Patience and UCLA Football
by Nestor on Oct 15, 2010 5:17 AM PDT
in Football
Email
PrintI think UCLA fans need to practice better expectation-management. A brief look at this schedule, given the state of the team coming in and the injuries that have happened since Day 1 of training camp, and I think 3-3 was about right. Maybe even 2-4. The Bruins should have beaten Kansas State. They should have lost to Stanford. They could've beaten Houston. They should've lost to Texas, crushed Washington State and lost to Cal. Any way you slice it, that's pretty much what should have happened before the season.
Of course, things didn't exactly play out like that, but the end result is nearly the same.
Going back to the losses to Cal and Stanford. A few guys have written about how they wouldn't be upset if UCLA had even competed in those games, but lost by a few. You're right. Again: You're right. Those were atrocious performances. But those can pop up every once in a while with young teams, especially young, one-dimensional teams. I think the coaches definitely have some explaining to do, but I also think that bad days sometimes happen in football. There are a 1000 reasons, but they happen. As unhappy as you guys were on Saturday, Texas fans were just as unhappy a couple weeks before.
So when I preach patience, I'm not saying don't get upset after losses like the Cal and Stanford game. I'm simply saying that the idea that "It hasn't happened since 2005, so it needs to happen NOW!" is flawed. Yes, you were told to practice patience under Karl Dorrell. Yes, the Neuheisel era hasn't exactly been the quick turnaround that you desire. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't take a step back and really analyze the direction of the program. UCLA could go 1-5 the rest of the way - no really, it could - and still, I'd think that 2011 was the year things should come together. At least from my perspective, that hasn't changed.
Perhaps the best grafs written by a UCLA beat reporter since we started blogging about the Bruins. Good for Jon. Some additional thoughts after the jump.
I think in terms of having reasonable expectations majority of this community will more than appreciate his arguments. However, that said I think concern here is about ensuring that our team is "firing out" (a phrase made famous in Bruin Nation by none other than Dan Guerrero when he fired Bob Toledo) every time it steps on the field.
As has been documented extensively here the state of UCLA football program when Neuheisel arrived was beyond catastrophic due to years of mismanagement and shoddy recruiting. The offensive line was an unrecognizable mess while he was pressed into using a JC QB after losing his 2 QBs in spring practice. It was clear his team improved his second season as it added 3 more victories to the win column (would have been an 8 win season if ATV hadn't dropped a game ending pick 6 against Oregon State). The recruiting has been lights out. So again as has been discussed in an exhaustive manner here on BN, he does have the program heading towards the right direction. We are not going re-litigate whether the program was moving towards the right direction again since we discussed it painstaking details leading up to this season.
That said losing to Northern California teams the way we did was brutal and unacceptable (just like it was unacceptable for the basketball team to have a losing record last season). That was maddening especially after the positive signs we saw against the Texas teams. As UCLA alum it has been absolutely brutal to keep waiting for that proverbial train after we get teased with smoke signs at the horizon year after year.
We think it is up to Rick Neuheisel to ensure he and his coaches are putting the best possible combination of athletes on the field with good schemes that will put our team in position to compete every play. Whether that has been happening, that answer appears at times uncertain even though the big picture data points in terms of recruiting statistics, program visibility and W-L records have been moving towards the positive direction in last two seasons (after reaching the lowest of low points under the previous regime). Rick Neuheisel will most likely have at least two years to figure out the puzzle.
GO BRUINS.
28 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's a sober assessment
from someone who doesn’t have any true association to UCLA other than he gets paid to write about their sports.
I agree with everything he says, but of course the losses are a lot harder for me to take since I’m a Bruin.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
The Stats and the Narrative
There is no question Gold is mostly right. Reasoned, balanced. But I have a problem with a couple things. First, it’s not the win/loss record… it’s how we lost. Concern and drama are generated about how we play and how we lose. Nobody can “accept” that the quality of effort and performance are aligned with a reasonable pre-season expectation of what the team is capable of.
Second, as a professional educator I know that high expectations are foundational to high achievement. I think in many areas of our culture “lowered expectations” is a problematic response to under-achievement.
Harry I agree, in part
I, too, dislike the dumbing down of expectations as an excuse for demanding effort and accountability.
But, the initial expectations have to be reasonable. Holding someone or a team to expectations that he or the team cannot realistically meet makes no sense.
I think that most of the people on BN have been very careful in setting their expectations for this season. We are meeting some and not others.
I depart with those who demand that we be in contention for the Pac 10 championship, this year, when it is clear that we do not have the players in place to do so. And, I depart with those who expect our coaches to do more with the players than the players are capable of doing.
