Relentless Optimism in Action: Go with Bell or Brehaut.
On this day of rumor mongering by UCLA haters, the real question to be answered is which of our quarterbacks is best suited to make the Pistol go? It seems to me, it is not Prince. So we had better try Bell or Brehaut or both in a hurry or expect to be crushed by Oregon based on past performances.
Why Bell or Brehaut? We know all about Kevin Prince, what he can and cannot do, based upon the approximately 15 of 19 games that he has started. The coaches have no secret advantage on his evalution given what we have seen in games over time. Whatever the totality of reasons or excuses, his overall inconsistent performance is apparent after 1 1/2 years, and the worst passing stats in college football this season are such an outlier that the need for a change at the position seems obvious. If anything, he has seemed to regress this year in his passing efficiency.
Is there any rational reason to expect Prince to play better against Oregon than he did against SUC and Oregon last year or Stanford and Cal this year? To just play Prince again at Oregon is a concession that we simply can't get better, period, and are unwilling to even try and change when the score, based on what Cal and Stanford did to us, could be 70-7 by the end of the game at Eugene if our offense continues to sputter passing the ball..
Arguments over whether the offensive line and wide receiving corps are at fault, too, really miss the point. You can't expect all of the broken parts to fix themselves magically in the seventh game of the season let alone against the number two team in the nation on the road. But if you replace a wide receiver here that is subpar with, say, Josh Smith, and a lineman there that is subpar and the most critical cog, the quarterback, that is subpar, you just might find a combination that incrementally creates a synergistic effect, a radical improvement in results.
The truth is we really don't know what Bell, especially, or Brehaut will do against Oregon, but instead of acting out of fear of the unknown, we should embrace it as an opportunity for improvement. But which one?
The easy answer would be to give Brehaut, the number two, another shot. He did well enough against Washington State to show he can run the offense at least as well as Prince. He just might be able to get us the mere 150 yards passing we need to keep the best defenses honest and score 36 points a game, which is what we averaged in the three games we won. If he does, he's most likely your starter the remainder of the season.
The more intriguing option is Bell. He ran this offense for two years at a JC, and very well. Yes, it was a different level of talent, but the players on his side of the ball at UCLA are at a different level, too. He just has to complement them. But Bell offers something neither Prince nor Brehaut does, a true option threat running the ball that puts even more pressure on a defense stacked to stop the run and could create even more opportunities to make the simple, short passes and occasional long passes that could have a devastating effect on an overcommitted run defense. He also has the legs to escape the rush and make things happen. We see it all the time on other teams with running quarterbacks. Certainly, of the three, Bell is most like the prototypical Pistol quarterback.
Can Bell do it? We really don't know because he has never been given the chance. Can Brehaut do it? Maybe. Again, we really don't know.
But then, did we know John Barnes or Norm Dow would beat SUC? No, but they did because they got the chance. That's the beauty of college football, giving young, hard working men who have labored in the shadows, their chance to shine in the light, sometimes in the biggest of games.
I say try Bell first, then Brehaut, both, in the first half, then go with whoever moved the ball best in the second half. Or if one just made the offense click from the start, just stick with him.
Let's not just be relentlessly positive in words. Let's be relentlessly positive with our actions. Let performance dictate quarterback playing time, just like any other position. Isn't competition what a team sport is supposed to be about? Let's be proactive for once, instead of acting out of fear, and just rerunning the same, sad movie over and over again and somehow expecting a different ending. Frankly, this has been my major criticism of the coaches, being fearful of change instead of embracing true competition. Isnt it time to really show you believe in your whole team and not just invest all of your hopes in one or two players out of fear of the unknown?
I want our coaches to be successful. I encourgage them to be more positive in their actions to do exactly that.
Can Bell or Brehaut do any worse than 70-7? I don't think so. And they just might, just might, shock the world, because I believe we win any game, I mean any game, that we pass for 150 yards out of the Pistol. And that includes the rubber Duckies, people.
GO BRUINS! BEAT OREGON!
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just thinking out-loud
…it’s sort of an attractive idea, going with Bell.
CRN has a week and a half to put in a package specifically for Oregon and Bell. Bell’s mobility can help take some pressure off the OL and it’s newly re-discovered inability to pass-protect. And he has tons of experience with a similar offensive scheme.
Taking the long term view that every game this year is a stepping stone to next years team and that CRN has a longterm “plan” for the program…if you decide Oregon is likely a loss…why not change up your look and make Oregon adjust. It’d be a really gutsy call, throwing caution to the wind like that.
I kinda like it…conceptually that is.
AGREE WITH YOU ON GIVING BELL A SHOT
I believe though that CCSF runs the spread and not the pistol. They look similar but aren’t the same. He certainly runs better than the other two options. I remember against suc in Cade’s frosh year, we completely changed the offense for that game. That was in the river boat gambler OC days of Toledo. Of course once he was HC he became totally boring.
this reminds me of the Craft/Forcier debate from a few years back
the difference obviously being the offense we’re running. Back then I was all about trusting the coaches, and Craft was the pocket passer for the pro-style attack. This time around I’m starting to agree with going with Bell. Prince just can’t throw behind this line, so let’s put a mobile guy in there who has very good running ability and can buy time.
I really doubt we see Bell, but I would love it if we did…even for a series or two against the Ducks as a change of pace. Then, if he succeeds on those series, maybe give him a shot at the starting role full time.
A Healthy Prince Is Mobile
To me, the question is whether Prince is 100%. If he is, I think he is our best QB.
Not one of our QB’s will be successful if the O line does not pass protect and if it blocks so poorly we cannot get our pistol run game going.
