Conservative and Cowardly Coaching: The Prevent Offense
by gbruin on Dec 6, 2010 1:59 PM PST
in Football
Email
PrintUnfortunately, what CRN showed me was more of the same conservative play-not-to-lose philosophy on offense that has left the Bruin faithful with little hope for the future, and has many questioning whether CRN should lead this program at all.
Much has been made on BN of the conservative play calling on offense by Rick Neuheisel and Norm Chow. A couple of examples are here and here. Granted, injuries and other missing personnel have limited at times what the Bruins have been able to do. However, the consistent lack of aggression in the Bruin's offense has gone far beyond that, and it came to a head in Saturday's matchup with *$c. At a time when UCLA had nothing to lose and when the risk was worth the gain, UCLA folded into a shell and made no aggressive effort to rip this one away from its opponent. And despite Lane Kiffin's best efforts to keep us in the game, the absence of any killer instinct on the part of the Bruins' offensive scheme gave the trogies an easy 4th victory in a row, and 11 wins out of 12 (if you count the 2 vacated Reggie Bu$h games).
Three examples from Saturday's pathetic offensive snoozer against the trogans highlight the how the Bruins' Prevent Offense killed this team's spirit and took away any chance to win, after the jump...
The first glaring example of the Bruins pathetic play-not-to-lose philosophy came in the second quarter. With the game tied at 7 (after the trogan's not-so-well-executed fake FG) UCLA was driving to take a lead, which would have provided an enormous boost to the team and its fans. With 1st and 10 on the *$c 24, a holding penalty and a false start backed us up to the 39. In the thread, I called for us not to abandon the run threat there, but no one suggested a series of safe predictable runs into the line. At a time the defense knew we would run the ball, play action or a screen could have been very effective. Instead, on 1st and 25, the coaching-scared mindset reared its ugly head. No effort was made to go down the field or catch the defense off guard. A run by Derrick Coleman gained 6 yds, then JetSki's fumbling bug bit at the worst time, and suddenly, *$c was the team in the lead. Instead of playing for a first down and a touchdown drive, we played it safe, we settled, and we got burned. And we were never that close in the game again.
The next play that showed the overly conservative mindset was the 4th down just before halftime. There was a lot of talk in the thread about what the Bruins should do, and most felt that punting was the "right" thing. It was the "smart" play: Don't run the risk; Don't give $c a chance to score before half; Play field position and keep the game close. Trailing by 7 and the way the offense was going, we were not going to have many opportunities to close the deficit. Had we turned it over, $c was still 35 yds away with only a very short amount of time to capitalize. Instead of going for the first down or running a fake punt, a visibly discouraged Richard Brehaut went to the line and made a bunch of flagellations he never does otherwise in an effort to Jedi mind trick the trogies into thinking we were going for it. That this would require the trogies to actually think was the first failure. Not surprisingly, no one was fooled and we made the safe play.
Contrast this with some daring plays by other teams this year. On Saturday, Oregon had a slim lead and a BCS berth on the line in the 3rd qtr in the Civil War. On 4th and 3 at its own 28, Oregon lined up to punt and snapped the ball to an up back who ran 64 yds. The drive ended with a TD, and propelled Oregon to a win. Oregon doesn't play not to lose. They play to win, and they are playing in the BCS championship game. Earlier this year, Wisconsin was trailing Iowa by 6 in an important early Big 10 matchup when they faked a punt on their own 26 yard line, leading to a game winning TD. Wisconsin played to win, and they are playing in the Rose Bowl on Jan 1. Closer to home, Arizona had a 5 point lead over us and had 4th and 3 on their own 27. They faked a punt that kept the ball in their hands, flipped the field, and helped seal the win. Arizona will be in the Alamo Bowl this year. These three teams did not play it safe. They played to win. And they'll be playing in bowls. In a similar situation on our own 35, with nothing like a bowl to risk, UCLA put its tail between its legs, made the safe play, and punted the ball. Brehaut's body language said it all. And we were never that close in the game again.
The third and most condemning example occurred in the 3rd qtr. The Bruins were still only down by 7, but the inconsistency of the offense highlighted the urgency of capitalizing on every opportunity. When the Bruins got the ball thanks to an interception from Aaron Hester (which somehow Meriones caused with one of the most prophetic karmic comments ever) the Bruins had the ball on the good side of the field. After a DC rush and two RB incompletions, the Bruins were faced with 4th and 4 on the trogie's 40. With a game on the line against our hated rival, on our home turf, instead of showing courage and trust in his team, Neuheisel decided to punt and play the field position game. Here on BN, we destroyed CTS for a similar decision in 2005. The punt was downed at the 3, but then the trogies disgraced Neuheisel's weak play-it-safe strategy by gamely grinding out a 9 play, 97 yard TD drive. And we were never that close in the game again.
