More Reflections On Bruins' Big Night In DC
by Nestor on Dec 30, 2009 3:42 PM PST
in Football
Email
PrintI will not lie. Deep into the second quarter of last night - especially after Prince threw the pick - I was very tempted to log into our game thread and type something about that wall. :-) Yet I kept myself from doing it for one big reason. Even though the Bruins looked totally frozen and a little shell shocked from the cold weather and icy turf, while watching the game it was clear our guys were better athletes than the well coached Temple Owls.
I got the sense that our guys were just one step behind on all facets of the game which was led to Temple jumping ahead. Austin looked even more hesitant than usual on his returns (despite the big one), our front-7 were barely missing the tackles and getting juked by Vaughn Charlton, and on offense our receivers looked a step slower and Prince (at least to me) looked very tentative as if he was thinking about his shoulder.
Despite all the adversity I think the turning point of the game really took place in Temple's last possession before the end of first half. Temple was up 21-7 and had a 3rd and 3 with 32 seconds left on their own 27 yard line. At that point I thought Al Golden (who up to that point was coaching a great game) thought was going to go the obvious route by calling on his running backs. Instead he called for a bomb (targeting ATV) which went for an incomplete pass. I thought (from the angle I saw it and I had good seats) that ATV might have held the Temple receiver but it didn't get called. More importantly, it saved us a time out forcing Temple to punt. We took full advantage of it to drive down on their prevent defense (thanks again to Al Golden) and get 3 and a modicum of momentum heading into half. It gave some of a sense of hope we desperately needed heading into half time.
The second big moment of the game was again Temple getting stopped short on 3rd down deep in our territory in their first possession of the second half. From my vantage point it looked like the right spot although some of my friends watching it on TV texted me that we had gotten a generous one. In any event, Reggie made a huge stop on that possession essentially setting the tone for the second half.
Those were the two moments that I think changed the complexion of the game in our favor. Few more thoughts on the game after the jump.
Let me see what I can remember about the playcalling. I was pretty happy that we stayed with Chane Moline most of the game to be honest. If the weather condition was different - perhaps 10-15 degrees less colder and no wind - then I would have preferred a little more of JetSki and a little razzle, dazzle with Knox 9(via Wildcat). Not with the conditions from the last night. With the wind blowing and icy turf, we needed a dependable north-south runner who would protect the ball. Moline was the guy. I was hoping for a little more from Coleman but we didn't get it from him.
As for Thigpen when he came in, it looked like he wasn't on the same page with rest of the team. That leads me to two questions though. First, why did the coaches wait till second half to go for Thigpen's speed and fancy, gadget plays (especially on first down). Second, it's a little disconcerting that underclassmen are still not up to speed on the playbook. The second issue is a topic we will be discussing I think number of times in the coming weeks/months. I also didn't get the need for tackle-eligible throw to XSF in second half. Seems like our bread and butter approach was working fine.
Speaking of playcalls, I liked the calls the coaches made with Prince. He missed some open receivers. That wasn't the coach's fault. Although, again I was wondering whether his shoulder was all right. Gotta say I think it is a big deal that coaches stayed with Prince even after that interception and allowed him to get confidence in that last minute drive resulting in FG. I got the sense that was HUGE for Prince in terms of building up confidence and relaxing a little heading into second. Then that call on 4th and 1 to Austin was just money. Here is what TA told Jon Golden about that play:
"We needed that; we came into the locker room and talked about how we needed to get more effective on offense," Austin said. "It goes back to what we've been practicing; that specific play is for short yardage, but we call it in practice and it works and it works and it works. We lined up, got the defense we wanted, and all it was was a pitch-and-catch."
Going back to Prince I was impressed with the courage and guts he showed yesterday. I don't want to draw conclusions on him missing some open receivers because he was playing with a hurt shoulder. I do want him to work on his sliding skills and really working on realizing when he needs to pull back for the interest of the team.
In terms of defense, what else is there to say. I am still scratching my head over why we have to wait till second half to make adjustments. From the same Golden report linked above, here is what CRN had to say:
"Some of it was structural - you have to see what they're doing and figure out how to get into different gaps to see if you can combat what they're beating you with," Neuheisel said. "And then the second thing was adapting our plan to the field. Despite all the hard work to make sure everything was perfect, the field had frozen over. There was a lot of skating - literally skating on top of it - especially on the end of the field where Akeem made his decisive touchdown."
