Bring Your Playbook Chuck Bullough, Coach Needs To See You
by PhoenixBruin on Dec 6, 2010 11:57 AM PST
Email
PrintBumped. - BN
Although he is not the only one that needs to be served his walking papers, he is the larger part of the overall issue. You can't just look at the score of the $C game (its been posted here that holding the trogans to 28 was an accomplishment) and say that CB has done a decent job overall.
I will say this, we are young on defense, no one can deny that. Any time you have 3 true freshman starting in your front seven, there are going to be problems. As highly recruited as they are, they are still only 18 years old with 18 year old muscles and an 18 year old understanding of the game. With that being said, you need to coach accordingly.
We all know that it is IMPOSSIBLE to win a game, let alone be competitive if you don't get pressure on the QB (the reason why Mario Williams was drafted ahead of Bu$h, when, at the time, Bu$h was more accomplished). So if you have 3 frosh in your front seven, you need to bring pressure in creative ways (our only effort was to line up Ayers at DE). But we didn't...all season. Too many times, we tried to get pressure with just our front 4, which I will remind you includes 2 freshmen. To add to that, our corners are playing 10-15 yards off the ball (I'm assuming CB knows there will be no pressure and is protecting against getting beat deep). That is a bad combo. With no pressure at the line of scrimmage, and WRs running free in the secondary, the opponent is essentially running against a skeleton defense. It might as well be practice for the opposition. To add insult to injury, we can't tackle!
Why is this a coaching problem? Let's hit the jump and discuss it more.
The scheme just isn't working. Period. 8 losses, 6 coming in the last 7 games, countless blowouts (giving up 31, 35, 35, 60, 29, 24, 55, 28 in 8 losses and 28 in a victory to the doormat of the conference). Don't be delusional and think that $C scoring 28 points had anything to do with CB. It was a rivalry game. That's what happens in rivalry games. That had everything to do with the players reaching down trying to make something happen, in spite of having CB as a coordinator.
Plus, Barkley was a shell of himself hobbling around on one leg and running a fever last night. Not to mention, they had a SR walk-on as their kicker (just earned a scholarship this season because they had no one else) who has only made one FG over 40 yards his whole career (only 4 other kicks over 30 yards). If they had a serviceable kicker at their disposal who could kick field goals and not snatch away their offense's momentum after each failed attempt of a 4th down conversion, it would have been a lot uglier. I give our coaching staff very little credit for Saturday night.
So next year will be better because our team will be more experienced and CB will loosen the reigns a little, right? Wrong! The product that we are seeing on the field is who CB is. It's what he does. It's his MO. Bend but don't break, umbrella-using, keep everything in front of you, we'll let them catch it, but lets hope they don't run too far defense.
Compare his calls with this year's "young" team to last year's veteran-laden team. Siewierski & Price at DT (Sr & Jr respectively), Bosworth & Stokes/Jones at DE (Sr & Jr/So). Akeem Ayers, Reggie Carter, & Kyle Bosworth at Linebacker (So, Sr, Sr.). ATV, Price, Dye, & Moore (Sr, Fr, So, So). Lots of vets, SOS. Send 4 (which actually worked when Price was in the game because he was such a force), 10 yard cushion, and don't get beat deep. You can really only point to one weak link in that entire unit (Fr CB Sheldon Price). Everywhere else, we were either solid or All-American. Sure, the Bosworth bros might have been a little short on talent, but someone tell that to the two NFL teams that they are a part of right now (practice squad or not).
We had the makings of being a dynamic defense last year, and still nothing. Statswise, we were decent. I believe finished near the top of the Pac 10 (only because there weren't many dominant defenses) and in the top 40 in the nation. But we were better than that, way better. So if CB can have ATV playing 10 yards off the ball (he doesn't even do that in the NFL!), and be using a vanilla, protective scheme with those horses in the fold, what makes us think he will change. He won't, and that's why he needs to go. End of story.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I don't know how you can look at the SC game
And find any way to blame it on Chuck. The defense gave up 7 points in the first half and 7 in the second half (the last TD came in garbage time so I’m not counting it). We got to Barkley numerous times, getting great pressure that often resulted in sacks or INTs. We stuffed them several times on fourth down. There’s literally nothing more you could have asked from our defense. The offense was what lost that game, and frankly was what really hampered us all year despite what people keep saying.
Not blaming the D, just not giving them
Load of cred like some others. The score was slanted because they had several opportunities to kick a fg but were handcuffed by a weak kicker. Most defenses would have 4th down stops if they faced the same. Add to that that this was not the same Barkley that played in the other 11 games this season. Were it not UCLA, & if Mustain weren’t so awful, Barkley would not have played. He was a statue out there. You say we got to him, I say we should’ve gotten to him more. Most of our penetration was on run plays…where we promptly let Bradford & whoever else was toting the rock to break our tackles and gash our defense time after time after time. We must’ve been watching different games. My post wasn’t to absolve Chow & the offense of blame, it was more a response to many here who gave kudos to CB for the $c game. What a joke.
formerly Westwood78
by PhoenixBruin on Dec 6, 2010 5:22 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I don't see
how you can NOT blame that game on Bullogh as part of a terrible terrible system. How many sacks did U$C give up? 2. That is with a quarterback who can barely move. How often did we stop Bradford in the second half? Almost never. Maybe the defense was tired, we were missing zumwalt, etc etc. Too bad. Make the adjustments. We run a base defense, and every SINGLE PLAY, the opposing receivers were in the gaps of the zone, stopping, turning, catching the ball, and getting hit by our secondary/linebackers. That is not playing defense. That is letting the other team play offense.