I, for one, appreciate that our coaching staff is not running a “lower your expectations” campaign in the same way that CTS and the lizard did for years. We really don’t hear “we are a work in progress” or “we are turning the corner”. We hear “We have to get better at …” which I find honest.
sjh
the false part of Gold's narrative
is the idea that because we thought 3-3 was good before the season, and 2-4 would be acceptable, we should stick to that regardless of what is revealed about our opponents later and regardless of performance. The original predictions were based on an assessment of the teams on our schedule.
Preseason, most people would have written off the Texas game as unwinnable, with WSU chalked up as an easy win, and four challenging competitive games with two home games against slightly stronger opponents and two road games against slightly weaker opponents. What we have actually seen – a shock win against a worse-than-expected Texas, a convincing win against a probably-worse-than-expected Houston, and an unconvincing win against WSU, vs a close loss to a better-than-expected KSU and two beatdowns against very-good-but-not-elite Stanford and against 2-loss Cal – is very different.
We are also expecting more definitive signs of progress, and it is the manner of defeat that rankles…. but that is somewhat offset by the surprisingly dominant manner of victory against Houston and Texas (even given their problems).
However, the half-glass-empty view of a lot of people here seems to be: we were rough to start the season, got things together enough to surprise Houston and Texas with an unusual offense that they didn’t defend well and with a defense better suited to pass defense than run defense, and now have had two less-than-stellar performances that expose us for what we really are: a one dimensional offense relying on an ever-diminishing element of surprise and a defense that can’t man up against teams that run the ball effectively. People are not totally upset with the totality of results to date; it is the sense that our defeats may be a truer reflection of our team than our victories and that it is difficult to see where our next win is coming from. It is the fact that mid-way through the season we seem to be on a downwards trajectory rather than an upwards one. Yes, I would have been ok with 3-3 preseason after our various issues, but I would have assumed preseason that 3-3 made for a more optimistic outlook for the 2nd half of the season.
My best guess is that we go 2-4 the rest of the way (0-3 next 3 games); and I would think 3-3 is no more likely than 1-5. And a 5-7 or 4-8 record would be disappointing.
by britishbruin on Oct 15, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Jon Gold is a younger writer
which comes with postives and negatives.
One of the positives I really enjoy about Jon’s writing is that he isn’t a cynic. I have never understood why people want to cover sports as reporters if they harbor a lot of negativity about a team, specific sport, sports in general or even in life in general. Jon watches UCLA sports, and you know that he wants them to do well, and he wants the fans to enjoy the sport. If you think about it, aren’t these the people who really demand coverage of UCLA sports anyway? It makes sense from a business perspective.
I don’t understand why papers like the times think assigning grumpy angry reporters to cover something people follow because they care about it would in anyway increase their readership or make their customer base happy.
I think Jon calls it like he sees it, and sometimes you can see the need for a little more experience, but his vision isn’t clouded with an agenda, because he doesn’t approach ucla sports with a negative mindset. He approaches it with the attitude of his readers: he wants it to do well, but will be honest and criticize it when needed.
So, props to Jon Gold.
by silverlakebruin on Oct 15, 2010 8:20 AM PDT reply actions
+1
Silver,
I’m starting to worry. I find myself agreeing with you more often these days.
But, I think you nail this.
I’ve had the opportunity to read Gold in the Pasadena Star News (no fishwrap here). He does a good, clean job. He’s not trying to create stories, he’s reporting them.
It’s refreshing to be able to respect a reporter who is covering the Bruins.
sjh
+1
I, too, greatly appreciate his reporting and find it to be the most honest out there. He actually does seem to care about the team and want them to do well. This seems to be shown in that he actually takes the time to interview multiple players/coaches (rather than just the headliners) with well-thought out questions, which I haven’t seen as much out of from other reporters. Much of his reporting is ‘raw’, meaning straight from the source. Not like what the tradmed often seems to put out, which often appears biased and with an agenda.
+1 to your +1
Go, your phrase
“most honest out there”captures it for me. Gold honestly pursues stories, calls them accurately and lets the chips fall where they may.
And he seems to have good time doing his job.
Another mark of a professional...
He doesn’t revel in the team’s failures our mock their shortcomings. It’s not personal, and it makes his criticisms much more valid.
greg in denver - UCLA guy for life
Anyone else notice ...
that the K-State team we should have beaten beat Kansas (on the road) 59-7 after running up a 52-0 lead?
OK, Kansas is a bad team (in his first six games, Turner Gill has three of Kansas’ worst six losses) but maybe K-State isn’t such a pushover after all.