Honestly not sure if that explanation works. It was obvious to everyone that we needed to mix up our scheme, throw in some blitz packages and rough up Charlton. Not sure why we had to wait till second half to get started on that plan. It is going to be very interesting to see how our defense performs next year without Price and Carter. Right now I have very mixed feelings about Bullough. I will give him credit for his second half adjustment but I am still not sure why we have to wait so long to get started on throttling our opponents. It will be interesting to see what Bullough does with young players tomorrow. Although, he will have the luxury to build it around anchors such as Moore and Ayers.
As for the Temple Owls we have to give it up to Al Golden. Except for the two interesting decisions he made (throwing deep end of second half and then going for it on 4th instead of kicking a FG) he had his guys focused, well prepared and locked in. They were impressive. They only committed three penalties and minimized their mistakes until they imploded late in the game.
Similarly, our guys actually committed only 4 penalties. We also have to give big props to our offensive line. They started off a little slow. Then they settled down and opened things up for Chane and also gave Prince a lot of time to find his receivers. We have to give credit to kids like Jake Dean and Nick Ekabatani for stepping up in filling for Kai Maiava, Ryan Taylor. They got stronger as the game went into fourth quarter and I thought that was a testament to the desire and determination of the team.
As for some long term thoughts, I sure hope no one here falls for the LAT's concern trolling about Price and XSF. None of that should be a surprise to anyone who follows UCLA football. We have known that for months and we expect our coaches to have their contingency plan in place. The bottom line when it comes down to it is the Bruins improved from a 4 win season (resulting from Dorrell's talent decimation and freak QB injuries) by 3 games and now find themselves to bring in more talent via this year's recruiting class.
I have no doubt CRN will be bringing in more talent into Westwood this season. It's a matter of our program taking gradual steps of progress getting us back to where we were in the early 80s and the potential we flashed during the Cade era of late 90s. I think we have a good chance at getting to another happy ending next year. Hopefully it will happen at a later date than December 29th. After what I saw last night I am feeling even better about the coming months and will be even more excited about 2010-11 season that I was for this one.
GO BRUINS.
60 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think we'll be fine on offense next year
Losing X hurts but the line returns at least 4 key players/starters. Add in another year to all the backs plus the addition of Jones and James. Fauria is a pretty drastic upgrade at TE. Rosario and Embree return a year better, and add in Smith, Marvray, Carroll and MP7. I think the offense will be fine this year, and it will be explosive in 2011. There are some issues on defense, but the secondary should be very good, and Ayers, Jones, and Moore return to be the leaders.
Glad you were able to catch it live
You brought up a few interesting topics. I’ll add a couple from the telecast.
I’m not sure that Golden called that pass on 3rd down in the second quarter, but it was definitely a momentum swing. It seems out of character and the announcer said Golden gave his QB a scolding.
The pass to XSF was a lateral. He was not eligible on that play, and the toss definitely looked like a lateral. The officials ruled it an incomplete pass, otherwise we would have lost a few yards.
Our guys had horrible footing all night. I think that is why Austin was so hesitant on his runbacks (he had two good runbacks, but he hesitated on those too). I think the toss to Thigpen was supposed to be a toss counter, but he couldn’t cut sharply enough, making it look like a busted play. Temple, on the other hand, had no such issues. Not sure if was due to equipment or familiarity, but there was a clear difference between the teams. However, another poster pointed out that it was Ayers slip that led to his touchdown. I guess the universe has a way of equalling things out.
All things considered, I’m proud of the way the team battled through the adversity and came from behind to win in convincing fashion. Once the D turned on, it was dominant. I was sitting on the couch telling a friend that Temple’s QB would make a game changing mistake if we could stop the run and force 3rd and long. I couldn’t pick a better time to make a correct prediction all year.
by AllHailMightyBruins on Dec 30, 2009 4:30 PM PST reply actions
I'm pretty sure XSF
was eligible on that play. I believe he was uncovered and thus, lined up in an eligible position, would be eligible to receive a lateral. Not sure about college rules regarding number-eligibility issues for forward passes, but I’m fairly confident that any number is eligible to carry the ball (a lateral would be essentially a handoff) as long as he’s doing so from an eligible position. And it sure looked like he was going out on a screen/lateral.
