Spaulding Roundup: Offensive Issues Piling Up For Bruins

Doesn’t it seem like a no brainer to start Craft? The coaches have seen him enough in games to see what w have. Let him fully heal and be ready for next year if thats the direction they want to go.

I think it would be best to start KC this game if KP doesn’t show the ability to make all the necessary throws. I’m sure CRN is keeping a close eye on KP to see if he can make the throws and also to see if he shows any signs of pain when throwing. As for missing practice, IIRC Prince didn’t miss anything that day because he wasn’t throwing enough to get any meaningful reps.

And I think the foundation was already weakening when OC Homer Smith left after the 86 season. Donahue benefited from having an experienced coaching staff, and a full-time recruiting coordinator who scouted nationally (in that pre-internet era, most schools only recruited regionally). And having a future NFL Hall of Famer playing QB didn’t hurt.

Aikman’s first year as a starter was 87, but had a whole year of tutelage under Neuheisel and Smith after he transferred to UCLA from OU. That 87 squad was the most talented UCLA team that I can recall from just about any era. IIRC, 9 players from that team were taken in the NFL draft. They were even talented enough to overcome the predictable Steve Axman who replaced Smith as OC. For all that talent, they probably underachieved, but the margin between 10-2 and 12-0 was very thin. The loss to Nebraska that year IMO was more of a fluke, given that the defense contained NU’s vaunted option attack but did not plan on an option QB like Steve Taylor tossing 5 TDs. And the loss to SC very well could have had a different outcome had a replay review of Eric Affholter’s “touchdown” been available (and Aikman not gone out for his 21st b-day the night before, but that’s a different story/rumor for a different post).

That 88 squad was also one of the better UCLA teams, but nowhere near as talented as the 87 squad. UCLA had very highly ranked recruiting classes in the two years prior, but they were beset by injuries and players simply not living up to their high billing. Those Bruin recruiting classes were neck and neck with Michigan for the top spot, but looking at how the rosters filled out years later, Michigan’s classes were clearly a lot more productive than UCLA’s.

During that period from 82 to 88, the depth chart legitimately went three and four deep at nearly every position. They didn’t have issues with “youth” and “experience” because there was junior and senior leadership in every unit. During that seven-year bowl winning streak, every year except 87 featured a different fifth-year senior QB starting. QBs like Neuheisel, Bono, Norrie, and Stevens already had three or four years in Homer Smith’s system before they were handed the keys to the offense.

The 89 season was a disaster. The 88 squad also had a big list of guys leaving for the NFL, but a lot of starters remained in place for 89. The problems started at the top with freshman Bret Johnson (brother of Rob, and son of Bob) who turned out to be ill-suited to playing a pro-style offense. I saw the guy in HS, and he was one of the best dual threat QBs I ever saw. He was an All-American, and led El Toro HS to three CIF championships. But, that was high school. Johnson was basically Jake Locker, except five inches shorter and with a weaker arm.

The turning point in that season (and perhaps Donahue’s tenure) was the early season loss to Michigan, where Michigan scored late and recovered an onside kick to win the game. After that loss, the team just went into downward spiral, and that pattern has repeated itself many times in subsequent seasons. To TD’s credit, they did pull out of those funks in other years in time to beat SC, but those losing streaks included a lot of ugly losses that never should have happened.

Starting in 89, you also started getting more holes in the depth chart. The guys coming up through the ranks were not as good as the ones they replaced. The recruiting classes started getting more lopsided and unbalanced. Plus, you had more of a carousel with the assistant coaches coming and going. And I think Donahue simply didn’t have the spark anymore after that 89 season completely imploded, and that hurt the recruiting as well.

Also, I think it was a mindset change with the players, which began in the late-80s when juniors became eligible for the NFL draft. Starting with QB Tommy Maddox, players started leaving UCLA early and you had more QBs transferring if they got beat out in spring or fall camp. I don’t see a blue chip QB like Steve Bono today sticking around for four years before earning the starting role. Donahue had a hard time adjusting to these changes, and when the NCAA mandated that recruiting coordinators also serve as position coaches, UCLA’s national scouting fell off big time. He stuck around too long, and that put the program on a less than solid footing.

Toledo brought some refreshing new energy to Westwood, and actually raised expectations higher than they ever were during the Donahue era (back then, there was no BCS, so the Rose Bowl was the goal every year, regardless of ranking). Talk of national championships during November and December was unheard of during the Donahue years, and UCLA was right in the thick of it until the defensive meltdown against Miami in 1998.

I think there too, Toledo was a different coach after the Miami loss. He didn’t bring the same energy to that he did during the earlier part of his tenure, and he began losing recruits to SC. Once SC went on their current roll, Carroll basically locked up SoCal the same way that John Robinson did during the early part of Donahue’s tenure. Donahue responded by recruiting nationally, and that pulled in many of the key contributors during that 80s period. The irony is that Carroll has now gone national with his recruiting, and has left an opening for many of the SoCal recruits. How Neuheisel responds to this landscape shift will ultimate determine whether he can get UCLA back to national prominence.

Looks from the quote from CRN that he sees KC as being ahead of Brehaut at this point, so your point re KC vs Brehaut seems to be incorrect.

The question then is whether starting a healthy KC is a better idea than starting KP at less than 100%. Given that that is clearly an open question for CRN, I don’t see the purpose of attacking people on BN who, ceteris paribus, would like to see good things happen for a kid who has gutted it out through tough times without much reward or respect.

then you did not watch the Oregon game (13-25 for 81 yards). If KP is healthy enough to start, I hope that he has his best game of the season. But, for Prince to be effective, he has to be at or close to full strength. If not, I hope to see Craft in the game sooner rather than later.

that was a reply to yoyo’s post,

I thought that his offenses at TAMU were much more creative than what he brought to UCLA in 94 and 95. When Homer Smith left, I was hoping that Neuheisel would get the gig. He didn’t and he left. Had Neuheisel stuck around and took over for TD in 1996, I think he very well could have gotten UCLA to one or two national championship games. But, he would have also landed the program on probation in the process, given how fast and loose he played with the rules at Colorado.

I loved the creativity and sense of daring that Toledo brought to UCLA (at least on the field). While Al Borges was a great hire, the real gamble was hiring Rocky Long to install that high risk 3-3-5 defense. But, that defense was so well suited to the roster that TD left for Toledo (which was talented but undersized), and I think Long’s departure after only two years really hurt the program. And it’s the turnover on the assistant coaches that has been a huge problem for UCLA.

Totally agree with you about TD coasting through his last few years, and Toledo’s deficiencies as a long-term program manager. Like I wrote above, I think Donahue’s turning point was the 1989 Michigan game, and Toledo’s was the 1998 Miami game. Neither coach was ever the same after those losses. A younger Donahue responded to the disastrous 1979 season that concluded with a 49-14 loss against SC by completely revamping the offense (switched from the veer option to a pro-style passing attack) and going balls-to-the-wall on recruiting. Even though Donahue did bring back Homer Smith in 1990 and open up the QB position to competition (which led to Bret Johnson transferring), I didn’t sense the same urgency and he did not have the same vigor with recruiting.

but, by his last year or two, he became much too conservative, playing not to lose instead of playing to win. I still remember watching the Oregon game during his last year. We were down 1 point in the fourth quarter, needing about 20 yards to get in comfortable field goal range. We ran the ball 3 straight times for 9 yards – ended up with a 4th and 1 and then missed a 40+ yard field goal and lost the game.