Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Spaulding Roundup: Bears Under Pressure, Relaxed Prince & Other UCLA Notes

"Whether they think I have the same capabilities or not (as Colin Kaepernick), or whether they are thinking about my knee, the fact is I'm ready to play. If I end up having to run, I will run." - Kevin Prince.

Now that all the "cleansing" is out of the way (if you haven't done it yet, here is the dread thread) for tomorrow's game let's look ahead to the big picture impact for tomorrow's game. Despite the gloomy out take (as no one is picking us to win) Bruins actually head into this game with not much to lose and lot to gain. Heading into this season our hope was for UCLA to put together a winning record in the conference to sustain the recruiting momentum from last couple of years. Bruins are not going to lose that vantage point no matter what happens tomorrow afternoon at Berkeley.

On the other hand this is a monster game for the Bears. Apparently Tedford is under some tinge of pressure in the Bay Area despite having done a great job of establishing that program. Given how their seasons have fizzled in recent years - failing to finish in the top 25 since 2006 - the Bear program has been stuck in bit of rut since their earlier success in Tedford era. If somehow they lose to the Bruins tomorrow afternoon, not only it could impact their position in this year's Pac-10 race, it could have ramifications in terms of overall trajectory of the Cal program. 

As for UCLA, we have talked all week about how we haven't won a game there since 1998. I don't expect that to change tomorrow. However, if the Bruins play up to their potential, give it everything they have and continue to build on the performances from last three weekends (especially the games against Texas), we are going to be all right no matter what the score. Our view here is the long term, which is to squeeze out 4 or 5 more regular season wins rest of this regular season. If we manage to get to 7 or 8 wins this year with the holes we still have in our roster, we are going to be set up well to make runs in the coming years.  So the pressure is going to be on Jeff Tedford and the Cal Bears to hold serve on their home turf.

Star-divide

The Bears have been badgered with "pistol" related questions all week. Earlier in the week Tedford talked about the need of being "disciplined" in defense.  His DC - Clancy Pendergast - echoed the same points yesterday:

 "The biggest thing we have to do is do a better job of getting off blocks and playing with more discipline, playing with more gap integrity and really trusting our keys."

Well at least the Cal coaches are all on the same page, which could be a good sign for them. Conventional wisdom at this point suggests that the Bears are going to force the Bruins to get it done via Kevin Prince, who is coming off after sitting out a game due to knee injury. We have been hearing all week how Prince is no Colin Kaepernick [Nevada's dynamic, who have been running the original pistol for 4 years]. Prince on his part doesn't around all that worried about the focus on him. From the LA Times:

 [M]aking Prince run may be on the Bears' agenda.

"That's fine," Prince said. "I doubt they will play the same way because they got run up pretty good by that quarterback. Whether they think I have the same capabilities or not, or whether they are thinking about my knee, the fact is I'm ready to play. If I end up having to run, I will run." [...]

Nevada's offense has more designed runs for Kaepernick, but UCLA Coach Rick Neuheisel  said that if the Bears "decide they're going to make Kevin keep the ball, then the plan is for him to keep the ball. We should be getting good chunks of yardage."

As for concerns about his knee, Prince said, "It will be first down, then slide."

And don't forget to keep your mouthpiece on Kevin.

On the other side of the ball, you can bet Tedford is going to be putting in special packages to key on Akeem Ayers (and Rahim Moore):

Of Ayers, Tedford said: "He's a very good player. They put him in a lot of different positions. He rushes off the edge. He's very fast off the edge. They also drop him into coverage."

Of Moore, who led the nation last year in interceptions, he said: "He' good, he's athletic, he's in good position. Obviously, he can make a play on the ball. It's obvious that he's athletic enough to catch the football when he's in position to make a play."

I am guessing the Bears studied the tapes of UCLA's last game very closely when the Cougars specifically targeted Ayers through some doubles and chipping away at him. The question (again) is going to be how Chuck Bullough will anticipate, recognize, and rapidly react to Tedford's moves.

If the Bears decide to give "extra" attention to Akeem when he is lined up towards the outside, it would potentially mean the gaps could be available for our LBers to burst through. It will be up to Bullough to make sure he and his LBer coach and LBers are closely studying film, and look for opportunities to put in their own packages to counter punch and attack by shooting through the other holes.