5 yard line, 16 yd 1st down and 95 +TD.
That’s BAD D. All there is to say.
Didn't we give up a 95+ yd TD drive in each of the last 3 games?
I know for sure there was the one on Saturday, a 99yd drive after a blown arm-tackle attempt in the end-zone against ASU, did UW have one as well?
Just checked espn's box score for the game
apparently we didn’t, that game. Way to go Chuck! My apologies.
It's not because of this year
but because of LAST year that Chucky should be canned.
Last year, he had a monster DT in Brian Price, a good one in Jerzy, the Bosworths, Reggie Carter, Akeem Ayers and ATV. That defense should have been downright dominant, especially since it was still Walker’s system (though that may be exactly what’s holding it back). We gave him the benefit of the doubt by saying a lot of it was due to the offense’s ineptitude (although Class of 66 often reminds us that it was a fallacy), but we were wrong. He should have been canned last year.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
All season long .......
we let opponents carve us up like a holiday turkey. We never made a conscious effort to put pressure on an opposing QB. If an opponent had 3rd and long you could make a sure bet that they would make a 1st down. We’d blitz once in a blue moon.
Don’t blame it on experience that’s just the way CB rolls. The few games we looked good and won, it was because our opponent was bad, i.e.Texas. We never schemed to throw an opponent off, Even bad teams we made looked good.
If CB is back then I wash my hands of the mess and start chanting Retire Rick! Anybody own that domain name?
I have a question
I think we all agree that CB should get the walking papers, but, realistically, who do you see taking the job?
Coach may need to see Chuck
But I’m not sold on him actually having a playbook to bring to this meeting
Remember Aliotti
You have to be careful what you wish for. We were saying the same things about Aliotti during the Toledo years. He’s fired, picked up by his buddy Bellotti at Oregon, and suddenly turns into a genius. Most of the Duck assistants have been around for over 20 years. The consistency and stability of their program is now paying huge dividends. We hire another DC and take a gamble that 3 more years of adjusting to another coaching change will be worth it.
I just don’t think we are getting the type of athletes, especially on the D-line, that you need to have a consistently dominating defense. When we do get one (BP), he leaves early.
Um
For the record, Aliotti is not considered a “genius” by any Duck fans. Having plenty of duck family and duck friends, they all refer to him as “Allow-alotti” and generally dislike him. They admit he’s played well this year, although they’re hardly surprised as their talent is extensive and their execution, stamina, and endurance are top notch.
Allow-alotti
That’s pretty clever. I doubt a Duck thought of that. It probably came from a bitter Cal fan trolling on AtQ.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
umm...
the Oregon D is absolutely NOT stocked with “extensive” talent – it’s a bunch of under talented guys that were developed to execute well. Stamina and endurance came from practicing for years with that high paced O. Few of those guys will ever see the field at the next level because they’ve maxxed out already. (See for contrast, Ayers and Moore, who are talented but still incredibly raw after their years in our program – but will go in the first round). Allotti has done a good job developing the limited talent he has. But he’s had time.
On D, you really must have schematic consistency. Almost any scheme will work if executed properly (read: if players can understand and adapt it to the situation on the field). A plus that you get from keeping the same staff is that by the 5th or 6th year, you should have had a few kids who (1) really understood the scheme, (2) that can explain it in ‘players’ terms to the other kids, and (3) want to stick around as graduate assistants.
Not saying CB is a great coach, but switching styles of play every few years keeps putting us back at square one. At some point, the law of diminishing returns comes it and you just gotta keep moving forward with what you have, rather than give up more than you gain from resetting.
Really?
So, you’re saying that in order to have “extensive” talent, you need to be able to see the field in the NFL? Or perhaps that even some of your players need to see the field in the NFL to have extensive talent? While I think that statement is flawed in itself, how many kids honestly succeed in the NFL? Practically none, when you think about how many were drafted/tried.
Even beyond that, are you really trying to tell me that All Pac-10 1st team LB Casey Matthews and All Pac-10 1st team DB Taldmadge Jackson are not going to be playing in the league? Or All pac-10 2nd team DL Brandon Bair, one of the best dlinemen in the conference will not? All pac-10 2nd team DE Kenny Rowe will not? Or that 2nd team DB Cliff Harris will not be drafted? I frankly think you’re crazy. That’s 2 dlinemen, a linebacker and 2 serious DBs that oregon has, and that’s just on one side of the ball. If you really consider them “under-talented” I strongly disagree. Oregon has quietly recruited the heck out of the last 4 years. All those kids I mentioned, I didn’t even mention Boyett or Paysinger, two other excellent defensive players for Oregon. They have TONS of talent, AND they execute. They are not Boise St. playing with 2 stars. Even if your argument meant that you would only needs some of your kids to play in the NFL to be extensive talent, then yes, Oregon has extensive talent.