In each of these three instances, the Bruins made the safe and possibly the ""smart" play calls. Each time, those calls cost the Bruins opportunities to be competitive in their most important game of the year. In what turned out to be the world's worst and slowest boat race, the Bruins were never as close to the rivals as they were in those instances, and each time the coaching staff choked and let the trogies get further away.
I don't know if this Prevent Offense mindset is a product of Neuheisel or Chow or both. This wasn't the aggressive Neuheisel we saw at CU or UW. Similarly, Chow was creating prolific Heisman winners before coming to Westwood. Why these two have combined to run such a conservative and cowardly offense is a mystery. This play-not-to-lose philosophy limited Donohue's success, and ended CTS's reign at UCLA. Now we have CRN going down the same pathway. We know the talent level was depleted on Neuheisel's arrival. We know the Pistol is a new system. We know we are missing numerous key players, esp on the O Line. And all of that explains many of the offensive failures up to this point. But even with the improved talent, another year of experience, and a better O line coming back, do we have any reason to expect anything better from a UCLA football team under CRN and CNC in the future if this cowardly offensive philosophy continues? This needs to change and change yesterday. Otherwise, the CRN reign at UCLA will end with him being the least successful coach in school history. We have to see a team next year that is aggressive, disciplined, and not playing not-to-lose. It has to play to win.
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yup, thank gbruin
Good teams play to win.
Crappy teams rely on trying to draw an offsides.
And it’s not even the teams, it’s the coaching…
Especially depressing ...
Yeah, the lame attempt to draw the Trogans offside on that 4th and inches from the 40 was especially depressing (not to mention predictable). The saddest part was that Derrick Coleman did not seem to be clued in. After the delay of game was called, he threw out his arms in a “what the f***??!!!” gesture. He for one, was ready to rumble. That had to be a real buzzkill.
Seriously
You could see the look on Brehaut’s face when Rick made that call. He was pissed. I was too. I don’t mind punting, but if you’re going to punt, punt. That was just embarrassing. It made us look like a pop warner team, and then to just be caught with our pants down when nobody bit. We. Looked. Like. Idiots.
When a coach plays this way game after game for three years
It’s not a circumstance of the players. It’s his philosophy. It’s also his background, training and experience under his coach and mentor, Terry Donahue.
As for the SUC game, I agreed with his decision to punt from our thirty-five. If we don’t make it, SUC gets at least a field goal, probably a TD just before halftime and gets the ball to start the third quarter with a chance to go up by two TDS and put the game away. To go for it on 4th at that time would have been panic, not smart.
The other two times were pathetic TD/KD/RN examples of playing not to lose. As long as CRN is coach, we will get this crap over and over again.
I agree on the punt right before the half
Our defense wasn’t stopping them at that time and going into the half 14 down would not have been a good strategy.
But, I agree with the main tenor of the main post that we were little chickens when we should have been hawks.
sjh
Well said
This does really sum it up, I have to say. Losers’ mentality all the way. Like I said, CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE HC. With nothing to lose, they call pussy type plays. The 97 yard scoring drive was a real team/game killer. It embarrassed me, and I was at home. At least at 3rd and 16, how can you let them convert at the F__G 9 yd line or __? Such bad playing/coaching, it is not to be believed. I think it is the worst one of these games I have ever seen. UCLA is in bad trouble with FB. I am out of ideas guys. The only common thread is this: All the coaches from BT to RN are DONAHUE prodigies. We need to stop inbreeding, as they say in U-speak.
I agreed with every word, comments or even frustrated outbursts etc
people ever posted here. It all boils down to a question we all shared – WHY ???
Rick & Norm are known commodities, proven and tested too. So why must their coaching strategies timid, uninspiring, utterly clueless even with what they got. They had our support all the way since day one. We understood well the need to restock, revamp and retool after Dorell. But someone said it well here. To see these two high profile individuals " bring butter knife to gun fights ", ill prepared their team every time they took the field simply turned our stomachs inside out, neck veins throbbing with unspeakable anguishes.
We demanded answers, straight & honest. Not cliches, rah rah talks about a better tomorrow and what not.
Rick & Norm _are_ proven commodities so
The question I ask is “Why can they succeed everywhere but here?”
by KnudsenRockne on Dec 6, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe ... but explore the implications
What I am asking is what is the deal with UCLA that these two coaches who have previously been very successful have had such an embarrassing tenure here?
Did CTS really leave the cupboard that bare?