I was at the WSU game. Brehaut did not look good in the pistol — in a system based on deception he was clear and predictable. And, it appeared that the play book was limited for him. We ran more pro-set/shotgun and less pistol. Had it not been WSU, I think we’d have been in serious trouble.
If Bell were capable of leading our O, he would be getting rep’s. At this point CNC and CRN would not hold him back if they felt he knew the playbook and could execute it.
It’s interesting to speculate about QB’s, but does anyone know about how well Bell is playing in practice, his grasp of te system, and his ability to both run and throw consistently? If you do, and you think he’s the best choice, do you have a theory as to why CRN and CNC seem to disagree with you.
Finally, my premise is that we play Prince if he is healthy. I do not think he is. In that case, if I get to speculate, too, I’d consider running a lot of wildcat with Bell, Thigpen, or some of our other, very talented speedy guys getting some snaps. But, this is all based on my uninformed speculation — which cannot be elevated to the quality of decisions that those who are coaching our team and see these guys every day are making.
sjh
+1
I definitely agree; I mean, this just nails it on the head right here for the Bell Question:
If Bell were capable of leading our O, he would be getting rep’s. At this point CNC and CRN would not hold him back if they felt he knew the playbook and could execute it.
by Josh Schlichter on Oct 12, 2010 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions
This post makes sense in a Playstation kind of way.
In Madden, or EA’s NCAA Football you can just make substitutions willy nilly and they ‘players’ automatically play up to their potential. In real life, we have seen that Highly recruited footballs players and athletic quarterbacks only live up to their potential everywhere but UCLA.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Console football.
I would sub the fastest, quickest player into the qb position. Keep running hail mary type plays with the qb rolling out into nice long runs.
So I vote for Thigpen as our qb for Thur.
relentless is the word...
when you say
Why Bell or Brehaut? We know all about Kevin Prince, what he can and cannot do, based upon the approximately 15 of 19 games that he has started. The coaches have no secret advantage on his evalution [sic] given what we have seen in games over time.
you seem to ignore that the coaches really do have a secret advantage in the evaluation of Brehaut and Bell – the guys who you apparently know would do a better job.
But my favorite line in this “relentlessly optimistic” post is
Is there any rational reason to expect Prince to play better against Oregon than he did against SUC and Oregon last year or Stanford and Cal this year?
sounds like you are relentlessly pessimistic about Prince’s ability to be better after a bye week than he was in a week coming back from injury. I personally do expect Prince to be better – I think he will be less tentative in his running and will be more accurate with his passing.
I have no problem with you arguing that someone else deserves a shot – while acknowledging that you really have no idea whether Brehaut or Bell is a legitimate D-1 QB – but to claim that benching-your-starting-QB-because-you-know-he-can-never-improve-and-the-team-can-never-improve-with-him-and-that-we-will-inevitably-suck-with-Prince-as-the-QB-so-we-really-need-to-do-something-else is an example of ‘relentless optimism’ is laughable.
by britishbruin on Oct 12, 2010 4:05 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
"relentlessly pessimistic"
rofl, that’s the UCLA mantra for football and basketball last few decades. I want t-shirts made!
Which B is it?
I really think that the 2 week bye is a blessing in disguise as it is now time to start to give way more reps to Brehaut & Bell. With the pistol formation you must have a qb that is a threat to throw, & if you do not have a qb that can throw the opposing defense will know that & just stack the box on you forcing you to beat them with the run. Just look at how that turned out for us against Cal. Most people here will say that neither Brehaut or Bell have no experience, but if you never see any action & you are just riding the bench how are you supposed to get any experience? Wasn’t Bell supposed to excel in this type of offense? Why not utilize his talents & see what he can do? I am pretty sure that most of us have heard numerous stories of a player that came out of nowhere to lead his team to victories & become their star. Guess what, he did not come out of nowhere, he was there all along & all he needed was a chance. Please go back 3 games to the Houston game, where would we be if we were put in that same situation where the first, second & I believe third string qb were knocked out of the game? Prince has had more than his fair share of chances but he is just not getting the job done, plain & simple. Maybe it is just me and I am just venting, but I think that changes need to be made & that the best person at their respective position must play.
Why Bell?
Brehaut has been in the system longer, has better game time stats than Prince in his limited minutes, and was more highly recruited coming out of high school.
He deserves a legitimate shot.
Bell may pan out, or may be needed, but you go with Bre first and let him show what he can do.
by silverlakebruin on Oct 13, 2010 10:29 AM PDT reply actions
Brehaut had a chance against WSU and he was not impressive
And, apparently he doesn’t know the play book all that well (we appeared to dumb it down a lot for him), is not great at a staple of the pistol — deception, and is not a great runner.
So, if the argument is that everyone deserves a chance, the next in line is Bell.
However, I’d rather let the coaches decide whose best to win games. Chances have to be earned and deserved.
sjh
absolutely
you say
Chances have to be earned and deserved.
I say: well said, 66.
By all means let Brehaut and Bell compete for Prince’s job; but he should be in the competition as well, and the most deserving should play.
by britishbruin on Oct 14, 2010 6:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Alright
I looked back at the film, and I noticed that Prince didn’t do too bad. Kinda echoing Tracy Pierson here, but it wasn’t Prince most of the time:
a) There were some solid grabs by the receivers on the poor balls, but they dropped the good passes most of the timel.
b) There was no protection for Prince, which wouldn’t change for Brehaut or Bell.
So, it wasn’t all Prince. It was an all around poor offensive showing against a talented defense so calling for a change now really doesn’t have too much validity after a complete and total failure throughout the game; in fact I guarantee you that it would have been just as bad if not worse with another QB in there.
by Josh Schlichter on Oct 13, 2010 10:42 AM PDT reply actions

by 























