Sunday Thoughts: Eternal Optimism Around UCLA Football
As I was heading down to the bar yesterday afternoon to watch our game I was openly wondering why I was bothering to spend 3+ hours of a Saturday afternoon inside a bar watching a game, we were going to lose. Even though I think the Bruins have a shot at finishing the season strong (more on that later), there wasn't much in yesterday's matchups that gave me reasons for optimism heading into the game. I had a feeling it was going to be either depressing blowing out or just another excruciating loss filled with frustrations of endless "what ifs" and WTFs.
Yet there I was heading down to meet up with a friend and watch the game with other alums. As I was openly wondering aloud about my sanity and devotion to this team, Mrs. N simply said that deep down despite all the reality based cynicism and frustration around our program, we are "eternal optimists." Despite all of our troubles, at the end of the day we do believe things are going to work out all right (with or without Rick Neuheisel) and Bruins will get back where they were 12 years ago (forget the mirage of 2005).
So with that backdrop despite yesterday's loss for some reason today didn't feel like another sad Sunday when the whole weekend feels ruined after another frustrating Bruin loss. No, I don't take any comfort in moral victories. I don't also care much about the "effort" we put into yesterday's game (didn't see a lot of it from some key players on the defensive side). Yet, I still think the Bruins have a shot to finish this strong on an up note and meet the modest goals and expectations we had set for this program heading into Rick Neuheisel's third season in Westwood.
Bruins will have a very winnable MUST WIN matchup next weekend against Oregon State. From what we have seen from our offense under Richard Brehaut, we do think we have enough playmakers in our program (who have been shackled by Norm Chow's unimaginative and conservative playcalls) to outscore the Beavers (up to the coaches to figure out that game plan). If the Bruins get the expected victory against the Beavers, we think they should be able to win at least one of their remaining road games (if not both) against mediocre Washington and Arizona St., and then go for broke against Hello Kiffin's Southern Cal.
So the Bruins still have a shot at finishing the season on an up note. The question right now is whether Rick Neuheisel and his coaching staff (on both sides of the ball) will show the necessary courage and conviction needed to shed its conservative cocoon to meet the reasonable goals set for the program earlier in the season. At the end of the day, we are going to be all right if the Bruins fall short of the goal by 1 win here and there. What is not going to be a positive move for this program is if it continues to operate with a conservative mindset, curling up in fetal positions with games on the line. More on yesterday's game after the jump.
So the second half of the game was interesting to watch. It was awesome to see Richard Brehaut doing a little play action, roll out and then hit a streaking Randall Carroll in perfect stride to score the first TD after the first half. All of us felt the energy jolt when Brehaut executed that perfect flea flickr to hit Josh Smith for the second TD.
Those plays were fun to watch but it just led to more questions for yours truly. Why did it take Norm Chow so long to dial them up? After watching Brehaut's third start, I am now wondering more than even whether the outcomes of at least one of two contests - v. Kansas State and Cal - would have been different if Chow (who apparently makes the decision on who gets to be the starting QB without interference from Rick Neuheisel) went with Brehaut instead of a gimpy Kevin Price who barely practiced with the team.
Moreover, as exciting it was to watch Brehaut take another step (at this point he seems to be taking steps forward in every game as a starter), the Bruins were shackled by conservative play calling during couple of key stretches in second half. First opportunity came for the Bruins when we got the ball back thanks to an incredibly lucky bounce to Christian Ramirez from a fumble by "sure handed" (LOL) Taylor Embree on a punt return. Down 5 with about 10 minutes left in the fourth quarter, Bruins got the ball 50 and moved down to Arizona's 34 with a first and 10. Here is how the sequence went:
- 1st and 10 at ARIZ 34 Josh Smith reverse for a loss of 10 yards to the Ariz 44.
- 2nd and 20 at ARIZ 44 Johnathan Franklin rush for 2 yards to the Ariz 42.
- 3rd and 18 at ARIZ 42 Richard Brehaut pass incomplete to Christian Ramirez.