Is it that the Bruins suffer from ‘institutionalized defeatism’? (my suspicion)
I ask this because if two successful coaches come to UCLA and do so poorly, replacing them may not fix things. It is possible that any coach we bring in would do just as poorly.
by KnudsenRockne on Dec 7, 2010 2:17 PM PST up reply actions
I would counter
that other coaches have been very successful here. Toledo managed to take Donahue’s recruits to the brink of a National Championship game. Donahue, despite the inability to get over the hump, was very successful.
I do think the Administration has much to do with our current situation, but that doesn’t mean that success is impossible without a dedicated Administration.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Do the right thing, Rick
walk away please. Say you tried and let someone take his shot.
QB Audibles?
I have never played organized football, so forgive me if this an ignorant question, but what latitude does the QB have to change the play at the line of scrimmage? I attended the game and what I noticed is that RB appeared to change the play at the line of scrimmage a lot. What I found most odd, however, was more often than not, the play he changed into ended up being a run up the middle. The typical scenario was the $ucsters would be up at the line showing blitz, RB would change the play at the line, the ball would be snapped, the $ucsters wouldn’t blitz, and RB would hand the ball off up the middle with, at best, “mixed” results.
For me, this begs two questions:
1. Is it possible CRN/NC are calling all sorts of exciting flim-flam, bamboozle plays and RB is overriding them at the line based on his perception of the defensive formation?
2. If the defense calls a blitz, are there schemes whereby the defense calls off the blitz when the QB changes the play at the line?
Just curious how much discretion is left to the players on the field to override the coaches’ original intentions.
RB
is NEVER allowed to change the play at the LOS. I can almost 100% guarantee you that. What he does when he yells things to the Oline, WRs and RB is he’s informing them of the coverage their facing. He then proceeds to read the defensive reaction to the snap, trying to gauge (at least on zone reads) whether or not to hold the ball or hand it off. He is not a very good decision maker, and not very adept at picking up defensive formations. Hence, why i’ve lobbied for Hundley (even Prince was better).
Depends on what the QB sees...
As a QB at my college, if we have a run play called, for example, but I notice 8 in the box and no one closer than 7-10 yds off the slot receiver, I can change it to a quick pass even though a run was called.
In terms of blitzing, that might be the case. My team’s route concepts on 5-step drops give us “hot” reads… the QB signals to the receiver away from the sliding protection which two defenders to keep their eyes on. If they both blitz, since we’d only have 3 blockers for 4 blitzers on that side, the WR will replace the defender and the QB gets the ball out quickly to take advantage of the blitz.
Most teams have certain play “packages”, with a run, play action, pass combination that QB’s can change at LOS based on the defense.
"The true athlete should have character, not be a character."- John Wooden
True
Hot routes can be done, but you’re assuming they need to Blitz us to put pressure on RB. If you noticed, they blitzed maybe once or twice per drive and still stopped us cold.
I don't automatically believe everything I read . . .
but the proof is in the pudding. CRN has no balls and we are an absolute embarrassment. Terry Donahue at least faked a punt now and then . .. even KD did this on occasion. To be at home with nothing to play for other than pride and to put smiles on our faces, CRN grabbed his ankles. AND WHY? There was nothing to lose by trying a “no holds barred” attitude. Our school is not a disgrace. Our team is not a disgrace. CRN is the disgrace.
Our school is not a disgrace. Our team is not a disgrace. CRN is the disgrace.
worth repeating
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I totally agree with this assesment
We have consistently played “not to win” and our coaches have shown an inability to coach with the ebbs and flow of a football game and capitalize when you have a slight advantage. Case in point, we had over 130 yards in the first half and were driving the ball down their throats consistently – we should have TOTALLY went for it on 4th and 1 at our 40 yard line. The kids know when a coach doesnt fully believe in them (Brehaut with Chow, Not using Owa enough, etc.) and they react accordingly. Give a young man some confidence and fuel his optimism with encouragement and positive thinking and there is nothing they cannot do. Seeing our pathetic staff fail on this simple psychology 101 life lesson is inexcusable…
Don't agree with this Post
The problem as I see it us that we have a rather inept offense, because of a poor offensive line that can’t pass protect and very inconsistent quarterback play. To me this is like saying that an inept offense can be made more effective by rash play calling. To have gone for it on fourth down at the end of the half would have been beyond rash. To give the team the ball at your 35 could have easily given them a touchdown or at least a field goal which could have cost the game. I simply don’t understand this idea that if you have an offense that has difficulty moving the ball they should be going for it on fourth down and we’re not talking about fourth and inches. And your example of Oregon is ludicrous. You’re talking about one of the best offensive teams in the history of college football. Their probability of making a first down in such a situation is about five times greater than ours. What we need to have is an offense that is more competent and proficient. The last thing we need is to have an inefficient offense going for it on fourth down from our own 35 early in the game.
