turn Moline’s one yard run into 4 or 5. When that happens, safeties have to come up. And sure, they haven’t been consistent catching, but us consistantly running up the middle for 1 yard isn’t getting it done either. And only one of those has a chance of ever being effective. Right?
True, but if you can get past the 1st level,
you can break off a decent run. Sort of like how Franklin did on 1of his 4 carries (before he fumbled!). That can only happen though with a dominant line that opens up wide open holes (we don’t have that), or a quick back that can slip through the small crack that the O-line can open up (we have that…on the bench…with fumble problems…that don’t improve on the bench…but is our only hope of winning).
But like I said
Our options either fumble the ball, which defeats the whole purpose, or don’t hit that hole in the time that it’s open. So there’s really no point in talking about it, because it leaves us no better off than we started.
All I'm saying is
Even on Moline’s best day against a talented defense (even though they haven’t proven it, they have talent), we lose that game. On his worse day, we lose even worse. you can’t say the same for Franklin. ON his best day, we KILL $C, on a day where he gets us yards to get the offense moving but kills a drive with a fumble, we could still win that game. On a bad day, we get killed. I think that I go with Franklin hands down if I’m trying to win. Sure Moline holds onto the ball, but only for 3 downs. Just enought to keep it warm for Williams to receive a punt from Locke.
That's where I disagree
Because that’s tantamount to putting the loss on Moline and ignoring all the other mistakes made by Prince, Craft, our receivers, our line, our senior TE, etc. There’s more than one way to move the ball, and if we were able to consistently exploit what the defense was giving us (did you think they wouldn’t stack the line after getting run over by Gerhart?) then it wouldn’t even have mattered as much who was running the ball. It’s not even as if Moline got a crazy amount of carries and we were running into a brick wall over and over again. The fact that we passed 40 times is an indication that we recognized where we needed to attack. We just didn’t get it done.
It’s pretty clear at this point we’re not going to ever agree on this. I happen to need a logical reason to question the playcalling and some people don’t (relying instead on “what if” scenarios). Harping on Moline is, IMO, being unable to see the forest for the trees. I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong with thinking that we should have made a change just because we didn’t like the results, but I’d prefer to do more analysis before jumping in with the Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It’s not like our coaches called the game the way they did for some illogical reason. So I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree, because all this conversation has convinced me of is that Moline is not the reason we lost.
I respectfully disagree
He only had 12 carries because he only gained 15 yards on those 12 carries. The 40 attempts were a result of this. Not because it was a good option, but because it was the best out of the two. But I still say that using Franklin could have been disastrous, but it could have been wonderful too. He was our only chance. No it wasn’t Moline’s fault. IMO, the coaches put him in a position to fail. there was no way we should have expected him to carry such a load against $C.
And it isn’t Monday Morning QB. Many on BN including Nestor were hoping that the firepower that CRN spoke of included our speed backs. We all knew that the ASU gameplan would not work. And it didn’t. We will have to agree to disagree, but can you really envision a scenario where using Moline in the “Mildcat” and as your primary back against them would actually net us a victory?
Knox and the Mildcat
IIC — he can pass the ball and was a threat to do so from this formation. One reason to put him in.
Another — no blocking responsibilities from the Mildcat.
I really like Knox. He’s from my high school, Birmingham. I was thrilled when he signed with us. I want him to succeed.
But, until he can block in pass protection his downs are limited.
If you watch him carefully in passing situations, more often than not you’ll see him miss his man.
I’m sure he’ll improve before next season and I still think he’ll make a significant contribution to our O.
sjh
BTW -- Nestor -- Very Strong and Balanced Write Up
This is the kind of post that makes BN special — substantive and analytic.
I look forward to the thread on the D (or as I see it D’s — the one that played most of the game and the one that played the last series.)
sjh
milton knox and un poquito mas
i’m in agreement with 66 on this one, i was hoping to see more of him this yr and remember this was what was said of dean last yr before he transfered. but ouldn’t we have used him in 2 te sets so he didnt have to block or in the slot or whatever else to accomodate? if he can’t pass protect, don’t use him for that but dont eliminate him wholesale. i mean, reggie bush still doesnt get pass protection and he seemed to do pretty ok under chow at mudbutt a&m.
pretty much agree with nestor on everything except rosario as inconsistent. he made more big plays on a regular basis than anyone else on offense. he’d make some mistakes too, but i wouldn’t take it that far. eh, it’s just semantics at the end of the day i suppose.
does anyone remember the movie the program? omar epps the star freshman had fumbling problems and had to carry the football everywhere he went. crn might want to consider this too, no?