I thought he was covered, but he definitely wasn't
Maybe the call was CRN’s last ditch attempt to lure him to stay
by AllHailMightyBruins on Dec 31, 2009 8:01 AM PST up reply actions
I was thinking the same thing
And if not to get him to stay, then perhaps to cement his decision to come back to our program in two years.
by bornagainbruin on Dec 31, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions
LA Times missed 2 key points
They missed the point on the game: we man handled them for most of the game. We missed tackles (ouch) but we dominated their offensive line.
And they missed the reality about next year. Every program is going to lose a bunch of good players. I (we) are going to miss ATV, RC, the Bosworths, Mr. Price and the X-Man.
But, there is lots of promise in the young guys. Ayers and Moore can and should step up to be stars next year.
And, if we had a season with a healthy quarterback, that would make it a special season all by itself.
Really hard schedule next year. May be too much for a still young team early.
But i am optimistic
by Bruin Dad and Grad on Dec 30, 2009 4:32 PM PST reply actions
"for most of that game we ..."
were getting badly beaten on both sides of the ball.
Luckily we had a huge special teams advantage which gave us a field position advantage, which translated into 10 late points.
We outgained them 314-282 in the end; of which we got 46 yards on the last drive when the game was already beyond Temple’s reach.
by britishbruin on Dec 30, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions
Good thoughts
Bullough….Our D comes out soft every game and can’t tackle worth squat. Yet, the 2nd half adjustments have been effective. But I can’t figure out WHY we don’t take it to our opponents from the get go. After watching tape of our opponents, Bullough should have a grasp on what opponents like to do. Next year, our D will be very young, will have a lot of guys on the 2 deep with limited experience and a gaping hole at the DT positions. I honestly don’t have any confidence in Bullough’s abilities and pretty much want him gone. Our D has limitations but I’d argue that this was one of the better positioned defenses we’ve had in a while. Some of the problems were due to the struggles on offense but I saw too many issues on D.
I agree with the playbook issue. Is this due to players not putting in the effort or is Chow’s offense too complicated? I think both have contributed to this issue. I’m pretty confident that offensively, we’ll be much improved as most of our talent was so young and inexperienced.
Maybe BN can do an analysis of each position group, facets of the program, etc in the near future.
I’d personally like to see a post regarding Bullough and everyone’s take on him now that the season is over. Maybe someone else’s POV can change my perspective.
On Bullough
I’d like to hear everyone’s thought too. You should put together your thoughts in a post and the I’m sure the comments section will fill with everyone’s own opinions.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 30, 2009 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
Adjustments.....
From the get go Temple was under manned, Al Golden knew this and opened up the playbook to catch us off guard. Which is fine, good coaching. But after the first couple of series we still hadn’t adjusted to all the play action passes? Why not, every other play was. The just doesn’t change much until half time, they need to get on the ball and do a far quicker job of adapting after every single series.
By mid second quarter, you could also tell even with their strong running game, they were avoiding running up the gut. At some point, trick plays, counters and other goodies don’t become as effective. Our talent advantage was huge, as it should be. Who wants to run at Brian Price?
I Posted Mine In Another Thread
Quick Summary:
If Bulloch stays, we need another DC to handle the first half. Bulloch can coach the second.
The slow start pattern that started by DW must stop.
We’ve had more talent on D than O; that’s where our all conference and All American players are. There is no excuse for a D with all that talent to come out so weak.
I think we should seriously consider getting rid of him — unless we bring in a second DC for the first half.
sjh
Another option
Bring in a second guy as the Co-defensive cooridantor at the end of next season if we see the same problems next season. If Bullough finds another opportunity then he can move on. The Co-DC combo/set worked well for Stoops in Oklahoma.
I have some thoughts on Bullough which I'll relay later, but...
over the years I’ve become very frustrated over our inconsistent D. We’ve always been a team that focuses more on Offense (or so it seems — not lately obviously, as we’ve had very little offense to speak of, when compared to offenses run by the Cades and Troy Aikmans of our day). I’ve been religiously following UCLA football for nearly 25 years now (pre-Ucla undergrad days) and I can count on ONE hand how many times we’ve had a lights-out Defense.
I think we were kind of getting there under Coach Dwayne the last couple years, but we were still inconsistent. I think our high point in one game was clearly 13-9. But then you recall the 1998 game against Miami, a couple shootouts against $C, and a host of others and there’s very little to grasp on to when it comes to remembering a stifling take-no-prisoners defense.