As mentioned up top, it's a huge game for the Bears. Shane Vereen is feeling a sense of "urgency":

"I definitely hope the offense can put up more points than nine," tailback Shane Vereen said. "It will be on the offense to put up points to support the defense. I don't know if it's urgency for the Pac-10 (race), it's urgency for our entire season. We all understand we need to get a win on Saturday."

Patrick Larimore is planning to keep an eye on Vereen:

"He's the focal point of Cal's offense," UCLA linebacker Patrick Larimore  said. "They try to give him the ball in a lot of different ways so we've got to keep an eye on him and focus on keeping him in check."

Larimore and co. will have to keep an eye on Vereen's backups as well. Tedford mentioned earlier this week that Bears expect to "get backup tailback Isi Sofele more involved in the offense" and that he "trusts" other backup RB Ron Gould, so that they can keep Vereen fresh. Bruins can't forget about those guys. In recent years while they were too worried about Jahvid Best, it was Vereen who was killing them with consistent and often game breaking runs.

On the injury front it appears Steve Sloan is going to tough it out through a new injury. However, right now at least for this weekend Dalton Hilliard might be out. Here is Coach Rick Neuheisel giving injury updates in his last practice presser of the week:

Gold has more details on the injuries.  

Elsewhere, Chris Foster has a really original and riveting story about Cal and UCLA's fight songs. OMGZ! Did you know UCLA stole Cal's fight song?! You can always count on the LA Times sports section for bringing "news" we haven't heard of anywhere else. Whatever.

Lastly as mentioned, Cal is almost everyone's pick this weekend. Ted Miller picked the Bears on tWWL. Jon Wiliner (the former UCLA beat writer for the Daily News), picked the Bears.  Even Tracy Pierson from Bruin Report Online is picking the Bears in his always excellent previews of UCLA games. Of course none of us are feeling all that confident either.  All of these predictions bring us back to the point made at the very top: UCLA has nothing to lose tomorrow afternoon.

GO BRUINS.

Comment 48 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Underdog

Good, no one picked the Bruins to win in Austin this year or Knoxville last year- history has had a funny way of repeating itself- in our favor. Besides we are way over due for a victory up there.

GOT 106? UCLA, LEGENDS MADE HERE. NO DOUBTS, NO EXCUSES, NO MERCY.

by Bruin4ver on Oct 8, 2010 7:18 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

Cal has made it a habit of falling apart in the middle of seasons

Here’s to the beginning of another spiral to the bottom half of the Pac-10 for Cal. And besides, we’re overdue to win in Berkeley.

by rgalloucla on Oct 8, 2010 7:34 AM PDT via mobile reply actions  

polls

UCLA received votes in AP and USA Today, while Cal received none last week, but Cal is favored by 7.5 tomorrow.

Is there a Vegas oddsmaker football rankings poll?

by BC_Bruin on Oct 8, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not happy about Sloan or Hillard!

Not as worried about Rosario out from a receiving standpoint, but more so from a run-blocking standpoint. I believe he was doing a great job blocking downfield.

Curious if anyone is hearing if Zumwalt and Dietrich Riley will make the trip. I can’t remember how many players travel (65 rings a bell), but it seems Zumwalt could see increased playing time in the rotation, especially if Sloan isn’t up to game speed. Riley, I presume, could be backing up Moore (or 3 in the rotation). I know this was referenced a couple of days ago, but haven’t heard anything more.

by sam_in_hb on Oct 8, 2010 7:34 AM PDT reply actions  

I am pretty sure

Both Dietrich and Zum will go up. I’d be shocked if they didn’t make the trip.

by Nestor on Oct 8, 2010 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm interested

I can wait to see if Jordan gets some meaningful experience this week. He has the potential to be a really Eyeopener right away

by Josh Schlichter on Oct 8, 2010 8:40 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Zum

I think coaches are grooming to take over Akeem’s spot.

by Nestor on Oct 8, 2010 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

Which

Should be interesting. Hopefully we don’t have to deal with a Garrett Gilbert factor- still keep Akeem in, but acclimate Jordan to the game and such

by Josh Schlichter on Oct 8, 2010 9:35 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

Travel roster size...