My wife the K-Stater
My wife is an avid K-Stater so as well as following the Bruins we avidly follow the "Cats. Bill Snyder gets the utmost out of his players. He runs his program ! Not the DC or Oc but Bill!
I’m sure when we watch the Bill Snyder show this week, he’ll be pissing and moaning about how poorly the Cats played against the Jayhawks. He his the ultimate perfectionist.
The Wildcats will have a good test next week against the Baylor Bears.
Good take by Gold
I think people on BN know that 2011 is the make or break year. 2011 is the year when experience truly will no longer be an excuse as we’ll have lots of guys as upperclassmen and we’ll have plenty of talent.
I think our record is right where it should be (was hoping for 4-2) but as others have noted, it’s the way we’ve lost these games. My frustration centers around our lack of aggressiveness/creativity on both sides of the ball, failure to utilize & maximize our personnel, lack of discipline, QB loyalty, etc.
We may freak out but the people here understand the big picture and are being patient IMO. CRN’s story isn’t complete yet but he better come through next season.
2011-relentless pessism
We will have the same problems next year as we do this year.
1) OL- experience, not enough of it. Possible talent improvement getting our center and Hasiak back. We’ll see.
2) QB- Even with Hundley in the fold, he’ll still be a true freshman. He may be that good and mature out of the gate, odds are against it.
I echo the worries about OL
Because let’s face it. We haven’t had a decent OL in half a decade, and that’s where it all begins. The filthy five are almost all 5th year seniors… who fills their role afterward?
And I’m concerned that XSF will not be in game shape, and rusty coming back from his mission.
XSF is on a 2-year mission
and when he gets back he will have a whole offseason to get into game shape, as well as being a sophomore in eligibility and a senior in size.
by britishbruin on Oct 15, 2010 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions
we discussed this
in theory, you have Jeff Baca coming back at LT, Kai Maiava coming back at center, Harris returning as a starter at RT. Essentially you return 3 would-have-been starters before you even mention Hasiak and the development of the current young players.
by britishbruin on Oct 15, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
better than what we have now, and also likely better trained at running our system after another year
by britishbruin on Oct 15, 2010 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Seems like those guys
have naturally big frames as well. Might be a more athletic O-Line.
Fair
My issue is the way we lose and the play calling behind it.
Next year its time to put up no one can say its not truly CRN’s team at that point.
Kudos to Gold....
….for his realistic assessment. I tend to agree (unfortunately) with those who say it may take longer than 2011 for UCLA football to be where we all want it to be. Frankly, I don’t think our players OR coaches look all that comfortable with this “pistol” thing yet (made more obvious by the fact that the coaches haven’t let the players loose with it – we seem to run the same 10? – maybe less – plays all the time); we don’t have a QB that can run all aspects of it effectively without getting injured; Hundley may be the long term answer but my guess would be not as a freshman; defensive coaching may or may not be an issue – even if changes are made, can a new coach make a huge difference over one summer? – etc. I am one who truly believes that Neuheisel IS the right guy to continue turning this thing around, but sadly I think it might take even longer than we were all hoping. 2012 anyone? Sigh……I’ve been waiting all these years so I’m getting good at it!
Waiting
I feel we could get Dave Wannstedt vibe from the program is my concern. Wanny recruits well and has everyone feel they are on the cusp and it always seems a year away. Both coaches recruit well, but the results don’t match. I am hoping CRN breaks through as its hard to deny his energy and the way he sells UCLA.
I saw a stat about how long the coaches that win championships took to get their schools to the top. It is usually a 2-3 years, I believe it was ESPN. Some of these programs were in better shape others were in similar spots as we were when CRN got here. Could we actually be too patient? This could go back to Wanny syndrome I suppose.
Let Me Chime in on 2012
In all fairness to Rick Neuheisel and staff, IMO their recruiting has been terrific for the last two years, their first two years and next years pre-commits so far look exceptional. I also think the coaching has been pretty good given the talent level and the horrific injuries that have plagued us. How many of you would want to go into a gun fight with your gun half loaded? Or play Texas Hold Em with half a hand of cards? I say give CRN et al 4 full years of recruiting and then I will join you in judging the job they are doing. Again, IMO we are in the midst of building UCLA Football into a genuine national powerhouse with the potential of a NC after a 56 year drought. Remember perspective, persistance and patience are all virtues. Me thinks there is a little bit too much of the “me” generation voicing their opinions on BruinsNation.
'CaptainJack65'
Jack Metcalf
Emulating Coach......
How long before Coach turned the program around?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