I would LOVE to see us recruit BIG-TIME D talent… I’m talking the 4.2 running, 250 lb beasts that LEVEL people on the field. We tend to recruit slightly smaller, seemingly slightly slower than speed-burning talent. They’re good, they’re fast, don’t get me wrong, but they’re rarely ever in the mold of dare I say it, the Ronnie Lotts or Troy Polamalus (I hate admitting that, but it’s true). Those guys were VICIOUS in college and they became ANIMALS in the pros.
On offense we can point to the Troy Aikmans, MJD’s, Ogdens, etc. who are NFL hall of famers or will be or should be some day… but on Defense, we have a difficult time recalling names of that caliber over the years… I’m frustrated by this.
I don’t know if Bullough can deliver in this regard or if coach Neuheisel can recruiting wise. Moore, AA, and others are developing, and are SOLID so far, but I’d like to see a Bruin Defensive guy THROTTLE opponents week in and week out, get drafted in the first round and kick some tail in the NFL for once.
Maybe CRN will change this, but I somewhat doubt it, because he’s an offensive minded coach. I think our philosophy has always been offense first, … imagine though if we tweaked that slightly to be more even or to perhaps dare to focus a bit more on Defense. I’m a west coaster through and through, but I have developed a more defensive minded appreciation for the raw talent and impact a Solid defense can bring (more of an east coast philosophy). West coast tends to imply finesse, faster talent; east coast, more bruising, bigger, stronger talent (generalizing here)… I’d like UCLA ball to be more balanced, that’s all.
Go Bruins!
W.S. Montano Class of 1994
by wsmontano1994 on Dec 31, 2009 9:09 AM PST up reply actions
that being said...
I LOVE the way our defense bounced back on Tuesday and stifled Temple in the end. Our Defense clearly is a step ahead of the offensive talent as we speak, so what I say above may or may not make sense right now. I’m looking more at the big picture. We’re losing a sizeable number of big-play guys this year, it would be cool to see the new breed of underclassmen take it up a notch higher and for our incoming class of defensive recruits take it even further. In all, I want our defense to literally shut out Pac-10 teams (a tall order given Pac-10 talent and parity, but you know what I mean). I would love to win more 27-3, 35-7, 44-0 games.
W.S. Montano Class of 1994
by wsmontano1994 on Dec 31, 2009 9:15 AM PST up reply actions
What the NCAA numbers show
I am no expert on this subject but here is where I come down.
In 2008, we finished 48th in total defense according to the NCAA website. (http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2008&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&site=org)
This year we improved to 39th in total defense through December 26 (before the Rice game) according to the NCAA. (http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2009&div=B&site=org&rpt=IA_teamtotdef) (I do not know if that awful 21 point 1st half may affect our total defense ranking.)
Here’s another way of looking at it. This year we finished 88th in total offense according to the NCAA (through the USC game). (http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2009&div=B&site=org&rpt=IA_teamtotoff) Nobody here would argue we should have Norm Chow be the offensive coordinator for the second half. Now that I think of it, there are people who would make that argument—next year’s opponents.
We need to keep our eye on the disaster Coach Neuheisel took control of in late 2007. Coach Bullough and Coach Chow are likewise the beneficiaries of Coach Dorrall’s recruiting failures. Like I said, I am no defensive football expert. But the numbers tell me positive things about Coach Bullough.
Last thoughts. I could be misreading the numbers. Other readers on this site should check my numbers. Also, numbers never tell the whole story and my analysis may be flawed by an over reliance on NCAA stats. Finally, I have unshakeable faith in Coach Neuheisel.
Go Bruins!
A couple of thoughts -- I don't think those numbers tell the whole story
I think the drive charts tell another part of the story of our D. Game after game, we start soft, miss tackles and fall behind. Stellar late games don’t create wins on a team where the O is to weak to “come back”. In some of the games we lost, the other teams were able to get ahead and then throttle back their O, play ball control, maybe not gain a lot of yards, but drag out wins. Our second half “successes” have to be judged in that light. We also lost a game because we could not make one, final late game 3 and out stop. All of this with players who had talent — all conference, all American and future NFL players.
Because we had much more talent on the D side of the ball. Comparing the D’s national standing to the O’s doesn’t help much. I think Chow got more out of what he had than Bulloch did. Chow had little experience at the skill positions, an oft injured QB, an O line that although it played with passion was not yet effective, receivers who dropped passes, and some RB’s who missed blocks and fumbled.
sjh
... and expectations of Chow and Bullough are different...