Across The Face
but their O-line was a lot more stout that ours
half of the pass protection by our backs is not only picking up LBs as part of a backs normal responsibilities, but also making up for the mistakes of our linemen, which Bush didn’t have to do much of.
Too conservative
Myself and members of our family have felt almost all year that our offense was too conservative. When we heard that Moline would be the go to guy against $c, we knew in our hearts that we might not win the game. He is an outstanding person, hard worker doesn’t fumble – but you can only count on him to get a few yards max when he carries the ball. Our QB’s don’t get much of a chance to throw downfield and every one knows that, including Petros, and they stack the line to get to our QB. Our QB doesn’t have much time to check the field. Our receivers need to hold onto the ball and really go all out when on the field. Chow needs to give the QB’s, even though inexperienced, a chance to play football more openly and less short passes that can be picked off and run back for a few yards for TD’s, like $c did to us.
If we picked up the 10-15 yard plays
That their defense was begging us to take, the game would have changed. But we couldn’t consistently do that. Whether it was bad throws or dropped passes, we needed to make plays in the second level and we couldn’t. They were able to both play deep and stack the line because we weren’t executing what we were given. It’s easy to demand that we air it out, but one step at a time. If we started picking up first downs on those shorter plays, they wouldn’t be able to bring as much pressure on our QB and their safeties would have play closer to the LOS giving us opportunities deep. We will not get opportunities to throw the deep ball until we show opponents that we can beat them with shorter throws.
The other problem is the mystique that we put on $C
We threw away the conservative playbook in the 2nd half against Oregon St., against Udub, and against Wazzu. Why did we go so conservative against a struggling D? Just because they were $C? ridiculous. I have faith in our coaches, but I will call them out when they make mistakes, and in my opinion, this was a huge one.
Why are you conflating a logical argument with an emotional one?
What did anything I said have to do with “mystique”? What I said was very fundamental stuff. In virtually every sport, when a defense tries to take something away, they’re giving up something else. In our case, they were giving us the second level and we had to prove that we could make them pay for that before they make a change. It’s a sound defensive strategy given our inconsistencies with mid range passes this year.
Not emotional, just an observation.
We ran absolutely nothing that impressed me. Did anything impress you? Did you ever say, wow, nice call? I didn’t because it was a poorly called game. And yes, their defensive strategy was sound. But I don’t think we made them work all that hard. Not much thinking involved really. Our offense was so basic, no wrinkles at all, unless you include the Moline mildcat and the the Middle screen to Paulsen.
I think that you are taking this as me trashing Moline. Far from it. He played like a warrior, but he was overmatched, and the coaches shouldn’t have put him in that position in the first place. Question. Of course we all know the result of what happened, but coming into the game, what were you hoping from the game plan? Was that what you expected? If the coaches could do it over again, do you think they would take the same offensive approach and hope that it would work out better the next time? Would you want it to be the same? Just curious.
Right On Westwood!
I agree with you. Our conservative game plan did us in – not Moline. As you say he is a great person and hard worker, but he is not our fastest back. He, like Craft, is so dedicated and it has been a true pleasure to have him and Craft as BRUINS! It is true he never fumbles but we needed a speedier person to carry the ball for us that day. I hope Franklin cures his fumbleitis this coming year. I believe the problem was with the coaches’ game plan not Moline and other players – although our receivers needed to hold on to the ball and get open more all year.
by Forever a Bruin on Dec 2, 2009 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
I agree with Forever, Ty, and Westwood.
In last year’s game, our first and only touchdown was an ambitious and tricky play. I cannot tell you off the top of my head what kind, but I seem to recall it was halfback pass.
Regardless of the difficulties we’ve had with certain personnel, You cannot pile on to the challenges by playing conservative. It is exactly for these kinds of games that you resort to sandlot football and throw caution to the wind.