I agree that we have faced limitations that have limited the cards we could play
And, it is clear that our O line can pass block, sometimes, run block other times, but not do both during the same drive or game.
So, if that’s the case, we should have stuck with what was working — and our running game was eating them up. We should have run until they stopped us.
We lost for so many reasons, it cannot be put at the feet of the O line. In fact, they are probably the only unit that either played to its potential or exceeded it.
We are bad and poorly coached. Not a great combination.
sjh
No matter whether we went for broke or played conservatively
If it didn’t work the coaches would be criticized. If they go for it on fourth and 1 and make it, they are aggressive geniuses. If they miss, they are idiots. Its just the way it is.
I agree completely with the inconsistency comment. It applies to Brehaut as well. I also think that the Trogams made second half adjustments that shut down our running game, that was effective in the first half.
Play calling and offensive efficiency
feed off themselves. You keep a bad offense bottled up, it is more likely to stay bad. You cut loose a good offense, it becomes even better.
As much as you try to defend the coaching philosophy, at some point you have to ask yourself: At 4-7 with no bowl game on the line, who gives a crap if a gamble doesn’t pay off? At worst, it doesn’t, but maybe the players start buying into this philosophy and things start clicking for you the next possession, and the next, as so on.
Here is what is interesting to me.......
that as of this posting, about 5:20pm on a cold Monday evening, Chuck Bullough still has a job. CRN sits here and says he has to evaluate things and make decisions based on facts and doesn’t want to rush things. Come on! First Coach, you had a front row seat to everything that went on this year and you are lucky that you aren’t being called into DG’s office and getting a pink slip right now. If you were at almost any other school right now, you would be gone. I have been a huge supporter, but the longer he drags this out and doesn’t make changes to improve our program, then it just makes us look worse.
Look at the news today in the football world. Coach Davis, a longtime assistant and friend to Mack Brown resigned today, as did two other longtime assistants. Think that wasn’t demanded from the administration, or for that matter Mack Brown? Texas wants to win, they had ONE BAD YEAR, and heads are rolling within the football offices to make sure it doesn’t happen again. That is the aggressiveness of a program that is serious about winning. Think that would ever happen at our beloved university? Hell no.
CRN should learn from Mack Brown. Maybe he should give him a call since they got so close going overseas together last year. The conversation might go something like this “Rick, you came to Austin and kicked our ass, but that doesn’t really matter much if you keep getting your ass kicked in your conference. You should thank your lucky stars that you coach at UCLA. If you were here at Texas, you would have been canned last year. Do yourself a favor while you have some support within your fan base and administration. Call your defensive coordinator into your office immediately! Yes, I said immediately, tell him you appreciate his support for UCLA but that he is terminated immediately and that his office must be cleaned out before the sun comes up. Then call in any assistant on your staff whose players did not perform as they should have. You might wanna start with your WR coach. Call them in and tell them they are terminated as well. Do this soon buddy…..real soon! If you don’t it is only going to get worse for you and make you look like a bigger wussie than you really are. Then promise your fan base that you are going to hire some kick ass coaches who are going to help you rediscover the aggressiveness you apparently had at one time in your coaching staff. That is my advice to you buddy!!”
I am not holding my breath that this will actually happen, but it would be nice.
Keep in Mind
Bullogh is one of our head recruiting coordinators. To fire him right now would be ill advised, as it could have pretty sever implications on recruits. However, what do I know?
And this may be reason that CB ain't getting fired
If he can recruit top talent it even makes sense to keep him. But CRN needs to find him an assistant who can handle some of the other DC duties.
[OK. I’ll put on my asbestos suit and wait to be flamed]
by KnudsenRockne on Dec 6, 2010 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
Correct me if I am wrong...
….but wasn’t this the reason for promoting him to DC. It had to do with him being the main recruiter for the team. So when Walker left they felt that had to keep him around to maintain the incoming recruits.
promote him again
to a nominal ‘director of football’ position that doesn’t involve coaching…
by britishbruin on Dec 6, 2010 10:41 PM PST up reply actions
Whatever it takes
Get that play card out of his hands. He’s awful. He’s not even doing that great of a job recruiting. His biggest land on D was Owa, but it could be argued that RN and Todd Howard had a bigger hand in that. Other than that and Cassius Marsh (also a Howard recruit) who have we gotten on defense that’s worth a darn ( I will say Zumwalt was good).
Riley?
From what I’ve heard, Jefferson and McDonald have tons of potential as well. Does Willis count? Olaniyan?