Regardless of which unit performed better given its talent level, CNC is supposed to be an absolute offensive guru, among the very best in the country. I have expected more from him in terms of play calling – sometimes I have seen players make basic errors that destroy what otherwise would have been the perfect play call, but for the most part there haven’t been many moments when I have thought “wow, that shows the difference a great offensive coordinator can make”. If we want to retain CNC beyond the 2010-11 season the university and donors are going to have to find some significant dollars to do so, but I’m not sure CNC is currently living up to his stellar reputation.
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
Agree!
I don’t think Chow is worth keeping past his current contract unless things improve dramatically next season. If the skill level wasn’t there for his brand of offense this year, then he should have made adjustments for that. But I don’t buy that. There was plenty of latent talent on offense.
66 has it right
It makes no sense to ignore the talent/experience difference between the offense and defense in judging the coordinators. Did you see anyone on the offensive side of the ball with the combination of talent/experience of a Brian Price? ATV? Reggie Carter? Talking about playcalling when some of our offensive players, most of whom are young and are going to be more naturally predisposed to making basic mistakes, is trying to run before you can walk.
Yep
How the F we can hold Chow responsible when we played a 3rd string QB and a shattered OL? This year we had a barely rebuilt OL which was injured and then had to deal with QB injuries.
How did Petey C and the vaunted talents across town do when his starting QB went down?
and is Jeremy Bates considered an offensive genius, QB guru, etc?
All I am saying is CNC arrived with much fanfare, based on performances with BYU, NC State (briefly), $C, and that while he may have done ‘more with less’ than Bullough did, no-one is claiming that Bullough is one of the best DCs in the country.
Some OCs/HCs take undermanned talent and find ways to keep teams off balance. Maybe CNC is a great OC when it comes to playing with superior athletes, but is less well suited to playing with less talented guys? I don;t know the answer, I just haven’t seen much evidence yet of his transcendent offensive mind.
Did you guys think we came into games with great offensive gameplans, and then made great offensive adjustments throughout the games to give ourselves the best chance to win?
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
That misses the point
There is no offensive gameplan that covers up a lack of execution. You can draw up the fanciest play in the world and it doesn’t mean squat if your line gets blown up or your receiver drops a pass, or someone misses a critical block.
The win against Temple was gutsy but
suffered from the same problems that plagued our team all season, a weak offense and an inconsistent defense. We were saved by the gut-check effort of our players who would not quit, special teams and Mr. Austin, second half defensive adjustments and Akeem Ayer’s slip on the frozen tundra and his awesome physical prowess.
Objectively, Temple’s Golden outcoached CRN and company. Our players were clearly superior in talent to the Owls’. We have a number of players who will play in the NFL. Temple may have one someday, Pierce, their injured running back. Yet in the first half Temple manhandled us for 21 points in classic, ball control drives. We did eventually, barely catch up with our special teams and defense on fire, but our go-ahead TD was a defensive fluke with barely six minutes to play. Our superior talent came out on top, but only barely and almost too late. I’M NOT SAYING GOLDEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HIRED INSTEAD OF CRN OR I DON’T SUPPORT CRN. On this night, objectively, Golden did more with less. That is to his credit and CRN’s frustration.
Let’s focus on some simple facts. We scored three touchdowns. One was a two yard interception return for a TD by AA. Our only two offensive TDs were set up by long returns on special teams that gave the offense a short field. Even then we did not score on drives. Both offensive TDs were essentially one shot wonders on pass plays that broke for long yardage. Other than that and our offense struggled the rest of the game for two field goals and one two point conversion.
Whatever the reason, the admittedly courageous KP proved to be inaccurate, telegraphed his throws, threw into coverage and was lucky not to have been intercepted even more. He was injured for the fourth time this year. Whatever the reason, Brehaut remained, as usual, completely off the field with no real opportunity to grow or compete. After 13 games we know no more about our QB’s and their ability at this level than we did after the first three games. CRN and NC are supposed to be gurus with handling and preparing QBs. Frankly, I have not seen it this year. it is my major disappointment with them.