The 28 – 7 final score would me much more endurable if there were any modicum of fireworks to go with it. Even when KC came in the game, we did not play to his two strengths: passing on the fly or running the 2 minute drill.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
How bout Redskins vs Broncos a few weeks ago?
The ’skins scored a touchdown by running a trick play along the lines of fake FG – fake punt – TD pass.
I find the idea of DC at fullback VERY intriguing...
… as he could turn out to be a Durrell Price kind of fullback. Back in the 90s, Price was a sound blocker and a big-play threat on screen passes.
DC may be slighlty udnersized next to a guy like Moline, but he could perhaps be a better option in NC’s offense that way than as a not freakishly fast tailback. DC seems better running on slants and off-guard than sweeping around the ends.
Just imagine an extra busrt of speed at fullback. Assuming DC can improve his blocking technique — and that’s realy the part of his game that needs the most continued improvement — then look out below.
M
"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008
Don't forget Jayson Allmond
from all accounts the guy is an absolute beast…6’1 260 and pretty quick from what i’ve read. I have to think he’s going to see a lot of playing time at FB next year.
Has there ever been a player better than Detlef Schrempf?
by bucknellbruin on Dec 1, 2009 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
My guess is
although I have no knowledge to back it up, is they did have a more aggressive offensive plan available, but as the game progressed felt that ball control and field control were going to give us the best chance at winning.
Another factor is that until we have a running game that is a legit threat, nobody has to commit their defense to stopping the run, allowing everyone to sit back in coverage. With a young qb like prince, this limits his options substantially, basically making him throw a lot of short passes underneath to move the ball downfield. With an inexperienced qb, the more passes you make him throw, the more likely he is to make a mistake. That was SUCs game plan and it was smart.
I think the wildcat was run because with our line, it was the most effective way to run the ball. We went from a terrible Oline last year to a below average line this year. Wihtout a good line, and without talented backs who can hold onto the ball, your running game is extremely limited.
The only thing that really frustrated me about the game was the punt on 4th and short on the trOJan 40 yard line, but I didn’t have any complaints about the play calling. I didn’t see any successful plays out there we could have run looking at the defense SC played and our offensive talent.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Dec 1, 2009 10:16 AM PST reply actions
Your point number 2 re. Trojies sitting back in coverage ...
… is really key. We couldn’t throw deep because Mr. Applecup was hanging out deep (and then head hunting whenever getting an opportunity). We really needed Rosario to make couple of plays on catchable balls in game like last Sat. Didn’t happen. Had he made those plays it would have not only moved the sticks, but perhaps soften them up a little more. The penalties didn’t help either.
Still trying to gather my thoughts on the punt decision. Yeah, I yelled at you during the game thread over it but I can see why you’d get upset. :-) Still, I am not sure where I fall on that yet. May be that’s worth discussing in a stand alone post.
What Offense?
While our Defense was a pleasure to watch, I had this creepy feeling that something bad was going to happen whenever our Offense got the ball. They were horrible during the SC game but also most of the year. I don’t know how you avoid placing the responsibility for their lack of performance on anyone but Chow and Neuheisel. Chow seems to think he is dealing with dominant players and Neuheisel seems to think he doesn’t have to teach fundamentals and make sure these guys are prepared to play at this level. Case in point is QB Prince. He looked like he was scared to death out there. He did not look confident and prepared at all. That is not how you want your QB going into a game like this. I also sense that Chow and Neuheisel just don’t get along very well and have competing egos. I have to see some major changes before I spend any more of my hard-earned cash on tickets and time to go see another game.
Do you have actual evidence that Chow and Neuheisel "don't get along"?
Please provide links with quotes from reputable source to substantiate it. If you can’t provide anything to back up your speculation, don’t rumor monger on BN again.
Tracy Pierson reports today about so-called Chow/Neuheisal "tension
He said that it seems to have existed a little over “playcalling” — which makes me wonder who’s being the conservative one — but that it’s WAY overblown and Chow is very optimistic about the offense and will be around for at least two more years.
That settles it
The sky is falling. No offensive coordinator and head coach have ever disagreed about playcalling before.
