Spaulding Roundup: Big Opportunity for UCLA’s Vanilla Offense & Other Notes
by Nestor on Nov 5, 2010 5:36 AM PDT
in Football
Email
PrintWe will start our Friday picking up on our previous discussion on Norm Chow's vanilla offense at UCLA. The numbers are hideous. Our passing offense is ranked 117th, scoring offense 96th and our total offense is ranked 103rd in the nation. Except for our rushing offense (which is now ranked 26th but has been on a downward trend in last 3 games) our offense has taken major step backwards this season to date.
While there are legitimate injury issues this offense has had to deal with that are beyond our coaches' control, the numbers and offensive production have not been acceptable. While none of us were expecting UCLA to field an elite and explosive offense this year, we certainly didn't expect it to be so pedestrian. As a result we have been raising questions about Norm Chow in recent weeks. Chow in response given unclear and vague answers to Jon Gold:
"You have to pattern your stuff to what your kids can do," Chow said. "We have to put our guys in position for them to be successful. You can't run 50 plays if they just understand 10. Then you just have to run 10.
"Does it work all the time? No. But if they feel good about it, it'll be OK."
That explanation doesn't make a lot of sense. Chow has never been good with press (a characteristic that probably has played a factor in him never getting a HCing gig). We understand that. Still the answer he gave seems to give the vibe that he just doesn't trust the talent in our program (it's a mindset we also see prevalent over at the defensive side of our football team).
I don't think anyone here is asking Chow to run 50 different kind of plays. What we are asking him is to trust the talent level in our football team and find a way to put together an offensive scheme that incorporates the talent we have on our team. If the talent is raw, then it is up to him and his staff (he has full control over our offense) to coach up that talent and get them up to speed (pun intended). Bruins have a major opportunity in next few games to upgrade their offensive stats. I certainly hope Chow and his staff get our offensive moving towards the right direction, starting this weekend.
Tracy Pierson from BruinReportOnline.com also believes Bruins have a "good shot" at beating Oregon State this weekend and he also sees a big opportunity for the UCLA offense. From his game preview (which is not behind a subscription firewall):
We are almost compelled to actually give the nod to the UCLA offense here, surprisingly enough. But you're basically in a crapshoot when you have the nation's 103rd-ranked offense going up against the nation's 94th-ranked defense. Most of the time when the units are evenly matched you'd give the advantage to the offense since it has the element of surprise, but UCLA's offense tends to not exploit that natural advantage much.
We also have to tend to think that the OSU defense's performance against Cal last week is a bit of an aberration. It had consistently given up about 31 points per game until last week when it yielded just 7 to the Bears. As we said, Cal is horrible on the road and was without its starting quarterback, so Oregon State was able to play Cal as a one-dimensional offense and stacked the box to stop Cal's running game.
It's a good match-up for UCLA. Against a poor rushing defense UCLA's rushing game should be able to look more like it did earlier in the year. It will help quite a bit that it will have its best chance of being successful throwing the ball against the OSU defense than it's had against any defense yet this season. So, OSU will try to stack the box, and then so much will be decided on whether UCLA can counter-adjust and be aggressive throwing the ball. The UCLA offensive coaches haven't shown a penchant for adjustment, but if there was ever a game - coming off the Arizona game and facing the OSU passing defense - where you'd think UCLA could finally be more dedicated to throwing the ball, this is it.
Emphasis added as I can't agree more with TP. He did pick Oregon State to beat the Bruins by a point but Tracy (who is not shaving until the Bruins put together a winning streak) also has his own little idiosyncrasies when it comes to cooking Bruin mojo. More power to him.
Rick Neuheisel's post-practice interview yesterday was short:
Nice to hear that he was "pleased" with a "crisp" practice and that his guys are ready to "play their tails off" with a "good plan." Hope it materializes on game day against Oregon State.
As for Oregon State not surprisingly the focus is on the Quizz:
Rodgers will face a defense that revisited the tackling issues that plagued it earlier in the season when Arizona rolled up 264 yards rushing Saturday.