The offensive line played well IMO, but our running game sputtered, as usual. Again, after thirteen games the only RB the coaches seem to have confidence in is the train, unfortunately a graduating senior. None of the RBs who have played have been impressive, yet again, the coaching staff never gave the rest the playing time on the field to develop more. Are they that bad? I guess the coaches think so. They barely played the entire year. Again, I, at least, have no idea if the people we have are quality D1 RBs or not at this point. Not exactly sure why.
Worst case scenario for next year is that we just sputter again as a fair to middling offense, just like this year. Best case scenario: some QB finds his rhythm just enough to open up the running game and we actually start looking like an offense with some swagger and put 30+ points a game on the board. Which is going to happen? I have no idea.
Special teams were great the whole game. The defense was spectacular in the second half and just a step slow the first half or just out of position. I’m not sure which. The defense is still way ahead of our offense. Best of all it has the right attitude and intensity play after play. The mystery of the late adjustments has been a puzzle all year. Is there a rule that we can’t make one until the start of the second half? It seems like it. I’m not worried about the loss of BP or ATV. The cupboard is not bare, the line will be fine and the linebackers and secondary may be better. Overall, I have to give Coach Bullough the award as the best coach for the year. His unit has fallen short, sometimes spectacularly, but overall they fulfilled most of their potential and show great promise for next year IMO. I mean, think about it. Holding a decent Temple team to 41 yards offense the entire second half is impressive. Period.
All in all, I’m still not sure if our problem on offene iis talent or strategy or both. We improved overall, but not really in league play. Maybe we’re one amazing WR short or one stud RB short or just need a QB with another year of experience under his belt. Or maybe the coaches just have not matched the offense to their players’ talents. Or maybe we’re just one year away from jelling into a dynamo.
The Temple game gives us reason to hope mainly because of the intensity of our players, which is reflective of good coaching. But their execution remains weak and inconsistent, which is reflective of bad coaching or weak talent.
This has been a perplexing season. I am proud of this team in what has been a transition year for us. They never gave up and left it all out on the field [except when they went over that stupid wall, but I forgive them their errant youth]. I give the coaches an A for effort. I must give them something less for their execution, B- or C+ seems about right. I am sure they are frustrated when their best laid plans do not pan out on the field.
May it all come together next year. They deserve it. Maybe we do, too.
GO BRUINS!
"Objectively, Temple’s Golden outcoached CRN and company."
I think that requires an explanation, Hy, and especially for the second half. Just exactly how did we get out-coached in the second half? As I recall, the score in the second half was UCLA 20, Temple 0. In my opinion, UCLA out-coached as well as out-played Temple in the second half for sure. Temple’s coaches had no answer for what our guys were doing.
KP
missed several open receivers, made some bad decisions, threw into crowds. He he gutsy, but still not a top QB…not sure he will ever be.
A school with a tradition of Aikman, McNown, Ramsey, Beban, Neuheisal, Bono, should do better than this.
Powder to the People
Yeah can't disagree with you
But here is the deal. I think if Prince can be as good as Wayne Cook, he could be the perfect bridge until we are ready for Brehaut (and then Nottingham).
Golden/Temple
I can’t believe there’s been not a single mention in this thread of the fact that Temple’s star running back went out of the game in the second quarter and Temple didn’t score another point after that. His absence cost Temple the Ohio game (and the MAC championship) and possibly this one. Don’t get me wrong: I applaud the Bruins’ resilience, the great drive opening the second half, the intensity on defense throughout the second half, and I’ll remember that Ayers play the rest of my life. But the fact remains that Temple played the second half without its top offensive player, and it showed. BTW, with Bowling Green’s loss to Idaho last night, the MAC has now lost its last seven bowl games and is 1-15 over the past few years.
Injuries Are A Part of the Game
and there is not predicting how the game would have gone had any player not been hurt.
We probably would have been better with Hester instead of Price (who got scored on). And, KP probably would have been better all season had he not been hurt in the Tennessee game. In fact, we might have won a few more games. Had he not been injured in the sc game and, with a sore shoulder, not thrown that interception, we might have won that game, too.
So, we can speculate as much as we want.
I saw a very tough D in the second half and I won’t concede that their best running back would have run through us.
sjh
Injury Excuse
Yes, ESPN made a big deal out of the injury to their star RB. However, they conveniently failed to mention how we were playing without our center (who was the glue of our rebuilt OL), our second string right guard, and a QB who was playing with an injured shoulder.
Pierce gained yards when he was in but he also paid the price for it (no pun intended) after getting hammered by the Bruin front-7.