The reverse was ugly and slow developing. It's stale play from west coast offense that fast defenses can catch up and smoke out easily. Okay, at least we tried something different so it wasn't all that upsetting. What was really pathetic was the call at 2nd and 20 when Chow just called for a weak handoff to Jet Ski (who wasn't having a great day). That's the kind of uncreative and vanilla call that so many of us are having hard time. It is difficult to understand why it is so hard for UCLA to dial up options like slant to WR, jailbreak screen to RB or FB or WR bubble screen in that kind of situation. The pass to FB eventually came on 3rd down but by then the entire freaking Rose Bowl knew that Brehaut was going to pass. So there wasn't any shred of unpredictability left in that series.
Norm Chow's play calling didn't get any better when UCLA got the ball back (still down 5) with 3 mins left in the game on our 20 yard line. Here is how the pathetic sequence went:
- 1st and 10 at UCLA 20 Derrick Coleman rush for 3 yards to the UCLA 23.
- 2nd and 7 at UCLA 23 Richard Brehaut pass incomplete to Morrell Presley.
- 3rd and 7 at UCLA 23 Richard Brehaut sacked by Ricky Elmore and Lolomana Mikaele for a loss of 4 yards to the UCLA 19.
- 4th and 11 at UCLA 19 Richard Brehaut pass incomplete to Taylor Embree, UCLA penalty Illegal Formation declined.
So note how the Bruins tried to set up that drive with a meager run on the first down. Prior to that drive here is how UCLA called plays on first downs:
- Richard Brehaut pass complete to Jerry Johnson for 9 yards to the Ariz 36.
- Richard Brehaut rush for 2 yards to the UCLA 37.
- Johnathan Franklin rush for 2 yards to the UCLA 27.
- Richard Brehaut pass complete to Taylor Embree for 12 yards to the UCLA 41 for a 1ST down.
- Derrick Coleman rush for 13 yards to the UCLA 27 for a 1ST down.
- Richard Brehaut pass incomplete to Jerry Johnson.
- Richard Brehaut pass complete to Josh Smith for 11 yards to the UCLA 33 for a 1ST down.
- Derrick Coleman rush for a loss of 1 yard to the UCLA 13.
- Richard Brehaut pass incomplete to Josh Smith.
- Anthony Barr rush for 9 yards to the Ariz 41.
Again I wonder what kind of calculation that goes through the coaches' minds. Up until that point when the Bruins threw on first down Brehaut complete 3 of his 5 attempts for 32 yards. When the Bruins went to their RBs on first down Jet Ski and Coleman came up with 14 yards in 3 attempts. The other two rushing attempts netted 9 yards with 2 coming from a QB keeper and the other 7 from Anthony Barr at F Back spot (which was a nice call).
So with those results at hand it could have been lot more interesting and unpredictable if at that first down spot, Chow decided to call for a pass from Brehaut or go with his F Back (run or pass) in the first down (BTW Anthony Barr seems to be lot more productive than Morrell Presley). Anyway, Chow went the safe route with Coleman and the drive seemed kind of dead from that first attempt.
I am sure we can find lot more examples of conservative playcalling. It really has to change if the Bruins are to make any kind of move.BTW I had no problem with the call to go for it on 4th from our 19. Brehaut made a nice pass but once against our "sure handed" receiver Embree failed to make a critical play.
I appreciate the circumstances around this program in terms of depth and injury issues. However, we never asked this team to content for the Rose Bowl or even win 8 or 9 games. All we were looking for this season was a team that would develop methodically, make a consistent effort to put together a dynamic and unpredictable offense, and play sound and fundamental defense.
Which brings me to our pathetic defense. What can I say? The 29 point was an aberration. The Bruins gave up 583 total yards in this game. We also gave up 582 yards against Oregon. Don't think we have had a stretch like this since Larry "You Are Killing Me" Kerr's unwatchable unit from 2005. Difference this year is that our offense has been mostly just as horrid.
Not surprisingly the guys sound completely confused and clueless:
Hester made it clear: "We've got to get it right, whatever the problem is. I'm not sure what we have to do, that's up to the coaches. But we've got to get it right."