"That game tape was one of the hardest things I have ever had to watch," UCLA linebacker Akeem Ayers said. "We missed big plays, big plays that would have had a significant impact on the game."
Rodgers averages 105.7 yards a game. He had 112 yards against the Bruins last season and 144 in 2008, both Oregon State victories.
"He's strong," said Chuck Bullough, UCLA's defensive coordinator. "You look at him in person, he's got big calves. He's short, but he's muscular."
Said Ayers: "He is able to find those small holes and has lateral quickness to get through them. He's a small back who is hard to find."
Moore also spoke about the Oregon State star with reverence:
"I don't say this about many players, but he has no weaknesses," UCLA safety Rahim Moore said. "He's tough, quick, fast. Patience. He can catch the ball and throw touchdowns. It's going to take all 11 of us to get to him because if we don't, he's going to be running for days."
But Quizz is not the only guy Bruins will have to keep an eye on Saturday:
Stephen Paea, DL, Sr.--This returning All Pac-10 selection is one of the premier defensive linemen in the nation. At 6-1, 311, he is a run-stuffing load and often powers into the backfield. He has 23 career tackles for a loss, including 12 sacks.
Markus Wheaton, WR, So.--Wheaton, a sprinter on the Oregfon State track team, has blazing speed and has picked up the receiving slack in the absence of injured James Rodgers. He has 32 catches for 406 yards and has two rushing touchdowns.
Dwight Roberson, LB, Sr.--The Beavers leader with 50 tackles, he has a sack in each of the last three games. He has 23.5 tackles for a loss in his career and has forced six fumbles. He was an honorable mention All Pac-10 selection last season.
Shifting back focus to our team, Neuheisel also mentioned that both Nelson Rosario and Sheldon Price will be "available" for tomorrow. Peter Yoon posted "neither got many first-team reps." I sure hope coaches don't start Rosario tomorrow and rush him back into the game, even though the Beavers are eagerly waiting for a rematch.
Meanwhile, Gold is reporting that part of the Oregon State "plan" may include starting Cassius Marsh at DT. That is welcome news. I think Marsha has been playing really well in recent weeks surpassing Nate Chandler. Hopefully this will fire up Chandler and get him to give an inspired performance this weekend. There is certainly serious talent in our front-4 with Marsh, Owa and Graham. When we get Datone Jones back next season along with Brandon Willis, the defense will have a chance to be special with a new defensive coordinator.
GO BRUINS.
63 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Tells the Whole Story
Nestor,
I actually like the Norm Chow quote…in his own honest way the truth comes out;
“You have to pattern your stuff to what your kids can do,” Chow said. "We have to put our guys in position for them to be successful. You can’t run 50 plays if they just understand 10. Then you just have to run 10.
Think about that simple, off the cuff admission…
You can’t run 50 plays if they just understand 10. Then you just have to run 10
Seriously…where does THAT problem lie?…with whom? Thanks Norm
Ultimately, the problem lies in the kid not absorbing the playbook (i.e. doing his assigned homework). It’s the classic teacher-student dichotimy. A teacher can do everything in their power to get the kid to learn, but if the kid doesn’t ever crack the textbook at home or do his homework on the off hours, then the kid will fail for lack of desire.
Unfortunately, a lot of great athletic talents come into D1 programs without having ever had to internalize the mental fundamentals of football. They’ve always just gone out and dominated because they were bigger, faster, and stronger than everyone else in high-school (works for college-to-pro too). Then they get here and have trouble grasping the finer points of technique and scheme. Compound that reliance on athleticism with the fact that most of these kid’s previous coaches also probably didn’t have that knowledge, much less teach the kids how to learn, and you get D1 athletes that just can’t run more than 10 plays.
I mean, knowing a play isn’t just knowing that on play X, you run a corner. It’s about knowing where on the route the coverage will lapse, knowing how to maximize your time there, knowing how where you are affects how your teamates are being covered, knowing whether the play as broken down and what do do given the position of everyone else on the field, knowing the tendencies of the man/men covering you so you can out maneuver them, knowing when your QB will be looking at you and when he won’t, and whole bunch of other important things.