Exactly
They have had disagreements. BFD. I expect to have disagreements between smart individuals. I have never heard them undermine each other and they have always worked it out. I think it will be a good bet Chow will be with UCLA for at least two more years. I hope so because I really like hearing from him and am enjoying watching him improvise with the pieces we have.
I shudder to think what our offense would have looked like last year if we had the Law Firm or the Osaar Rasshan leading our offense (following the injuries to Cowan and Olson). Oh wait, I can picture. It was against ND at the Rose Bowl.
This means a contract extension is in order, right?
Dohn was reporting in the offseason that CRN was trying to get one done, but it went on hold because of the economic problems. Any word on it now, and on whether we will fork over the necessary dough?
That's fine.
I’m don’t want them to agree on everything. If they thought exactly alike, we wouldn’t need both. Having different points of view and still working together will be beneficial to the team in the long run.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
Agree on some points Keptycho
I really don’t think that Chow had much confidence in any of our QB’s. And, Prince did look like a deer caught in the headlights. My husband and I said that as soon as he came onto the field and they showed a close up of him. Chow has said that it takes a QB at least 2 years to get the system. We can’t wait every 2 years to field a QB. Our QB’s are talented, take off the handcuffs and let them play. Our offense has looked bad most of the year. Our defense scored more points than our offense in one game. I have read that Rick Neuheisel has let Chow be responsible for the offense. Rick needs to take more of an active roll there. We did kick the ball many times on very short yardage situations in many games this year on 4th down. That sort of tells your team that you are not very confident or trust them in their ability to get small yardage. I hope we continue to improve and beat the SCumbags next year. I really don’t know about Rick and Norm not getting along. It seems to me like they do. But, WE DO NEED TO KEEP SUPPORTING OUR TEAM!
by Forever a Bruin on Dec 1, 2009 10:51 AM PST up reply actions
Well, which comes first,
support or success?
So the players are not up to par
Therefore, we have to play conservative in our eleventh game of the season? Mmmmm.
1. I think that thinking is backwards. If you have outstanding players who are much better than the other side, who are stornger and more talented, then you can just play conservative, smash mouth football knowing you can beat the other team man on man all day.
In fact, that’s basically what SUC did. They dramatically simplified their game, very conservative the whole game until the last cheap TD because it made sense for them to do it with all the players they’ve paid for. By playing so conservatively, too, with our “weaker” players we played right into their hands.
If you have weaker players who can’t dominate man on man the only way you can win is to be more deceptive, more misdirection, more spread, more wide open, more variable all over the field.
Example: Navy and Air Force generally have smaller, weaker players. So they play triple option football, which is not power football, but really finesse fottball. It’s why so many teams play the spread today. You don’t have to have superior athletes t run it effectively.
2. If our starters are so weak, then it’s all the more reason to play the subs, the future and get them ready for next year. Instead we have hardly played them all year on offense at the skilled positions, a play or two here or there even when we were getting blown out.
3. How is Brehaut supposed to learn the playbook if he never plays? How doe we know that’s even the reason? KP, unfortunately, has been injury prone, three times this season in 9 games played I think. Do you think the coaches could have done a better job with Brehaut? I do.
4. I actually think that given the restrictions placed on them by the coaching staff, the offense actually played fairly well against SUC. But constantly having KP throw risky, short slant and flat passes that he’s had trouble with all year getting intercepted, especially when SUC was playing so tight on them, and then refusing to go for it on 4th and short at the SUC 40, put all the pressure on our offense and very little on SUC’s defense.
We did not really play to win until we were already behind 14-0 and, gee wshiz, we scored a TD with 5 minutes to go. Despite our TO’s we were still in the game. But then we went to a prevent defense that allowed SUC to pass at will down the field. Is that the player’s fault?
5. I support this team completely. The players left it all out on the field. I support the coaches, too, but after watching their conservative play-calling all season, I question the wisdom of their strategy.
Next year witll be year three of CRN’s coaching and recruiting. I know the schedule is brutal, but at the very least I expect the gloves to come off on offense and the coaches to push forward with a strategy of winning and not playing not to lose. We had five years of that with KD. Enough is enough.