Riley
Was a hundley recruit, Jefferson and McDonald as well. Willis was D-Line as well. And one has to wonder how much (if any) Bullogh was involved in the transfer talks, as opposed to CRN. I will give CB Olaniyan. I can’t wait to see that kid on the field.
Gotcha
I just saw the “who have we gotten on defense that’s worth a darn” and instantly reacted =p Wasn’t trying to defend CB.
No Worries
You wouldn’t have much ammo if you tried ;).
But seriously, we’ve been successful recruiting defensive players, however injuries and Brian Price/ATV leaving have taken a serious toll on our defensive firepower. Price and Hester will surprise some people if we can finally get some push up front, and if Owa and Datone provide anchors on the ends, and we have a solid line corps in Zumwalt, Larimore and hopefully Olaniyan? We can be verrrry good.
Oh we just need someone to call the plays. That is aggressive, teaches our kids fundamentals, execution, and TACKLING. That might help too.
I literally hit "SEND" on my phone as Barkley threw the pass...
… so I actually had to ask Ms. M who had made the pick, as I was checking to make sure it had gone through when Hester actually caught it.
Needless to say, I was STUNNED.
Of course, I have BN to keep me honest. LOL.
M
"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008
Being realistic - CRN ain't going anywhere
I think Dan Guerrero has made clear that he’s going to give CRN more time, and so I think he’s got a least one more “Show-Me” year (although knowing how things work in Westwood, it’ll likely be 2-3 more years even without substantial improvement).
Thus, it’s time to start looking thoroughly at Coordinators. I haven’t seen any thorough studies done on BN of the possible coordinator candidates out there (if I missed that post, please point it out I’d love to peruse it). However, given our administration’s historic penny pinching and the fact that both Chow & Bullough would still be getting paid under contract after being let go, bringing in a big-name big-money coordinator is going to be a very tough order to sell to the UCLA brass.
I know it’s unpopular to say, but the reality is that CRN will likely be limited to picking from (i) top coaches and coordinators from the mid-level programs, preferably from programs on the west coast where these coaches have build some solid recruiting networks, and (ii) coaches who just recently got fired from other big name schools.
If CRN wants to see who is available now in category (i), then it’s going to take him a little time to make the phone calls and if the coaches have teams in bowl games then the process won’t start until after January. If CRN wants to see who qualifies in category (ii), then he needs to wait a couple weeks to see what coaches will be out there looking for a job.
Either way, it’ll take him a while, so why dump Bullough or Chow now? CRN will likely leep em around because they’ll be paid regardless, let them continue outreaching to recruits for you and handling all the post-season administrative work, and focus on working the phones now to land a coordinator who can help him save his job.
by CPOBruin on Dec 6, 2010 5:38 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Players vs Coaches
I agree the coaching appeared to be deficient on both sides of the ball with the exception of the Houston & Texas games. The bottom line is the level of talent and experience is woefully unbalanced. After attending a few practices and meeting many of the kids we truly have a fine group of young men on this team. The problem seems to be having to continuously count on underclassmen to perform against a more experienced and refined tream. You can’t underestimate the benefit of having these kids learning and practicing a system for 3-4 years before being asked to contribute.
We have the talent at the skill positions to be extremely competitive. We are extremely outgunned when it comes to the trenches & QB positions. The big ugly’s are undoubtedly more competitive with age, size, & experience and let’s face it a Brian Price doesn’t come along very often. QB’s forced into action generally flourish behind a proven & seasoned OL. Both of these kids haven’t been ready for this responsibility and couple that with a below average OL and you have to count on the running game more than one would naturally want.
My biggest dissapointment was seeing the lack of progress with the receiver corp. who ran poor routes, had troubles catching the ball and getting open. They rarely looked back to come back for the ball or cut off a route to help the QB when he was under duress.
I just wonder if it’s realistic to expect 7-9 underclassmen playing on each side of the ball to compete at the level we all are expecting? With that said, having these kids prepared is the job of the coaching staff and that aspect was an obvious failure.
Endlessly optomistic, getting tired of hoping!
+1
There’s a critical mass of football players that you need to be effective on both sides. We have several good players, but a full team’s worth. Our hope is that the freshman brought in last year can mature over the next two years, but we have to continuously add to the group to get to critical mass.
Critical Mass of good players!
That is the concept I was looking for. When enough players are ‘good’ then they can cover for one or two weak links – otherwise the opponents exploit our weaknesses easily.
Three factors are required for a good player: athletic talent, skill/technique, and experience/ knowledge. Too many of our players lack at least one – so we don’t have a critical mass.