So don’t buy the injury excuse.
O-Line
Whats is everyone’s take on the Bruins losing their top 2 prize recruits after the first year? Unexpected , to say the least. Replacements coming in for 2010? And also, I’m back from my 24 hr banned. Sorry Nation, I was losing it during the first half tuesday.
by LouisianaBruins on Dec 31, 2009 6:53 AM PST reply actions
Unexpected?
That we were going to lose Price and XSF? If you make ignorant comments like that, you will be gone again.
"O-line"
Guess Hasiak is meant, not Price… XSF departing was always a possibility (though by no means certain), but at the start of the season the Hasiak situation wouldn’t have been predicted by many people…
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
sure
just trying to clear up the crossed wires
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
Cool
Appreciate that. I just want to make sure people don’t buy the gloom and doom nonsense coming out of LA Times. XSF’s mission is not a surprise. Hasiak’s situation is uresolved as of right now. We are going to get back Kia next year. Eddie Williams and Ryan Taylor are coming back from their injuries. We have been redshirting talented OL’s like Ebele and Cappella, while we are bringing in some more next season. OL depth is something I am not worried about for next season.
Gotcha
Glad to hear your OL optimism. I was feeling not too great about how things were panning out – I had spent a lot of this year consoling myself that, despite how inconsistent our (young) OL play was this year, the unit would improve through the experience of playing together and return en masse next year. But from what you say we will definitely have more depth next year, and possibly more talent as well.
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah - I think the key right now
is whether we can bring in some more DL/DEs in next few weeks. Recruiting season should be fun.
Again, it’s a matter of perspective. My goal for next season is “5.” As in 5 Pac-10 wins. Give me 5 Pac-10 wins next season and I will be a happy camper.
5 conference wins would be good for me too.
and agreed re: DL recruiting. This year BP changed offensive gameplans by himself; next year we may have to rely more on keeping our line fresh by rotating bodies in, so we will need the depth.
For him and for us, I hope BP goes high in the draft.
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
last time I looked
Price was on the defensive line. And as far as XSF, i’m sure the coaching was hoping he’d stay and leaving was not a done deal And Hasiak, from what I read was supposed to be a future anchor.. Thanks for some nice answers from the rest of the group. O line is the most important part of the offenses success now and forever.
by LouisianaBruins on Dec 31, 2009 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
Next Year's Defense Will Not Be Better
Losing Price, Carter, Siewerski, 2 Bosworth’s and Verner will take its toll on the defense next year. We really don’t have talent in the underclass to make up for these losses. I really found it hard to understand how our defense was not stronger this season, with all the talent. (Although the Bosworth’s were a bit slow, and not the caliber of Price, Carter or Verner.) The offense will probably be better next season. There is no substitute for experience at the QB position, and the young O line will be bigger and stronger after another year in the gym. There are quite a few freshman on the roster, and hopefully one of them will be ready to take up a bit of the slack from the loss of Sua Filo. Hopefully, one or two the skill players Neuheisel recruited will improve (Carroll, Presley, Marvray, Thigpen) to become breakout players. Franklin played well, but he has to cure fumblitis. Its an interesting puzzle to watch unfold. Go Bruins.
Sounds like
You don’t have a good grasp on the personnel we have on our secondary. Otherwise you wouldn’t make the comment about talent lacking in our secondary. Losing Price was expected and a challenge. We are losing experience at LBs. However, we have recruited some LBing talents and we will probably bringing in some talent in the front-7 this year to add to what we have brought in last year.
They will be very young but not sure if it’s going to be a huge disadvantage. I don’t expect our team to head to the Rose Bowl next season, however I do believe we will have enough ammo to have another improving season (Pac-10 record wise) and then have us set up to make a run in CRN’s 4th season.
Look through our roster and recruits before making vast over generalizations. We will do our analysis in due time.
Yeah
I agree that our defense won’t be as good as it was this season, but the secondary should be the strongest part of the team. We already know what we have in Rahim and Aaron Hester should be back healthy. That’s two strong points and if Price hits the weight room then he can be a very good corner. Add in Dye, VIney, Abbott and all of the CB’s who came in this season (Masceranes, McKay, Pollard, Sermons), plus some of the incoming freshmen and I don’t think there’s a doubt that we’re stacked with talent in the secondary.