I think CNC’s comment accurately identifies the problem. The inside veer/read-option is essentially one play that if we can ever master, will boost our run game enormously. The issue is that our guys can’t seem to wrap their heads around the ‘core’ concepts and apply them to every look we can generate.
Seems to me....
Norm is placing the blame on QB RB. All along CNC has dissed RB about his abilities to understand his offense. WTF! How hard is it to understand when you run a no imagination offense?
I agree
But he also seems to be placing blame on KP also, since our offense has ALWAYS been plain vanilla under NC. Personally, I think some of the blame still falls onto coaching. These kids aren’t dumb. They are UCLA student-athletes. This isn’t u$c. I think it has more to do with NC’s insecurities more than anything. My guess is that he has a hard time trusting. I gotta think tthat sometimes you just gotta take your shots when the opportunities arise. At the least, the players will learn from the game-time experiences/mistakes. I would rather see our team flounder miserably while opening the playbook than do the same while being the most conservative offense in the conference. They won’t learn nearly as much by being conservative.
Coach Chow, do you mean to tell me that Brehaut...
only knows how to run 10 plays. Who’s fault is that, coach???
Aren't our student-athletes smarter than the average bears?
If recruits meet UCLA academic requirements, it’s difficult to believe they cannot tackle (pun intended) a complex playbook. Let all the players have their opportunities.
“If you’re not making mistakes, then you’re not doing anything. I’m positive that a doer makes mistakes.” – Coach Wooden
Norm
So why are we just running only 10 plays? And yes, unfortunately, we really are running like 10 plays with a wrinkle (reverse, flea flicker, etc) mixed in here and there. Something really stinks. How are the Oregon kids learning a more complex system while our guys are allegedly mentally challenged? To me, it goes back to coaching. Our coaches are doing a piss poor job of developing/teaching the players. The guys on offense may not have had as much experience but they’ve been in the program for multiple years. Therefore, they should be familiar with CNC’s offense and plays. Something really, really stinks and I’m inclined to say that CNC needs to be shown the door too.
ummm...
Oregon only runs 6 or so plays (granted they’re run from different looks). They’re just run to perfection. And remember, it took Bellotti, what? a few years to get all his guys on the same page with that read-option. Now look at ‘em. And Oregon’s offense is emphatically NOT “more complex”.
Doubt that
Show me where Oregon runs only 6 plays and I’ll shut the F up. I can’t seem to find the quote but it was either BRO or Gold who spoke with an Oregon player and asked him what makes the Oregon offense so dynamic. His answer was something to the effect that it is very complex and you have to not only know what your assignment is but also everybody else’s assignment on each single play. If so, once again, why are our guys (remember, we have higher academic standards for entrance so it’s reasonable to conclude that they have the mental capacity to learn & retain information) so mentally challenged that CNC can ONLY call 10 plays? Please do explain.
“you have to not only know what your assignment is but also everybody else’s assignment on each single play.”
If you’ll refer to my post above – that’s not PLAY complexity. That’s called EXECUTION. It’s what is required – no matter the play – of each player on each down. Unfortunately, it’s not about academics, it’s about the ability and desire to absorb the football knowledge presented.
So
our guys don’t have the ability or desire to absorb the football knowlege? Wouldn’t ability refer to their mental capacity? And how do we know if the guys have no desire as you state? What I do know is what I’ve seen. I see an offense that runs limited plays with no variation whatsoever. I hear rumblings that players are irked that the staff isn’t trusting them to make plays.
As for Execution, I keep hearing that a lot (especially from CRN). Even if we do “execute” the 10 or so plays we run, I kinda think the defense is going to figure us out pretty quickly. It’s not play “complexity” that I’m looking for, it’s “variation”. When HS kids can run slants, wheel routes, bubble screens, deep posts, etc., I really don’t think we can’t execute these plays. Have you seen enough of these plays (not when it’s expected) to really believe that we can’t “execute” them?