Last year we had a critical mass on D but not on O and our D got us (barely) into a bowl game. This year we didn’t have a critical mass of good players on either side and it didn’t get us anywhere. We will not be contending for conference titles until we get a critical mass on both sides of the ball.
by KnudsenRockne on Dec 7, 2010 2:54 PM PST up reply actions
This or that
One minute you read about how great we’ve recruited and the next is about how depleted the team is. Don’t the coaches bring in kids to make sure the cupboard isn’t bare. Sure the inexperience bug will hit a team hard when the youngsters have to step up, but it is up to the coaches to capitalize on their strenghts and put them in the best position to succeed. To lose with youth and inexperience is not bad so long as you see growth and development over time. Yet it seemed during this season that for every step forward we took two steps back.
Even the best contractor cannot save a building that's too far gone
CT & CTS demolished this team and it needs to be completely rebuilt. Sadly, it takes more time to build a sound structure starting with a wreck. No matter how good the coach is, it takes time – switching coaches prematurely could set us back another 3 years.
Last season was a fluke due to some monster athletic ability on D – that gave us false hope for our team to finish rebuilding sooner than is reasonable.
by KnudsenRockne on Dec 7, 2010 2:59 PM PST up reply actions
what to tell the recruits?
“PASADENA — UCLA defensive coordinator Chuck Bullough was given a one-year extension on his contract midway through this season, ESPNLosAngeles.com has learned. "
http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/ucla/post/_/id/3872/bullough-has-another-year-or-does-he
“Coach Rick Neuheisel intends to give him [CNC] an answer “quickly.”
“I want to make it quickly, but I also need to be prudent with respect to recruiting,” Neuheisel said of his timetable for evaluating which of his staff will return next season. "
http://espn.go.com/blog/los-angeles/ucla/post/_/id/3877/chow-wants-to-return-neuheisel-will-decide-quickly
So…. are we keeping the staff until CRN sees which recruits they can pull in?
Are you really wondering why CRN does these things?
It’s because our players aren’t that good. On offense, anyway. Brehaut is NOT a good or even average college quarterback; you think he’s just going to roll out on 4th and 4 and throw a perfect pass to a wide-open receiver? Of course not. Which brings me to my next problem: the receivers. They can’t catch. If the ball is ANYWHERE but right in their hands, it’s just as if it was airmailed over their heads. And even if it does hit them right in the hands, it’s like 50/50 for them to catch it. The running backs are the only ones who are any good, and frankly Jetski is probably the most underrated RB in the conference…but he fumbles way too much and isn’t that smart of a runner. So why would Rick possibly trust these guys to convert on those types of situations described above? If you ask me, the two key eff ups by our offense were made by the PLAYERS, not the coaches: Jetski’s careless fumble (could, and should, have been 10-7 Bruins at the half instead of 14-7 Trogans) and Brehaut’s unbelievably stupid lateral for the most predictable fumble of all time (again prevented a probable field goal, or possibly more). I don’t get how you can blame Rick or Norm or whoever for those two screwups; it’s on the players. And if you ask me, the players we had on the field are the reason we went 4-8 this year. Yeah, some blame should go to the coaches, but they weren’t blocking and tackling and running and throwing. That’s why, even if we do clean house on the coaching staff, we’re still probably not going to be much better next year because we’re still going to have the same level of talent on the field. (Unless Kevin Prince finds an invincibility elixir.)
No, No, No.............
We heard such lines many times with Dorell & Lavin too. There isn’t any slightest signs nor pattern that the team was making growth, even in the most minimum way visible to anybody.
What I see now is simply folks agonizing over the fact that the Rick & Norm show does not pan out, and is desperate for any kind of justifications for their dismal, appalling records the last three years. Frankly speaking, once you buy in to this type of thinking, we can give them another two, three or even four years, if they could last that long. The outcomes arguably might still be the same as these past three seasons. The guy cannot cut it, whatever the problems.
I said it before. If they could put it together, they would have done it by now with some sort of decent records trending upward. Instead, they hit rock bottom. Lordie, Lordie……
Never mind what Guerrero thinks. I would like Rick to do the right thing. Just step aside and let someone do the job.
Really? CRN is the only problem?
If you look at their previous performance Neu & Chow are not as bad as this season reflects.
If we just assume that it’s all the coaches’ fault and replace them, we may be overlooking some big problems.
I think a lot of this “Fire the coaches!” mentality is just an emotional reaction to disappointing season. We had hopes of a 6-6 + bowl season because last year we got it. But last year we had Price & ATV .. and a far easier schedule. I disagree that there is no sign of progress. Our O-line has been rising to the challenge (and its challenges have been plenty) and our RB’s are getting better. Indeedie, there have been some serious back-sliding (e.g. in our receiver corps & QB) but this does not mean that there has been no progress.