Formerly ryebreadraz
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 31, 2009 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
Statistical rankings of our defense
Reading previous posts about Coach Bullough and our defense, I decided to do some research and see how we’ve performed defensively compared to rest of the Pac-10 and the nation in 2008 and 2009. The 2009 statistics compiled by the NCAA are through 12/26/09 (so not including the Temple game), here are our numbers:
Pass Efficiency Defense
2008 6th in Pac-10, 40th in Nation
177/332 for 2,012 total yards, 19 TDs
2009 5th in Pac-10, 42nd in Nation
202/344 for 2,327 total yards, 15 TDs
Pass Defense
2008 2nd in Pac-10, 8th in Nation
11.37 yards/completion; 167.67 yards/game
2009 2nd in Pac-10, 30th in Nation
11.52 yards/completion; 193.92 yards/game
Passes Intercepted
2008 7th in Pac-10
11 INTs
2009 1st in Pac-10
18 INTs
Rushing Defense
2008 8th in Pac-10; 89th in Nation
2,037 rushing yards allowed, 17 TDs
169.75 yards/game
2009 7th in Pac-10; 61st in Nation
1,733 rushing yards allowed, 12 TDs
144.42 yards/game
Scoring Defense
2008 8th in Pac-10, 85th in Nation
29.00 points/game, 44 TDs
2009 3rd in Pac-10, 31st in Nation
21.25 points/game, 31 TDs
Turnovers Gained
2008 8th in Pac-10
11 INT’s, 8 fumbles recovered
2009 1st in Pac-10
18 INTs, 10 fumbles recovered
Total Defense
2008 6th in Pac-10, 47th in Nation
337.42 total yards/game
5.11 yards/play
2009 4th in Pac-10, 39th in Nation
338.33 total yards/game
5.27 yards/play
Looking at these numbers, we’ve performed similarly this year as we did last year with a few exceptions. We allowed more passing yards per completion and per game and have allowed slightly more yards per play. We showed improvement in both rushing defense and allowed fewer points per game this year. So, judging solely by statistics, Coach Bullough’s defense performed similarly to Walker’s last year.
I obviously think we can and should do better. We need to be more stout on run defense as we just get shredded on the ground. I’ll let the rest of BN make their judgments on these numbers.
Go Bruins!
Yep
Ran a similar analysis few weeks ago after the SC game. Bullough has performed similarly to Dewayne Walker (who was viewed by some as some sort of defensive genius). Not sure what to make of this because I was also conflicted about Walker.
Walker and Bullough
Walker’s defenses seemed hit or miss. We blitz hard, we blitz often, we either make plays or we get burned.
Bullough seems to provide a more consistent way of giving up over 5 yards per play.
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
Unlike Walker
Bullough’s defense didn’t have annual stinkers like we had against BYU, Washington State, Oregon etc in previous years.
and unlike Walker
Bullough didn’t have 13-9.
Not sure if we’re disagreeing or not; my point is that the results may be similar, but the product is dissimilar. Walker had some big games and some absolute disasters.
FWIW, I thought it made for more ‘entertaining’ play on defense. But definitely the results suggest that it wasn’t a more effective way of playing.
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
Biggest improvement--our opponents scored a lot less
First, thanks for the solid research. Second, the improvement from 29 to 21.25 points allowed per game is the most salient number. That’s real progress.
by peggysue69 on Jan 1, 2010 12:54 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Hire Sandra Bullock
I don’t know why some are getting on Bullough’s case. If we have the 39th rated defense in the country, I don’t think that’s so bad considering the age/experience level of the team. Watching our D play was the highlight of the season for me.
um... because the age/experience level of the defense was high
and because he didn’t appear to make suitable adjustments quickly; and because the talent level on the defense was way ahead of the offense.
by britishbruin on Dec 31, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions
So 39th is good enough
Even though we had Price, Carter, ATV, Ayers, Moore. Were you enjoying those first quarter/first drive highlights where we came out looking completely unprepared for our opponent’s game plan every single time almost as if Bullough hadn’t seen a second of game film?
yup
Expected better given the talent level, but our offense didn’t exactly help us much either with nice long consistant drives.
Injuries exposed lack of depth at corner and MLB…..
After last year
Was anyone expecting long consistent drives? The fact that we had drives at all this year is an improvement. Many of our offensive possessions this year were, in fact, long drives. We just had a problem cashing in in the red zone.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