Ability does not refer to capacity – a bucket has the capacity for fullness, but without more lacks the ability to become full. No coach trusts his players to “make” plays – that would be jungle ball. When coaches are comfortable with their athlete’s ability to execute a play – in all it’s aspects – then they will ask the athlete to do so, within the confines of what the rest of the team is doing. As an aid, consider the extreme. Would you play an athletic freak WR who, because of his poor understanding of what the play is designed to do, essentially takes himself (and possibly other players) out of the game. How could the QB ever throw to him if he didn’t know where he would be on any given down?
As for your expectations of execution: you are oversimplifying. There are lots of ways to run a slant (or whatever). Execution includes being able to accurately and consistently chose the way that fits with the circumstance that you are confronted with. HS kids generally run ONE variation every time, and then rely on one-on-one athletic ability to come up with the ball. So the ‘slant’ that a HS kid runs is not the ‘slant’ that a college kid does. And I’m not saying we can’t execute – I’m saying we don’t – and it’s likely caused by a lack of desire to ‘fully’ learn the plays which in turn is likely caused by: (1) a tendency to rely on athleticism, (2) being 18-20 yrs old, and (3) all the other crap that goes into being a collegiate athlete. What we need are kids who raise the bar (with respect to individual effort outside of the coaches prodding) so that in order to get meaningful PT, you have to put in the extra hours and really know your stuff. That’s why KP was a good leader.
You don't make sense
So what is this “more” that prevents this bucket from being full? It appears to me that you’re alluding to 2 general themes: 1) Our guys aren’t giving it their all to learn the plays/offense even with the coaches on their arse and 2) Our guys lack the “ability” to make plays. If I’m wrong, correct me. Otherwise, I haven’t seen any conclusive evidence that suggests our guys aren’t putting in the effort. To me, I hear a lot of excuses for why a kid hasn’t played (It’s their fault of course) and no accountability for the coaches piss poor job.
I don’t know what you were watching last week but I saw a couple of guys (whom we’ve been clamoring for to get more PT) make some big plays last week. So, was that flea flicker “jungle ball” since it wasn’t perfectly executed in “all it’s aspects” like you say? That LB almost got to RB before he threw the pass. Are you sure that “no coach trusts his players to make plays”? Not what I’m seeing on Saturdays and Sundays. I guess throwing to AJ Green against a 5-10 CB is “jungle ball”. Not that it had anythign to do with taking advantage of his size. Not that we have an advantage in the speed dept with Smith or Carroll.
As for my oversimplifying of the slant, you’re making this waaaay more complicated than it needs to be. How come most D1 schools can have some semblance of a passing game and we can’t? We all deal with the same issues. What makes us so unspecial?
I think you missed the point – a play is a team effort, therefore one person cannot “make” a play. He can make a difference in executing the play, but there is no play called “have Joe pick up the ball and run with it while the rest of you do nothing.” But no. I’m mistaken. That would actually qualify as a play because of the “do nothing” directions to the other 10 players. My point is that, the difference of one player becomes statistically negligible as time increases and the level of contribution from teammates decreases. Yes, the fleaflicker worked once. But proper execution would mean that we could theoretically run that play (and score on it) with statistical efficiency (as adjusted for game realities).
And I think that the answers to (1) conclusive evidence of insufficient effort (my pharaphrase), and (2) other schools dealing with same issues, is that the (2) is conclusive evidence of (1). However, I realize that there is a difference in our fundamental views re: culpability here. You apparently believe that when a player fails, it’s because coaches didn’t coach the player correctly. I, on the other hand, am of the school of thought that when a player fails, it is because he did not take properly advantage of the available coaching. Then again, I’m biased as a coaches kid who didn’t take advantage while watching other less talented athletes do so and succeed.
And as for making it complicated – football IS complicated. You cannot be dumb to play (well, maybe if you’re Vince Young you can – but only in Texas … or at SC, you can be dumb there, too).
Nope
Not understanding your point. We went from complex v non-complex offense of Oregon to exectution. You say our guys haven’t put in the effort post coaching to get better. I say, there is no evidence of such and believe this to be a coaching issue. You assume that I think football only involves 1 person which is absurd. You then say other schools dealing with the same issues we are is conclusive evidence of our insufficient effort? Not buying stock in our players failure to take advantage of available coaching. I think our coaches are failing our players by not putting them in the right positions nor utilizing them in the appropriate ways. Damn…I guess football is too complicated for our guys and they’re too dumb to play.