Conferences set the travel roster size within NCAA parameters. Per the 2009-2010 Pac-10 Handbook the travel roster size is 64 Away (unlimited home). Section in the handbook also noted that “there shall be no limit for the traditional rival games or contests played at the site of one of the rivals.”

by 281bruins on Oct 8, 2010 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Jon Wilner picks UCLA

Nestor, it looks as though Jon Wiliner (the former UCLA beat writer for the Daily News) boldly PICKED THE BRUINS

UCLA (plus-7.5) at CAL: Too. Many. Points. The Bruins won’t carve up Cal the way Nevada did, but they’ll have some success moving the ball on the ground (with a few completions mixed in). And I’m not convinced the Bears have what it takes offensively to dominate anyone in the conference, including Washington State. Pick: UCLA.

and Bruins are getting more points from CAL, than.SUC vs. Stanford ???

by c bruin 84 on Oct 8, 2010 8:13 AM PDT reply actions  

Nope

He picked us to cover the 7.5 pt spread. He picked Cal to win:


Straight-up winners: Stanford, Cal, Washington, Arizona and Oregon. (Yep, I’m picking all the favorites — and you know it won’t turn out that way.)

by Nestor on Oct 8, 2010 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'd stay away from these lines

I think anywhere from 7-9.5 would keep me away. Give me 10 points and I’ll take us.

by britishbruin on Oct 8, 2010 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

depends on Prince's health/rustiness and our pass rush

if Prince is in rhythm, the game is up for grabs, I think. Cal having Mohamed in the lineup will certainly make moving the ball a much bigger challenge than Nevada saw but our running game should still produce results.

Shane Vereen is the real deal and is gonna get his – he always does.

So winning hinges on our defense’s ability to stop Riley (something they admittedly haven’t been able to do).

The wild card that we’re probably not talking about enough is that our team is playing with much more confidence than i can rememeber. THEY believe they should win which means a lot out on the field.

I like our chances to win outright and I def like the points.

by DoubleTroubleBruin on Oct 8, 2010 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

big ifs I think

my concerns are:
1) Cal may have the best QB/RB combo we have faced, IMHO, and the only really balanced offense we faced this season torched us for 35 points on our home field

2) Prince has never ever looked anything other than rusty coming back from injury

3) the novelty of the pistol has helped us get away with some mediocre execution; playing against a team who has had to face a similar system already and had a bye week to prepare for us makes me less optimisitic.

by britishbruin on Oct 8, 2010 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

great points

Just trying to keep my passion bucket full and my optimism high as I will be at the game (donning my true blue “championships made here” t shirt)

by DoubleTroubleBruin on Oct 8, 2010 11:16 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

duh

need 1 more cup coffee this am

by c bruin 84 on Oct 8, 2010 8:27 AM PDT reply actions  

The bunch over at mini-WWL

or maybe LAL (LA Leader?) – are high on the Bruins. There are people who expect us to win out there, who are apparently still sold on us after the victories over Houston and Texas. Granted, these guys (and gal) may not be the tradmed big dogs. But what the heck do they all know anyway, right?

I always relish being the underdog, but I think in this game, it’s not unreasonable to expect a victory. If I’m being objective, I’d say that we’ll probably lose a close one. But my subjective Bruin self won’t be surprised with a definitive win tomorrow. As long as our team keeps its head down and goes to work respecting its opponent, methinks we’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Now that we’re post-cleanse, I’m fired up for another shot. Let’s go, Bruins!

by bruinbunz on Oct 8, 2010 8:44 AM PDT reply actions  

I disagree that we have nothing to lose

Here’s why: We are always competing with every other school for the best players, with the final goal always being wins and a championship. Cal is one of our closest competitors in the state of California. While we have historically dominated them, they have had the upper hand over the last decade or so (Pierson makes the prescient comment that Cal basically stole UCLA’s program), and if we ever want to get to the top of the pac-10, we have to return to regularly beating Cal. This would make us be more attractive to recruits and give us a better national perception. I think one of the reasons so many people are picking against us is that perception that UCLA is still an inconsistent, mediocre program. Losing this game furthers that perception and does not improve our chances to get any recruits. A win, however, would both be a step towards having that all-important consistency that marks the best programs and, on the most basic level, give us another win (duh) to count towards the improvement we are selling to recruits. We may still be on track to have big years in 2011 and 2012, but a win would do much to raise our program’s ceiling and accelerate our growth.

by bruinM on Oct 8, 2010 10:30 AM PDT reply actions  

on CGB

they are concerned that a poor performance in front of some key recruits this weekend might be damaging

by britishbruin on Oct 8, 2010 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

What killed us with Furd and KSU

were stupid penalties, dropped passes that inadvertently hit our receivers in their hands and right square in the numbers of their jerseys (the chest area) and utterly stupid turnovers. (In the case of the Tree, we also played a clearly superior team.) If we do not do those things (penalties, dropped passes and turn the ball over), then we win or so it seems to me.