Arizona's Matt Scott who despite career numbers in passing yardage had a bad game mentioned the obvious:
"Honestly, I didn't think there was any way they could stop us in the first half," Scott said. "We made mistakes."
Jordan Zumwat, who gave a valiant effort let out the fact how once again Chuck Bullough's defense had no clue until the second half:
"We started figuring them out (in the second half)," UCLA linebacker Jordan Zumwalt said. "I wish we would have done it in the beginning, it would have made it a lot easier."
While the coaches deserve a huge brunt of the criticism for their vanilla and uninspired schemes, they player themselves - at least some of them - have lot to answer.
The tackling was simply atrocious. What was even more disheartening was to witness the putrid (have been using this word a lot wrt to our defense this season) performances of our two "captains": Akeem Ayers and Rahim Moore. There were few plays it appeared as if Ayers basically quit. He was jogging instead of running and giving up.
We love Rahim's passion for the game and for the four letters. However, the painful fact is that he is a very poor tackler lacking in fundamentals. Perhaps Moore had a great start to his first two years because he had ATV essentially blanketing one side of the field. This season though he has been a shadow of his former self. He has a long way to go to improve as a college football player, before even thinking about the next level (if Ayers had another game or two like yesterday, same case can be made about him too).
So, right now even though the effort from our Bruins was nice and it was interesting to see us hang in against a decent Pac-10 opponent, there are lot of serious issues (that are fixable with good coaching) with our football team. Despite all the negative notes mentioned above, I still believe this team has a chance to close on a strong note (hey October is almost over!). However, for the Bruins to end on a strong note, Rick Neuhiesel needs to take charge.
I guess we can be heartened by the fact that the team as a whole is still responding to its head coach (they could have rolled over and played dead) and that Brehaut is injecting a genuine sense of excitement around our offense (anxious to see how he performs next week). Still for this team to make a move, it needs to badly shed its conservative tendencies, get aggressive, take chances (when opportunities arise) and play with a sense of purpose and pride in those four letters.
We saw some flashes yesterday afternoon. That's not good enough. We need this team to put together a consistent effort throughout an entire game - starting next weekend - in a must win game against Oregon State. Guess all of us are going to be watching and tracking our Bruins once again because deep down inside despite our frustrations and cynicism we are all eternal optimists.
GO BRUINS.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
CNC may be suspect now...
I was curious to see the poll. Almost even about his staying on. Money wise, we might be locked in with him for a spell. It just may be HIS conservative play calling and not RN. I agree that the use of an injured KP in the other games was a mistake. Fate has now forced his hand, which is good. Maybe there ARE FB gods after all. As to the continuation of the gutsy calls, I also don’t know why he held back. ?The big roll of the dice came form AZ with the amazing fake punt that sealed the game for them. WE needed that heart, and sadly it never came in Q#4. I was thinking how timely it would have been to have had a blocked punt called at that time. Well, I can dream, can’t I?
What about this from Hester (Daily News article)...
“It was frustrating, because we were in coverage,” UCLA cornerback Aaron Hester said. "The pressure got there, the call worked. (Defensive coordinator Chuck) Bullough couldn’t have called a better game today. We just have to make plays as a whole defense.
“We were stopping them a little bit, but the quarterback, he was killing us. It looked like we had him sacked and he got away. If we would have sacked him all those times, they probably wouldn’t have scored all those points. If you look at all their drives (in the first half), they converted by him scrambling.”
And this from Ayers (same article)…
sorry, blocks for the quotes didn’t work as I imagined they would.
I hate singling out college players
But a lot of those missed sacks were by a linebacker that is just way too undersized to be trying to bring down Pac 10 players.
by insomniacslounge on Oct 31, 2010 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree w/ almost everything written above
Tho, I think a lot of the reason Rahim Moore hasn’t been able to make an impact this season has to do w/ coaching/scheming as well. There were quite a few plays when Moore would backpedal at the snap and be some 20 yards off the line of scrimmage at the snap. He wasn’t freelancing either- it was by design that he was literally being used as a “safety.”