I think we all know
that Oregon only runs 1 play. They code named it “touchdown”
sounds like
it’s the one they run in practice but never have the b@lls to try in the game
I don't read code but.....
During the Oregon game I kept seeing some guy holding up cards with four different pictures on them. If those picture represent plays ,then each card held four different plays. He had a stack of cards he kept flashing, so they have to have more than 6 plays.
Now if somebody ever cracked the code as to what those pictures meant they would be a genius.
To the side of those highly entertaining cards
was at least one (maybe 2?) people franticly delivering hand signals, so I don’t think all of the information needed to know what play Oregon’s running next is contained on those cards.
I can't remember where
But I read that the cards didn’t actually mean anything. They were there to confuse defensive coordinators into extrapolating something from them that didn’t exist. It seemed to me that whenever the called play didn’t match up with something Oregon wanted to do, they just dropped into the zone read and let LaMichael and his O-line do the dirty work. It was absurdly effective.
Excuse me...
Which Offensive players have been in the program under Coach Norm for multiple years?
'CaptainJack65'
Jack Metcalf
by captainjack65 on Nov 5, 2010 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Are you kidding?
All of our offensive starters except for Anthony Barr have been playing in Chow for multiple years. Brehaut is the only sophomore.
I think Chow is using 10 plays as an example...
For all we know they may know 50 plays, but to be more dynamic they need to know 75. Anyway, the offense still looks crap, improvements need to be made quickly.
I think it all has to do
Seriously, I think we should try this. At the very least, we can get a laugh out of it.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
I think the previous posters have it right
Chow is acting like he is out to prove that Bre can’t be successful and he was right to stick with Prince all along.
How foolish does Chow look if Bre does a great job when he personally tried to overrule Rick twice (once successfully after WSU, unsuccessful after KAl because Prince ended up getting surgery)? He has been emphatic in his believe that Bre is so bad, a severly injured Prince is a better option.
I don’t think he has a lot invested in proving his prejudices wrong.
I disagree.
Chow has “opened the playbook,” as it were, more with Brehaut than with Prince. I personally think he’s knocking the WRs more than Brehaut, because disregarding the AZ game, they’ve looked lost practically all season. Think of how frustrating it must be for NC: Call the right play, have a wide open receiver downfield who gets the ball in the numbers, and then drops it. Or a receiver who runs the wrong route and is nowhere near where the ball was thrown. BAM, INT. What has Brehaut done to piss off Chow? Overthrow a few open receivers? Sure. Have very little pocket presence and get his ass sacked/fumble? Sure. But I don’t think that is as frustrating as the epidemic of the dropsies in the WRs.
I’ve said it before— I don’t buy the whole “NC hates Brehaut” business. A healthy KP is better than a healthy RB. That’s changing as RB develops experience (and hopefully pocket presence), but at the time when the calls were made, this was pretty much indisputable. Now, the degree to which KP was injured and the degree to which the coaches knew he was injured is up for debate, but I don’t find it hard to believe that NC was taken in by KP’s attitude and the fact that he’d invested in a new offense that KP was more suited to run, and hoping that he’d turn it around soon. Yeah, maybe it took season-ending surgery to have NC give RB a shot, but since then, I’ve seen Chow get more creative with the plays he’s calling and (at least to me) seems to be acknowledging RB’s talent. When was the last time we saw KP throw a flea-flicker TD pass?
I don't buy the "healthy Prince is better than a healthy RB" bit
RB has only started three games in his young career, opposed to KP’s on-again, off-again 1.5 seasons. I bet you RB at the end of next season will be well ahead of where KP ever was.