After some quick research...
DE Kenny Rowe was a four star, number 17 DE in his HS class according to Scout. Casey Matthews was a three star Linebacker, number 21 in his class. John Boyett was a four star, number 20 safety in his class. Cliff Harris was a 4 star, number 6 in his class. So, yes, Oregon can coach up “lower ranked kids” but maybe that just means they are better at evaluating talent. TALENT means that a kid can improve upon his skills. Thus, these kids they recruit are TALENTED. One has to wonder if our highly ranked kids, who have not improved, are really that talented? Nelson Rosario, i’m looking at you.
I agree that ‘talent’ means the ability to improve upon one’s present skills, but that implies two things: (1) some yet un-achieved level of skill, and (2) the ability to actually get there. Oregon et al. seem to find kids who more than satisfy (2), to the point that they max out their limited supply of (1). It’s weird, but UCLA seems to find kids with good levels of one of the two, but crippling levels of the other – see, as you said, Rosario; see also, Ayers (who is an athletic freak but can’t seem to find the time to learn the freakin’ playbook).
My point is the problem may not be limited to coaching, but to the fact that UCLA rarely recruits true football players, i.e. guys who are athletic and (figuratively) do nothing but live and breathe football. In fact, I don’t think UCLA successfully recruits kids (skilled or not) who have even a passable level of (2). But that’s who we are – we want well rounded athletes who have strong interests outside of football, and that’s who we get. Take pride in our true student-athletes. The ones who get by on what athleticism they have and thus don’t dedicate the extra time they need to develop it into being really good football players.
It doesn't take 3 years for a new DC to implement their system
UCLA’s defense went from 113th in 2005 to 35th in 2006 when DeWayne Walker arrived.
by SuperBruinMan on Dec 6, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions
Because DeWayne is the antithesis
Of CB. Aggressive, tenacious, risk-taking. Sometimes those risks paid off.
???
Are you talking about DeWayne Walker? I don’t know, I think he exhibited a lot of the same problems…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Yes
DeWayne Walker had some issues. The defensive breakdown against Notre Dame, the embarassment against Utah, etc..
However, would you really not trade CB for DeWayne Walker??? If so, I disagree. DeWayne at least beat USC. At least he instilled a confident, strong mindset in our defense. He may have had his issues, but he could coach circles around CB.
I agree
I’m also surrounded by Duck family and friends and the hyperbolic choice of the word “genius” was mine alone. Aliotti’s years as a Duck DC, however, seem to be a lot more genius-like than his years as a Bruin DC. My main point is the Ducks seem to place a premium on stability and this is a factor in their being able to attract the talent that makes assistant coaches look really good. Compare that to the revolving door, justified or not, that has been the case at UCLA.
Definite Touche
Talent makes anyone cough CHOW cough look good. If Aliotti does one thing right, it’s train his kids to hit, and gets his younger guys in the action with a deep rotation, especially in the secondary. He has faith in his players. And yes, compared to any DC we’ve had in the last 10 years, he is Rembrandt.
Nice piece...
and I totally agree that CB should be canned mainly for what our defense DIDN’T do last year, but better late than never. It killed me to go to every game and watch our talented secondary playing way off the line of scrimmage on every play. And as you mentioned, ATV doesn’t do that against NFL talent. 3rd and longs are almost automatic for offenses. I’ll bet our 3rd and 1 percentages are better. LOL We sent many defensive players to the pros but have nothing to show for it. I think we have seen enough of CB (and NC for that matter) to know what to expect from them going forward. I don’t think our team should take that trip. It’s too painful and the Bruins Nation deserves much better. CB can take his scheme to New Mexico State and reunite with his pal.
i just hated seeing
him blitz from the same position on the field time and time again. In the Oregon game it was hard to figure where they were coming from. His poor scheming may have cost Moore and Ayers a spot in the first round.
CB and his prevent D must go!
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's" - John Wooden.
Nope. Their decision making cost them a 1st round spot.
As a defender, you’ve got to know when to go with the letter of the play, or the spirit of it.
Example: Ayers is constantly breaking character to go for the big play all himself and getting burned or leaving the team open to getting burned. So what do we do? We try and coach him to stay in character. Then what? In the ‘SC game, he clearly has contain responsibility, sees a hobbled Barkley bottled up (making his job moot), and decides to stay IN POSITION while Bradford?/Tyler? takes a wide open swing for a million yards. I mean seriously? How do you not trail the RB out to the flat in that instance? If there was ever a time to break character, that was it – and he didn’t do it.
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.