To me, the biggest problem w/ the defense (tied perhaps with simply tackling) is the inability to get any pressure at all w/ the front 4. Anytime we just rush four, the QB has all day to pick apart the secondary. The blitz was effective with Zumwalt (like others have said, that kid is a beast), but at some point, we need to find someone in the front four that can do some damage. I can only hope that Datone can return at full strength next year and that he and Owa can be a force.
There is definitely some talent on this team, and some reason for hope. Unfortunately, I don’t think that hope can be realized until a new DC is in place.
Good stuff, N.
by insomniacslounge on Oct 31, 2010 2:07 PM PDT reply actions
Thanks
Agree with Mr. Lounge, Nestor, that you put out some good stuff in your post.
3 points.
1st. We played a solid Zona team. Our inability to perform was due in large, large part to a fine opponent.
2nd. Our scheming does not work if our players do not perform. And our performance was miss and hit, more miss than hit.
3rd. This season leaves me with nothing but bitter bile in my graw. But yesterday we played competitive Pac 9 through 12 football (the number depends on the year and NCAA sanctions status of individual teams); not well enough to win but not so poorly utterly embarrass us. And we need to remember Arizona went through what we are living through. But ultimately Coach Stoops brought the cats back. And therein is hope in the midst of our woeful disappointments.
by peggysue69 on Oct 31, 2010 2:37 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
+1 on #1
Agree that AZ is a solid opponent. I was actually impressed by the fact that, after all the pre-game talk about Elmore and Reed, we were able to limit the sacks to 2, and that RB had so many completions knowing that they’d be gunning for him all day.
Baloney
We could easily lose any one or all of our last three games. If CRN or CNC or CSI knew how to get both our offense and defense playing well at the same time, they would have done it by now. It is time to start the hunt for a new coaching staff. Throw the bums out!
Fair point about coaching problems and what can happen in our remaining games
But here’s the problem. Every indication is CRN will be back. Nestor, who sources are better than anyone, says CRN is back. The AD says CRN is doing an fine job. And Arizona fans were saying the exact same thing about Stoops, the guy who punched us out yesterday, and who is leading a nationally ranked team. Life is very complex.
by peggysue69 on Oct 31, 2010 2:55 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Did anyone hear this?
In the 3rd quarter, right after our TD and when we were on D, I thought I heard one of the announcers state that Bullough said that “Sometimes its not about the X’s and O’s, its about the Jimmies and Joes” or something like that. I already deleted it on my dvr and haven’t seen this mentioned on any of the threads, so maybe I heard wrong… I didn’t want to jump to any conclusions since I hadn’t heard anyone else mention this yet…
You have it pretty much
It was " … its about the Jessies an the Joes."
Who is Jessie?
by peggysue69 on Oct 31, 2010 3:28 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Hmm...
Sounds like u heard it too, then, peggysue. Thanks for the confirmation. I was wondering cuz it sounds like Bullough meant that even though he is scheming up D’s, his players aren’t really getting it. I guess its hard to speculate without more inside info on practices, but I thought it was an interesting statement.
Hmm .... Part Deux
I had a veritable gamut of reactions to the quotation. My initial response was the DC was unfairly trying to blame the players. (Don’t forget this statement was made after the Cal and Oregon disasters and the blame for that coaching malpractice starts with the HC and the DC.). Then I thought, well, he is right. And no doubt, had our defensive players made some plays, we would have punched out the No. 15 team in the nation. But then, why weren’t they better coached to make the plays? I don’t have the answers to these conundrums.
But, I repeat, who is Jessie?
by peggysue69 on Oct 31, 2010 4:15 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, Go, here's your problem
" I thought I heard one of the announcers state …."
I didn’t hear the announcers.
If TV stations sent out two feeds
one with the announcers and one with the crowd, I would gladly adhere to your advice on muting the goofballs in the booth. As it is, I can’t stand watching a game without crowd noise. A good part of the reason that I prefer collegiate sports (as opposed to the pros or lower amateur levels) is the amazing energy level of the college crowd. Even the bad college crowds infuse more excitement into the game than your average pro crowd.