You're not disagreeing with me
I said “Healthy Prince is better than healthy RB.” I never said “Healthy Prince is better than Healthy RB will ever be.” I think that with time and experience, RB will at least close the gap, if not exceed KP’s current skill level, but at the time the calls were made (before the Cal game), RB was still incredibly raw and inexperienced. He killed drives with mistakes, couldn’t (can’t?) sense when he needed to get rid of the ball to avoid a big sack (or at least hang onto it to avoid a fumble), and to this day still has some responsibility for the stagnation of our running game (his misdirection needs work). He has gotten much better (very quickly!), I believe he’ll continue to improve, and I don’t wish him ill at all but the fact stands that around the time of the Cal game, he wasn’t at the level of a healthy KP. I think in some respects, he has already exceeded KP, and if he puts some solid work in (and NC works hard with him), he could be scary good.
Personally, from what they’ve both shown so far, I’m inclined to favor RB (mostly because I like the passing game more than the running game, and I haven’t seen a lot of bombs from KP). However, I do believe that (with no prejudice) it was rational for NC to start KP at Cal. Now, to keep him in while the game was going to shit? That’s another story.
by b d on Nov 5, 2010 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Starting Prince for KSU and Cal game were wrong calls
Prior to KSU Brehaut was essentially taking all the reps with the first team for 3+ weeks until Prince had couple of days during game week. It was a bad move and probably cost us the game.
As for the Cal game from what I saw, the guys on offense stopped trying because they didn’t the see the point after going nowhere with a one legged QB. Not sure if Brehaut would have made a difference but it might have been more competitive because the offense had no shot with an injured Prince. Both of those games are on Norm.
Although I am a fan of KP and his knowledge of the offense; I am fast becoming inclined agree with you re: RB. The progress of RB from game to game has been scary good. He still has many fatal flaws, but they will soon be comparable to KP’s fatal flaws, and if RB continues his current trajectory in understanding the offense, he should have no trouble beating out KP next season.
I just wonder why he didn’t have this type of progress over spring/fall camp.
Other than Walker, who I think was only an AVERAGE TO GOOD D-Coordinator
I’d say Rocky Long was the last good coordinator we had. He’s only a couple hours down south at SDSU and doing a good, not great but good job. They’re ranked 40th nationally in defense.
And Borges isn’t doing a bad job either, that offense is ranked pretty good too. I’m just sayin’.
what intrigues me about Long
is his defenses aren’t predicated on size, but on speed and deception.
Based on that, I wonder if he might have a leg up on offenses like Oregon than a more traditional DC would have?
by silverlakebruin on Nov 5, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions
LOL
At that very last sentence, Nestor. Way to go with the punch-out ending. I agree wholeheartedly, although our D-Line is not going to transform overnight. Those six players are still EXTREMELY young, and D-Line maturity, along with O-line maturity, takes longer than any other position. But from a talent standpoint, we are scary at that position.
Easy Bruins...
I still think CNC is one of the best OCs in the business. I don’t place the blame solely on him. Every offensive player has to be able to absorb the information and put it into play. A solid OL solves a lot of problems, but receivers have to make catches. We are a talented team, but you can only coach up players so much. They have to want to be the best. That comes with time and experience. Granted CRN and CNC have been working with a core of backs and receivers for a couple years now, but you know injuries lead to inconsistencies on practice field which carries over to game day.
I know we’re all a bit frustrated with the stagnant offense as well as the vanilla defense. We’ll see what happens tomorrow. I was at the game last week versus Arizona and I felt the buzz going around with the offense. The flea flicker helped, but we can’t rely on that all the time. But that route that RB hit RC on was inspiring. It felt good to see us go vertical.
All I’m saying is that we’re getting there. The talent is there, the guys just have to want it. They have to want it like the guys at Oregon and Stanford. They have to do it game in and game out bustin’ their tails to get what we all want, a W every week we play.
What has CNC done
at UCLA that would make you believe he’s one of the best? His is in a “what have you done lately” proffession. He didn’t do much with the Titans and he hasn’t done anything worth mentioning here at UCLA. He’s been running “vanilla” offenses without imagination. He hasn’t placed his talent in positions where they can succeed and he hasn’t gameplaned around the opositions weaknesses.
*He is in a "what have you done lately"....