Maybe I am an optimist who has sipped the Blue Kool-Aid but that what to comes down to with me. The other stuff will work itself out to our benefit.

by peggysue69 on Oct 8, 2010 10:42 AM PDT reply actions  

Feeling Fairly Relaxed About This One...

Not that I’m overconfident or anything (far from it). I just think our guys will come out focused and fairly relaxed tomorrow. Not sure why, but I think we may have a tendency to play better on the road than at home.

Foster’s article, while on the cheesy side for sure, did bring up an interesting point about the 1975 season when we finished with the same conference record as Cal (6-1) yet we got the nod for the Rose Bowl by virtue of our 28-14 win over the Bears at home in the Coliseum. We would have been unbeaten in conference play had it not been for that one bad home game vs Washington.

On another front, I’ve never quite understood the seeming animosity that exists between Cal and UCLA. I was acquainted with a Cal grad in my Toastmasters club a while back and when I told him I’m a UCLA guy (even though I’m an Iowa grad), I just sensed a subtle sense of superiority from him. It’s just weird somehow.

Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!

by Minnesota Bruinfan on Oct 8, 2010 10:49 AM PDT reply actions  

No animosity here

I sense the only animosity comes south and does not go north. I could be wrong. I ask UCLA students, “Do you despise sc?” And everytime they bitterly remark, “Absolutely.”

I have never heard a student or alumni in my presence ever say anything of the sort about Cal. Maybe it is the respect so many of us have for the institution and its place in California history. Its sort of like beating Texas, afterwards, you feel really good but also marvel at their academic standards and the quality of their players and coaches.

That being said, on Saturday, pound the bears into the ground and bury them! Bruins, make them pay for the past decade in Strawberry Canyon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by peggysue69 on Oct 8, 2010 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hate is too strong, but

I dislike Cal more than any PAC-10 program other than USC.

by captainqtp on Oct 8, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Interesting read

Much of the ’animosity" in the 2 year old thread reflected more of a Nothern versus Southern California anger rather than Cal versus UCLA.

Some of the angst arose from bad fan behavior in strawberry canyon or in the Catherdral of Collegiate Football—the Rose Bowl. Having attended virtually every Cal-UCLA game against ever played in the Rose Bowl and never having attended any such games in strawberry canyon, I have never seen any such misconduct.

But I can’t get up the steam to have distain for the program or the school. I just want us to knock them off tomorrow. 10 years is enough!

by peggysue69 on Oct 8, 2010 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

As an alum of both schools..

I don’t think it’s really much of a hate on the Cal side. It’s just that for years, it irritated Cal fans that we were losing to UCLA so consistently, and more of a frustration that our own administration didn’t make a commitment to sports. Remember, UCLA basketball had beaten Cal 52 straight games. The streak was ended at Harmon GYM, a real gym or Room 100 as Cal students knew it. My old high school, Loyola High, had a better gym than Harmon until it was refurbed. And on the football field, there was just the feeling that UCLA didn’t really have better players, but a more consistent program, with Donahue there for a billion years, and Cal changing coaches every three years.

Now, Cal has made a commitment to sports (although we just killed baseball) and there’s the notion that beating UCLA should be a regular event, mainly because we’re probably the more stable program (since Tedford) and UCLA has done a “Cal” with coaches not working out.

All that said, there are so many Cal students from SoCal that at the beginning of your Cal experience, you’re more familiar with UCLA/USC instead of Stanford. So you obviously want to beat the school that is more familiar to you. But as you get more enveloped in the Cal culture, Stanford becomes the focus (although we hate USC with a purple passion).

All in all, I think Cal fans like playing UCLA (think about 70K at Memorial tomorrow), but I don’t think there’s a natural hate. Now if we fought over the rights to The Big C for the year…

Lawrence Ross

by alpha1906 on Oct 8, 2010 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agree it's a little strange from distant observation

But I’ve lived most my life in SoCal and moved 3 years ago up to SF. There is an overwhelming sense of “Beat LA” in them. It’s a one-way animosity, really. Giants fans hate the Dodgers almost as much as they like the Giants. Everybody magically became a Celtics fan last playoffs.

And this extends to college sports as well, apparently. I’m baffled by it most of the time.

Go Bruins!

by Harsha on Oct 8, 2010 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

If we play like we did at TX...