Hear, hear,
so to speak, regarding crowd noise.
In that Scully & Wooden HBO special a while back, the moderator announced a video clip he was about to play, saying it was Vin Scully “at his very best.” The clip was of Hank Aaron, breaking Babe Ruth’s HR record against the Dodgers.
The entire clip, from Aaron’s swing, to watching the ball disappear into the crowd, to watching Aaron round the bases, to watching the idiot fans meet him rounding second base, to watching him touch home plate, to watching his teammates congratulate him, to several shots of the crowd going nuts, to the flashing scoreboard, to the fireworks, was absolutely, completely silent of announcers. Not one peep from Scully. Not even a “She’s a way out there and GONE!”
Yet, the moderator’s saying that this was Scully at his best was not an insult. It was Vin Scully, fully recognizing the moment and the drama, giving the best gift he could possibly give to his listeners and viewers, the crowd.
During the show, he said that when Aaron hit it, he went to the water cooler to get a drink. He recollected that when he was a youngster, listening to Red Barber and others on the radio, he loved to bask in the crowd noise emanating from the old TV-sized radios. Apparently, Barber also knew when to shut up. Scully said that, to him, the crowd noise was like a warm shower, washing over him, putting him at the ball park.
I don’t know of a single announcer or network today, who knows the drama and entertainment value a crowd brings, and knows how to yield to it. Maybe, Dick Enberg, but I haven’t heard him in a while, except at Wimbledon. If there were a few, they’d perhaps have one more listener—Fox.
Nestor, Don't Agree About Scott; also a Thought on Chow's Play Calling
I don’t agree that Scott had a bad game. Yes, he wasn’t perfect with an interception and a fumble, but he passed for over 300 yards, and his scrambling and running were outstanding, and when he scrambled he knew how to find the open receiver and get the ball to him. His elusiveness and running ability were the X factor that probably was the difference in the game. As someone just posted, Hester said:
"We were stopping them a little bit, but the quarterback, he was killing us. It looked like we had him sacked and he got away. If we would have sacked him all those times, they probably wouldn’t have scored all those points. If you look at all their drives (in the first half), they converted by him scrambling."
And no I don’t think it was because we made him look good. He really is good. Also it should be noted that Scott was Arizona’s starting quarterback until he had a subpar game at Iowa last year.
As for the play calling what really bothered me was calling that reverse. We had great field position at their 34 at a critical time of the game, and the last thing you want to do is risk losing significant yardage. And that’s exactly the risk with a slow developing reverse deep in the backfield, and that’s just what happened. We already were in position for at minimum a field goal, and we came up with nothing. That play killed the drive. It reminded me of Chow’s call against Washington St. when we were moving the ball consistently on the ground, and we had first and goal at the 1. Instead of continuing to run up the middle for an almost certain yard he had Brehaut run to his right where he was brought down for a loss, and we ultimately had to settle for a field goal. As for Franklin running on second down after the reverse your point is certainly a worthy one. My guess is that Chow was trying to keep Arizona off balance, because they had to be expecting a pass play. He did I think actually do a pretty good job of keeping the calls between pass and running plays not too predictable which may have been why we went through most of the game without a sack. Did anyone see the Arizona-Iowa game? When Iowa had a last chance drive at the end of the game with time running out, and Arizona knew that Iowa had to pass on every down, they sacked Iowa’s quarterback three plays in a row.
I just realized that ironically my complaint against Chow’s play calling in the two situations I just mentioned was that he wasn’t conservative enough and that he took unnecessary and costly risks when we had a first down in excellent scoring position. That doesn’t mean that the issue of whether his play calling might be overall too conservative isn’t a worthy one, but I’m just referring to unnecessarily risky calls in these two situations. Given that Arizona has a very good defensive front and given our past problems with a lack of pass protection I think that overall the play calling was successful at keeping Arizona off guard enough that they couldn’t key on our passing game.