Really wish there was an edit feature.
chow's comment bugs me a lot
i’ve been frustrated with the lack of offensive production but have given chow the benefit of the doubt the whole time. but that simplistic comment leaves me scratching my head. i have no problem with our offense knowing and therefore only running ten plays per se. one of my coaches back in the day used to say we can run the same play over and over but if we run it out of a different look the defense won’t know the difference. we seem to run the same plays out of the same sets, defenses have had such an easy time scouting us and knowing what to do pre-snap. i get all the probs over the years lack of talent and injuries at qb and oline, i get it, but the lack of imagination is inexcusable.
Across The Face
There is no excuse
for UCLA to have an Offense that is one of the worst in the country. Our overall Offensive ranking are in the same class as New Mexico State, San Jose State? that’s not going to cut it!
Let me add, one of the worst offenses for three straight years
Once is an anomoly, Three consecutive years shows their is something structurally wrong.
by silverlakebruin on Nov 5, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Going in the Wrong Direction
going back a little further than 3 yrs – From the NCAA…Total Offense for UCLA
2008: 111th
2007: 99th
2006: 71st
2005: 23rd
Look Who We Signed in 2005 on Offense
…Ben Olsen, Kalil Bell, Justin Brown, Ryan Moya, Logan Paulsen, Jamil Turner, Gavin Ketchum, Adam Heater, Aleksey Lanis and Osaar Rasshan.
…gotta have a part in the slide.
Not to mention
the carousel of offensive offensive coordinators. The double offensive is not a typo.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
That quote is quite a window
Into NC’s mind. It really shouldn’t take this long to have team better than it was last year. It looks worse in many ways. Now we can assess why he stuck with a wounded KP and the other things we see. I think the writing may be on the wall for this guy. And don’t mean Facebook.
"You haven't taught until they have learned"
As far as I know, none of our student-athletes are slackers or casual football players, unwilling to put in however much time it takes to learn the offense. I could be wrong, but if so, I doubt such players would still be on the team.
It wasn’t that long ago that we were criticizing a certain HC who installed and stuck with a complex offense, despite the fact that his players had a hard time mastering it.
To whomever Coach Chow was alluding, the snark is palpable and shows, I think, a meanness of spirit. He’s directing the entire responsibility for their failing to learn his brilliant offense on the student(s). What good can come from public put-downs of your students’ learning abilities? If these bright and presumably motivated students have not absorbed your teachings, where is your share of responsibility? You haven’t taught until they have learned.
by Bruinut on Nov 5, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
why yes. yes you are.
We just have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding ultimate culpability. see above. You work from the presumption that the athletes are 100% motivated to succeed; I work from the presumption that if they were, lack of success would not be an issue. We will not likely agree, but there should be no hard feelings on the matter.
Time for CNC to go
In three years CNC has failed to “coach guys up” and the fact that he is putting our guys down in the media by pointing fingers at them is an alarming sign. That compounded by the KP starts at KU and Cal and his consistent disparaging of RB (our QB of the future because KP and Crissman have had surgeries that are practically incompatible with successful collegiate or pro careers) is all I need to see. As much as it pains me to say this, the Trogans and other successful programs have success because of their Draconian tactics. As soon as a guy doesn’t produce, he gets benched ala Aaron Corp.
After we inflicted Rout 66, what does Texas do? Fire their coach! After our own Rout 66 in 2005 what do we do? Let CTS “coach” us into the ground for 2 more years. CNC and CB are through in Westwood. I’m more than comfortable with CRN calling the shots, and seriously anyone is better than CB.
by Strathmore&Gayley on Nov 5, 2010 8:15 PM PDT reply actions
I can't remember the name
of the former Oregon State basketball coach who always insisted that he had only two plays, and it is not a perfect comparison, but how many “plays” do you need? Not that I think we should take CNC literally, but if we could execute and completely understand twenty or twenty-five plays, we could play a number of football games without exactly replicating any series of downs. What I think we are all looking for is the series of plays that moves the ball by keeping the defense off balance, so that we don’t get stuffed on third and seven so often. By the way, I think we are moving in that direction, based on the Arizona game, but we need balance, not a sudden overemphasis on passing. The longer we have the ball, the longer Quizz doesn’t have it. Somehow, I have a good feeling about this game, and I really expect a win.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