Absolutely, there have to be huge changes in the coaching, but firing everyone is just silly.
by KnudsenRockne on Dec 7, 2010 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
I think this post has a lot of merit
I understand that everyone’s frustrated and wants to vent at the coaching staff. However I think that ucla139 makes some very good points. It’s a fact that we don’t yet have a capable quarterback (which doesn’t mean that Brehaut or Prince isn’t going get there eventually), and we have an offensive line that doesn’t pass protect adequately. You don’t win in this conference without good quarterback play. In fact this conference is so competitive now that you might not win even with a good quarterback. Just look at Nick Foles having 400 yard games, and Arizona has lost their last four conference games. But you’re not going to win much without one. Even Washington St. has a really good quarterback, and he has pretty good protection. That’s why they have become somewhat competitive.
We have the worst quarterback situation in the conference and one of the worst passing offenses in the nation. Maybe you can blame that on the coaches, but it’s pretty hard to develop a quarterback when he doesn’t have enough time to throw. There’s nothing in CRN or CNC’s backgrounds that shows them to be conservative, so they must be doing it because of the limitations in our personnel at this time. I don’t think they are going to stay conservative. The Arizona St. game was at least a sign of what hopefully is to come.
Maybe I’m wrong but in my opinion most of the “solutions” people are recommending would only make the problem worse. To be less conservative when you don’t yet have the experience and competence to execute this isn’t going to work. To be more aggressive such as going for it on fourth down when your offense isn’t efficient and to even contemplate doing so on your own 35 yard line isn’t aggressive but foolish. And while it might be emotionally satisfying to many to fire the whole coaching staff and start all over again with unknown results, I think to make a final verdict on this coaching staff is still premature. I
really do expect things to turn around next year, and I’ll actually be surprised if they don’t. In that case then the verdict would be in.
+1
Although, I think that once the game has lost, going less conservative can have value… and I see glimpses of that in this season.
by KnudsenRockne on Dec 7, 2010 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Very true
And I did write this on a Monday morning.
I understand the inherent unfairness of writing this after the fact. But many on BN have been questioning our offensive play calling all year. So I hope this is seen more as a commentary on that philosophy, using those plays as an example, rather than just Monday morning quarterbacking.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
understood, however
while there were, admittedly, a number of play-calls I wouldn’t make, when I look at all the games, I try to subtract:
1. the more long sighted ‘testing’ plays;
2. the set-up plays; and
3. the plays which collapsed because of a failure to execute, including, but not limited to:
(a) not checking to a wide open receiver, who because of the coverage, you know is there,
(b) not hitting the open hole,
© not reading the key man,
(d) not catching the ball when it hits your hands,
(e) penalties, penalties, penalties
That said, I have absolutely no sympathy for calling the no-play on 4th and short and then taking the delay of game penalty. That was a vote of no confidence in the offense in a situation where they really wanted to go for it. Maybe there’s an excuse for the no-play, but there’s no excuse for taking the penalty and then punting.
This is a great post!
Gbruin hit the nail on the head, as did Charnaw with his comment I felt the need to repeat. The single biggest indicator in my eyes was the 4th and 1 before the end of the half. I know some, ‘66 and RogerT believe the punt was the right thing to do; but it wasn’t. I’ll tell you why.
Let’s compare a football game to a fist fight. Right, off the bat, ration and reason went out the window the second the first punch was thrown. The minute either combatant tees off, you’re in it to win it. End of story. Unlike an organized sport, there are no scheduled breaks to refresh and reassess. You don’t get to run out the clock, go into the locker room and make adjustments. You do what you have to do, right here. And right now.
With that in mind, let’s look at the decision to draw SC off sides. Oswego had it right. That was some penny ante Pop Warner bull shit. That’s like finding yourself in a fight and trying the old ‘Rope a Dope’ trick. (I outta kick the shit out of you just for trying that bullshit.) So right there, just with that move, it tells me Rick’s mentality was not the one needs to be in when fighting. After the Delay of Game penalty, It not only took the fight out of our guys, it humiliated them.
What if Rick where to try a Fake punt right then and there? Nobody in the stadium would have expected it. Why? because we just tried some trickeration, it didn’t work, and we lost yards. The only thing you can do next is punt, Right? IT WOULD BE STUPID TO TRY A FAKE PUNT RIGHT AT THAT INSTANCE. And, that’s why it would work. The fact that Rick did not try the fake punt tells me a number of things. 1) it tells me he is not creative enough to think outside the box. 2) it tells me he lacks the daring to make a gutsy call like that. We have all read about the crazy trick plays Michigan State and LSU pulled this year and for wins. Yes, it takes guts. But it doesn’t take guts because its the smart thing to do. 3) It also tells me Rick did not practice a fake punt this year. We don’t have one in the quiver. And, that is some damning testimony, because . . . .