Here's a couple of stats - I think they include yesterday's game
Scoring defense – we’re 92nd in the country.
Yards per game defense – we’re 98th in the country.
Scoring offense is right in there – I think it was 96th or something like that.
I think that might explain why our record is what it is. I don’t think our coaches are doing much with our talent, frankly.
Must be tough being an Offensive Coordinator
Seems like the only time an OC gets credit is on a well-timed screen pass or a draw play that works. Otherwise it’s “good job players” when things go right and “what the hell was that call” when they don’t.
Sometimes the play call is right and the line falls apart. Sometimes a play call is right and the pass is bad. Sometimes the play call is right and the receiver fails to get separation. Sometimes the play call is right and one or more defenders turn in outstanding individual efforts.
I’m not saying that CNC was perfect yesterday. I’m just saying that it takes some decent efforts from players to make an OC look good.
flea flicker worked, reverse didn't...
both were ‘creative’, both fairly well timed and designed to be back breakers.
Only one worked. Is it Norm’s fault the reverse didn’t?
Gotta give credit to the AU defense, after all, they are number one in the Pac 10 for a reason.
If your team can’t simply punch, ala Oregon, one needs to take risks.
I have no problem what-so-ever with Norm. Give him some horses and then see(judge).
I agree on flea-flicker reverse but Norm has some issues
I agree that if like the flea-flicker call, you have to be careful criticizing the reverse call. Both were trick plays and one got as a TD and one helped kill a drive. That is not my problem with CNC this game, I liked both calls. My first question to CNC is where has this been all year? Why have we not gambled some more?
My next question, as Nestor said why the run call after the 10 yard loss? And my final question to CNC, why can’t UCLA run and pass in the same game? We officially had 5 yards rushing in the second half!? (Admittedly that includes the fumble sack but still.)
Eternal Optimism - Eternal Critics
1) The reason we are eternal optimists is because our Passion Bucket is full and overflowing. There is nothing like UCLA Sports and it consumes us. We are addicts, and that is why we live and die with each item of minutiae. How great was last year’s baseball playoffs? It just doesn’t get any better. We know every player and follow everything. We die with the losses, but we are filled up with the good seasons. I can’t wait till this basketball season starts because, as an eternal optimist, I can’t imagine it will be anything like last season. If the team improves, its going to be a great season, as we pick apart every detail.
Rahim Moore’s tackling. I disagree with Nestor on this, but I must admit I have not reviewed the film to see who is right. This is truly hilarious. Before the season, I believed and stated that Raheem was one of the most overrated players in the country, based on his ten interceptions last year. However, in this game, I noticed Rahim’s form perfect tackling on at least four different plays. I thought he and Zumwalt were standouts. Westgate played better than I expected as well, even though there are many critics here.
About your avatar...
My full passion bucket wants to vomit when I look at, or even just think of, that guy.
On Moore
I did not see the game yesterday – as I mentioned previously, am campaigning for a Bruin in PA’s 6th congressional district, and so only saw highlights of the game. However, moore’s tackling has been excellent this season, IMHO – in particular, coming up and making 1-on-1 stops in goalline situations. So, regardless of his bad game yesterday, I don’t think it is purely a fundamentals question. My worry is that he and Akeem may be checking out, frustrated with the schemes and frustrated with their teammates. Even if they are both leaving at the end of this year, CRN needs to explain that lackluster performances can hurt your stock and cost you millions. We cannot win games if they are not playing at a high level.
by britishbruin on Oct 31, 2010 6:18 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I didn't think Rahim was that bad yesterday.
The guy that I thought was atrocious was Westlake. He made one play for a loss and it was because the receiver basically turned into him. In other words Westlake lucked into it as he was totally blocked out of the play. He missed several times yesterday and was a step or two slow on passing routes when he dropped into coverage. Zumwalt had a good game for how much he has played. I hope he can add some upper body strength without compromising his speed. Owa looks fast and strong but a bit lost at times.
by 84 on Oct 31, 2010 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Moore had a nice moment against Washingon State
Otherwise his tackling has been very subpar and not fundamentally sound.