GO BRUINS!
question of overall game plan
Playing conservatively offensively plays to your strengths if you have a strong D and a strong kicking game; we play conservatively because defense is our comparative advantage. Meanwhile, I think SUC made a mistake in not being more aggressive offensively, which was their comparative advantage with more playmakers, better O-line protection and more of a deep threat. I think they were wary of not giving ATV, RM et al any easy picks.
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
I agree in general with what you say
But we were playing the same strategy as SUC, which to me, is a losing strategy in that situation since it is generally accepted their players are still a little better than ours.
I guess my expectations are affected by my orignal impressions of CRN and Chow when they were hired. I never expected two years of plain vanilla offense.
well...
SUC has players a little better than ours. My belief is we can play to our strengths and give ourselves a (long) shot at winning, or go away from our strengths and reduce our chances of winning.
My only caveat to that is that I imagine in ‘wilder’ games, you might up the ‘luck’ factor and decrease the influence of talent.
Playing with the SPTRs, we are fortunate as the underdog that there is always some wide variance that is independent of the play of the teams… :-)
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Looking at the defense SC was playing
what non-conservative plays would you have called that would have worked? They were sitting back in coverage the whole night because our line couldn’t get the running game going and making us throw the ball underneath.
"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"
by silverlakebruin on Dec 1, 2009 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
I admire your opinions.
You seem very knowlegeable to me in your analysis, much better than me on the Xs and Os I think. So when you say SUC was playing back I wonder if I’m wrong about how SUC playyed.
But what I saw, and I was at the game watching with great seats with my binocs, was SUC normally playing a safety deep and tight over the middle and short passing routes especially with their linebackers. Every time KP threw it seemed the SUC secondary was right there unless he threw into a “hole” about 15 yards downfield. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but that’s how it looked to me.
What plays would I have called? Actually more running plays with misdirection and/or around end with our fast backs, not Moline as much as I admire him, and long downfield to Rosario or Embree because of their heighth or EGADS a running back going long. TMore screens to a hot back when there’s a blitz. These just don’t seem to be part of our playbook.
Commenting on my own comment
on which should come first, support or success, I didn’t mean it to be ambiguous. I would support the Bruins if they lost every game. Real effort is all I require. Shutting up now.
Offense in 2010 Not Biggest Concern
The Bruins must have Brian Price back. He is their biggest recruit. If I was CRN, I would be putting the fullcourt press on Price, trying everthing to convince him to return.
Let’s face it, without him, the Bruins defense would have been pretty ordinary this year; the prospects for next season seem worse.
Even if CRN is able to sign a bluechip DT (i.e. Uko of Don Lugo), the Bruins will be woefully thin upfront next year. David Carter is the only returning DL with any experience (or skill).
I anticipate the offense improving next season but if the defense takes a step backwards, we could be looking at a similar season.
richramus
or "Bruinsnation.com moderator insider information"?
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions
Actually
Tracy Pierson in his update today on BRO basically let the cat out of the bag. His update is subscription based but is basically confirming what everyone who were close to the program knew for a while. He is pretty much gone.
can't blame him
Sure wish he stayed, but he’s looking at making millions without risking a senior year injury versus coming back and playing for a team that, realistically, might get one of the league’s middle bowl slots. I love UCLA, and I’m sure he does, but I think all we can do now is wish him well – and wait for him to blow up all the ex-Trojans playing on Sundays.
formerly AZBruin
Regarding Thigpen and Knox
in the backfield, I think at this point I’ve really come to trust our coaches. A lot of us were clamoring for Brehaut to get some minutes, and in the UDub game we saw the bad things that can happen when you put a player who is not ready into the game. If the coaches think that there are legitimate reasons for not putting in Thigpen or Knox or any other player, then I trust them.
i can see having austin return punts
because he’s much more reliable probably in actually making the catch when people are thundering down his neck. I’d have liked seeing Thigpen and the other freshmen get more shots at kick returns, though.
As for the Cheetah plays…they don’t seem to be much of a Wildcat. It’s just direct snap to the running back for a dive into the line. There’s no jetsweep or threat of pass or handoff. Not much misdirection. They might have been well off just snapping to the running back while the quarterback was still back there too, the old fashioned way. At least then the defense won’t be tipped off to it beforehand.