UCLA will be too fast for CAL. By the time they see who has the ball, it’s gone. Many times the TV cameraman doesn’t even know, and they are above it, not at field level. D is the ? mark.
Big DB cushions=1st downs. Risk=reward

by 1970 on Oct 8, 2010 11:04 AM PDT reply actions  

Cal Gold Blogs - many are worried

They could use a cleansing thread,or an enema

by Angelitos on Oct 8, 2010 11:35 AM PDT reply actions  

You really expect us to lose to Cal?

I don’t. If the coaches do their job, and KP plays as well as he did versus Houston or Texas, we should run all over the field against Cal. We’ve averaged 36 points a game in our three wins. Our offensive line outweighs Cal’s defense by about 50 pounds per man. The only way we don’t score 38 or more is if the coaches stop running the ball in four down territory, just like they did against KSU and Stanford when they had not yet figured out our offensive identity.

The fly in the ointment is Riley. The inconsistent senior has usually torched us, but he’s had his usual subpar performances. If we put pressure on him, like we did Texas, he’s vulnerable. But even if he’s great, if we play ball control and have TOP of 35 minutes to their 25, we still win.

I also expect our young stud defensive ends to step up big time now that they are being given the chance. Perhaps the trap game we survived last week with our second string QB and a lackadaisical defensive effort has soured some, but not me. The only thing keeping the Bruins from being a top team is consistency at QB, which we have had the past three weeks. It should only get better. After all, this is the sixth game of the season.

Again, Cal is good, but not that good and we are better, easily, if we play our game.

Bruins 38

Cal 17

GO BRUINS!

by uclahy on Oct 8, 2010 11:56 AM PDT reply actions  

While I'm slightly more enthusiastic about our chances than most

An analysis that only points out where we’re good and they’re bad is not one to base your predictions on. Let’s call your prediction the best case scenario.

by Tydides on Oct 8, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree I am the best case scenario.

But you have to believe it as a player if you’re going to do it.

And I expect some of our more inexperienced players to be much better as the season progresses, which is halfway over after this game. And I don’t expect us to do the el foldo on third and longs like we did last week. I trust our coaches and players learned from that.

We’ll find out soon enough.

by uclahy on Oct 8, 2010 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

I wasn't aware you or I were suiting up tomorrow

Sure our players need to believe it. Our coaches need to believe it. Fans, however, get the luxury of skepticism.

However, I do expect us to give up our fair share of third and longs, mostly because we’ve been giving them up all season and I haven’t seen good reason to not expect it.

by Tydides on Oct 8, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hmm

But you have to believe it as a player if you’re going to do it.

I always played my best when I was nearly shitting myself in fear. I think every player handles the pre-game mental stuff differently. If I was scared out of my mind, my adrenaline would flow like crazy and I would always have a good game. I didn’t play scared, but I sure felt scared.

by captainqtp on Oct 8, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ah, the psyche of a true victor

Incidentally, isn’t your football experience true of life in general. A case of the shakes can make us excel.

by peggysue69 on Oct 8, 2010 1:07 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

i feel good about this one

if we dont lose the turnover battle and dont give up big special teams plays, i think we’ll be just fine. cal is coming off tense and nervous, i think that shows up on the field tomorrow. i’m not the biggest kevin prince fan, but he’s as healthy as he’s been all season and they’re daring him to beat them. i think he does it through the air… i know, i know, kinda crazy huh? ucla 31-13

Across The Face

by rb bruin on Oct 8, 2010 12:35 PM PDT reply actions  

the 'dread thread'

I think I like that better than ‘cleansing,’ Nestor!

Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.

by KSBruin on Oct 8, 2010 12:44 PM PDT reply actions  

Leaving for Stawberry Canyon Now

I see us running for more than 200 yards, winning the TOP by a lot, having an impact on the Bears’ O with our team speed (swarming to the ball per Rahim). It’ll be a close game but, if there are no breakdowns in the secondary coverage, I see us winning 34-31. I think Cal isn’t that good. Go Bruins.

by harry bruin on Oct 9, 2010 8:33 AM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Bruins Nation, an unofficial daily online scrap book covering the greatest collegiate athletic program in the nation. Established June 16, 2005. GO BRUINS.

Managers

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

377011_2642084725867_1068030137_32302525_1166539782_n_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Licenseplate_small gbruin

2761_small tasser10

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Small DCBruins

Of Counsels

094_small Ajax

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Small Meriones

Small Odysseus

Associates

Eee_small freesia39

Uclabruins_small AHMB