I believe CRN will be with us
at least two more years. When he is joined by all or most of the following, he and his staff will seem a lot smarter: Dalton Hilliard, Sheldon Price, Brett Downey, Nelson Rosario, Patrick Larimore, Kevin Prince, Anthony Jefferson, Nick Crissman, Jeff Baca, Kai Maiava, Datone Jones, Damien Thigpen, Jerry Johnson, Sean Westgate, and whoever is injured against Oregon State and UDub. If you can dismiss this, rational thought is not your thing. But shucks, I’m probably just another apologist for timidity and mediocrity.
Nestor, thanks for putting into words the frustrations of many Bruin fans.
At this point, I just can stand watching our talented players go up against teams with less talent but better coaching and better schemes.
CRN must take control of the offense and let our players show their skill and talent. If Chow doesn’t like it, he can quit and save the university his salary.
Question for anyone who may know – did CRN call is own offensive plays as coach at Colorado or Washington?
He hasn't done much on the field
since those fumbles against Houston. I wonder if he is having problems with confidence. He looked pretty solid before that.
Defense
Just watched the injury riddled, blitzing, rushing the quarterback, pressuring Big Ben Saints knock off the Steelers. Defensive pressure was a key to the N.O. win—something we have not seen in the Rose Bowl this year from UCLA except against Houston.
by peggysue69 on Oct 31, 2010 8:54 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I agree with those above that Rahim wasn't that bad
Not just relatively speaking – but a safety shouldn’t be making half of the tackles made all game long. The D-line and LB’s couldn’t tackle worth a rats ass – it shouldn’t be 2ary’s job to be compensating for that crap every down. Other than that – I’m with you, N.
As for the constant calling for Malcolm Jones in the comments – please stop. There is nothing wrong with the Frankin/Coleman combo – if there is a bright spot on this team – it’s at the RB position. Please, please, please stop with the Malcolm Jones crap – there is NO controversy at that position. He is talented and time will come, but putting him in now is not going to fix anything.
We're at another crossorads
The season’s not over and I’m still holding out hope that we’ll get bowl eligible. Having said that, what transpires or fails to this offseason will dictate what UCLA FB looks like this decade. As the leader of our FB program, CRN will have some critical decisions to make. Some decisions are obvious while others are quite complex. CRN is not on the hot seat yet but he needs to make decisive decisions before he loses the fans and team.
1) Coaching staff
Chucky needs to be shown the door. Setting aside his incompetence, I don’t want him to mess up the Owa/Marsh/Zum/Dietrch/Olaniyan/Jefferson/Epenesa/Willis/Hillard/Graham’s on our team. As you can see, these guys have talent and with the right coaching, they will become a menace to deal with. Moore is the other obvious coach that needs to go. I’m dumbfounded by the inability of our WR’s to get separation, get off the line, run precise routes, track the ball, attack the ball, quit the drops, etc. Besides the glimpses we saw from Rosario at the end of last season, I don’t see improvement. I like Lea for what he provides in the recruiting game but Love’s failure to get on the field is very concerning. We can all see that Westgate is overwhelmed yet we have a 6-4, 220 lb LB who can run sitting on the bench. Is it because Love doesn’t have the defense down (this is Lea’s job) or is it another perceived favortism/seniority thing? Hundley shouldn’t feel so comfortable too considering the disappointing performance by our secondary this season. I’ll get to CNC a bit later.
2) Pick a QB
It’s obvious to me that RB should have been our starter against KState and Cal. You can tell the ball has that extra zip and he is definitely more accurate. Give him the time that KP had and I’m confident that this kid will develop into a more than capable QB. Unfortunately, I don’t think the fanbase will be as patient with RB as we’ve been with KP Patience is something that we don’t have much of.
I have nothing but great things to say about KP but as a program, we cannot afford to rely on a QB that is injury prone. We witnessed the havoc it causes to an offense when we try to execute with a QB that hasn’t practiced. The timing is off and there is no repore with the receivers.