Brehaut
Still seems weird to me that they burned his redshirt, unless they’re expecting Prince to disappear on his mission at some point?
Prince has already said
openly that he’s not going on his mission. I’m a little confused still about why they burned Brehaut’s redshirt.
I think
We made too much out of his burning redshirt. If Prince really works out next season and after that, Brehaut can easily redshirt in one of those years.
Vice versa if Brehaut just explodes during spring ball and fall camp, then he steps in, Prince backs him up and we get Nottingham to redshirt. I am not worrying about it all that much.
do you think
they would redshirt him when he’s #2 on the depth chart?
by britishbruin on Dec 1, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions
Not really sure
But let’s say Prince takes every snap either next year of the year after, then he can easily apply for the redshirt. And by Brehaut’s 3rd season, coaches can use either Nottingham or Crissman in mop up duties to preserve Brehaut’s RS season. Lot of ways to work around and manage it. I am sure CRN has explored all those scenarios.
But you always need a viable back-up
And it’s sure not looking like Prince will last a whole year completely healthy. It looks like we will need two good quarterback to be ready to play at any time if we want to maximize our wins. I don’t think mop-up duty will be the only snaps available given Prince’s injury record.
Yeah
May be not next year but possibly the year after when Nottingham and Crissman can serve as viable backups, while Brehaut redshirts prepping to be starter after Prince’s graduation. Like I said, we are long ways off. Let’s see what happens in the coming months. I am not going to stress over it.
Crissman came in
rated pretty highly. I imagine he’ll be given a chance to compete in the spring if the coaches think he might be worthy, but I’m not sure he’d be content to ride out four years here sitting third or fourth on the depth chart if that’s how it plays out.
formerly AZBruin
Crissman is a tough kid
Crissman is a very tough kid. He played hurt at Edison and still did well. I hope he gets a chance and doesn’t transfer out.
by Forever a Bruin on Dec 2, 2009 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
ok
With that optimism, I’m guessing you think KP is going to have an offseason of practicing how to slide safely… :-)
Everyone Talking About Our Lack Of Imagination On O
When you talk about the squads that really make a splash with their wacky offenses, keep in mind that the squads that are successful are generally led by Juniors and Seniors. Having been a Fresno State follower from the time I was five until shipping off to UCLA at 18, I can tell you that a lot of the option and wishbone teams we faced were awesome when they had a senior QB and some Junior and Senior skill position players but they were generally sorta crappy when they were led by young guys.
Tricky offenses may make up for a general lack of talent but lacking talent wasn’t our big issue. Look at our bball team. You don’t think we’re more talented than some of the squads we’ve lost to. Put our guys in one-on-one games with the players from the opposing teams and we’ll crush them; that doesn’t mean we know how to play the game.
It takes time to figure out how to make the tricky stuff work.
I'm said it before and I'm saying it again
according to some of my inside sources, Brian Price is staying
My uncle
knows his family and according to him his mother wants him to stay and get a degree. Usually in these cases the mother wins
Besides the mom thing,
as we all know it would be really smart to get the degree. Especially since he is so close. We can’t predict our futures and injuries do happen to pro ball players. Just sayin’
this last year
though i’ve seen him limping back to the sidelines many times but he seems to back in the next play. you never know and it would kill me if i saw him get injured
I noticed that too.
He’s a tough kid and he plays all out on every play. It’s tough not getting leg injuries when working in the trenches. Hopefully he can heal up and spend some time in the weight room this winter and come out with a beat $C vengeance. :)
I really really really really want AMM to be right about this
I’m still somewhat skeptical, but the whole injury angle is actually a good reason to have your degree too because you can also get injured in the NFL.
Did I mention I really want AMM to be right?
Not much input here, but it's something.
This from a Rivals interview with CRN on practice: “Probably not Monday, but we will probably do some stuff in the evening because again they are in finals, but probably towards that weekend.”
I was going to ask if there was anything definitive on Price and I guess there is; only Brian knows the answer.

by 




