Flipping back and forth is not helping either of our QB’s. It is stunting their development IMO. CRN needs to pick one guy to lead this team and build the offense around the QB’s talent. To me, the choice is obvious and it’s Brehaut.
3) Pick a Offense
This goes to my second point. Others have posted whether we should let CNC go and go get an OC who understands the Pistol and use the money to get a top notch DC. Sounds good but only if we stick with the Pistol.
I’m not sold that we should be running the Pistol. In general (without getting into the details), we switched to the Pistol offense to spark our running game due to the issues on the OL. But we are now left with a poor passing game that looked like it was developing at the end of last season. So, is it really worth it? The counter is…wait till the staff gets used to it, players get used to it/experience, we get better personnel that fits the Pistol, better OL, etc. Well, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that when we get the players some experience, better personnel and a better OL, that our offense would be pretty good. The guy running the offense has a track record of producing prolific offenses.
This decision isn’t easy and may not even be made by CRN. Whichever QB CRN picks, he needs to pick the offense that best suits the QB’s skillset. KP can run the Pistol more efficiently but do we really want to bank our season on him staying healthy when the offense dictates that the QB take hits? If KP is the choice, RB’s development is further stunted and the choice will effect UCLA FB for more than next season. I think Brehaut with time and practice can run the Pistol. However, he is better suited for the Pro Style offense that CRN and CNC favors.
Instead of forcing RB into a system that he isn’t a fit for, we should switch back if CNC stays. Until we find that elusive balanced offense, we’ll continue to be a schizophrenic team. Pick the QB and pick the offense that best suits him and lets get to work.
4) Develop UCLA FB’s Identity
CRN needs to determine what he wants our program to be known as. When you think VaTech, you think great defense and special teams. Oregon? Explosive offense, Alabama? Defense, etc. Unfortunately for us, UCLA FB is known as soft. Whether we like it or not, that’s the local and national perception. Getting run over by Edgerrin James and Ron Dayne doesn’t help our national perception.
Right now, we are an undisciplined team that lacks focus. I’m sure part of this is still due to our relative youth. But that doesn’t make it right. Top programs have coaches that are anal retentive about every minute detail within their program. The yapping you see after a routine play, the missed tackles, the suspensions for team violations, etc are all an extension of the HC and program. If CRN is going to deliver on his talk about attending Black Tie Events and contending for Pac 10 championships, he needs to get serious about what type of program he wants to run.
by BlueReign on Oct 31, 2010 9:39 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
CNC and the Pistol
I can’t quite understand why everyone thinks Norm Chow doesn’t get the Pistol— it really isn’t that fundamentally different from the sets that NC should be used to working with. Frankly, I think it insults NC’s experience and skill to imply that he “doesn’t get it.” Further, KP ran the pistol to fairly good success under NC— the faltering has come under RB’s leadership. I think the far more likely explanation for the stagnation of the Pistol is that RB’s reads aren’t up to speed, and his deception is nonexistent, both of which can be blamed on lack of experience and may well dramatically improve by next week. If there’s anything NC needs to do, it’s to work one-on-one with RB on his fakes. I wrote this last week, but I’ll repeat— I want to see the kind of fakes Oregon does: the ones that fool the TV cameramen into following the fake through the line when the ball is actually on an end-around. Darron Thomas knows how to fake well, and there should be no reason for us not to be able to get RB up to speed on that given the most prolific OC in recent history and a former Rose Bowl quarterback at the helm.
by b d on Nov 1, 2010 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Seriously?
Oregon is Oregon because they can run AND pass. Were we able to pass with KP? If you knock RB for his “faltering” to run the Pistol then knock KP for his inability to pass. Not fair to be pick and choose who and what you want to be critical of.
As for CNC, he gets paid to figure this out. If the Pistol isn’t so much different than what he is used to running (as you say), then explain why our offense is so vanilla and impotent?
N
I Hope you at least enjoyed the beverages. lol
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's" - John Wooden.

by 




