Let’s go back to the analogy of a fist fight. If a football game can be compared to a fist fight, then the SC game is a Fight to the Death. You scrabble for every inch and you take every opportunity. BECAUSE YOUR LIFE IS ON THE LINE! There are no decisions as important as Life or Death matters. None. Ask a man to stop eating junk food and eat healthier and he is likely to ignore you. Tell a dying man he needs to help his body defend itself by stopping eating junk food and eat healthier; and he will become a vegetarian, and marathon runner over night.
In the one game that mattered more than any other game this season, Rick showed us no new wrinkles to the playbook. No specific plays installed for just this game. Even Lame Kitten had them hike to the tailback for some Wildcat action. Rick did nothing. And that makes him a coward as GBruin suggests. It means he lacks Innovation, Daring, and the killer instinct.
This is officially the first time I will make this statement. Fire Rick Neuheisel, and fire him now. He does not possess any of the qualities it takes to field a championship team.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I, too, thought the fake punt would have been perfect at that point.
Because we had tried to draw them offsides and didn’t have the balls to try to get a few inches. So why would we try to get 5 yards and a few inches?
I miss the surprise plays that Tommy Prothro used to throw in. And the razzle dazzle. I agree that CRN’s coaching is very conservative. It may be because he’s got lots of injuries and players who aren’t producing, but he also has not progressed his very talented players at all. And he fails to motivate them. Screamng at your players every time they come off the field is not a motivator.
If we don’t win at least half of the games through October next season I think CRN should be given the mid season boot. Let’s give him some motivation in his dream job.
by BrendonBruin on Dec 6, 2010 11:00 PM PST up reply actions
just a thought
but if half the Rose Bowl thought a fake punt was the right call, would it really have been much of a “surprise”? I’m sure even Kitten could have foreseen that and probably instructed his punt return team to play the coverage… anyways, it’s neither here nor there because the game is long over and now it’s time to start looking towards the off-season.
Here’s to many months ahead of scrounging for random tidbits about how Hundley is doing during Spring practice, random video clips of the players lifting during the offseason, and interview of hearing about how fired up CRN is about a new season omg!!! (ugh)…
Why would half the stadium expect it?
We had just tried to draw them off sides and failed. After the delay of game penalty we were at 4th and 6. Nobody would have expected it.
To Answer RogerT below: a successful 4th down conversion would not have guaranteed a score, that is true. But, it would have kept the drive alive. When you play to win, that is all you care about, the immediate goal. Convert the 4th down. keep the chains moving. The clock was ticking, but we had the time needed to drive down field and score. As far as your ‘what if’ questions, “What if they score again?” That’s called Coaching Not to Lose. What we want, and have stated as much all season is a coach who plays to win.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
I still think this would have been a terrible idea
What would be the chances of this fake punt working or any play we ran on fourth down getting us the first down? Maybe 50% if we are really generous. And then what? Does that give us 7 points? No, we’re still 60 yards from the end zone with no guarantee whatsoever that we will have a scoring drive. So the only thing it would give us even if successful would be a first down with another 60 yards to go or maybe at least 30 yards for a field goal. No nix the field goal idea, because most of you guys would be saying that it was too conservative to go for the field goal and they should have gone for the touchdown. So the best that can happen is a first down with 60 yards to go for the only thing acceptable a touchdown. Oh and we only have a minute thirty on the clock too.
And what if you don’t make the first down which I’d say with our offense is the most likely outcome? Then you give USC the ball on our 35 yard line. Quite a gift that would be. A few Alan Bradford runs or maybe Barkley finds someone open in the endzone. Give up 7 pt. there, and we’ve put ourselves way in the hole, and it might be enough to cost us the game.
Tell me how often you see a team either in college or the NFL going for it on fourth down on their own 35 except when they’re behind and the clock is running out at the end of the game? Ironically if a coach did that most people would be calling for his head.
It's a symptom of the disease.
There was plenty of controversy over that play in the thread. I agree that punting was the “smart” play. I have no argument with that point at all.
I felt, though, that playing “smart” wasn’t going to get us a win. If we wanted to win, (and why else would you even play the game at all?). we needed to take some risks and convert them. Granted, going for it there would have been pretty risky.
However, the point of this article was to highlight the conservative play calling, not just on that play, but in general all year long. I’m sorry we are hung up on a single play and missing the bigger picture. I understand the inconsistencies with the line and QB and WR make these risks bigger for us than for other teams. But what happens next year when some of the OL is back and our players have another year of experience? Does the play calling get more aggressive? I hope so. it has to. That was the point.
But, fine. You can play it safe and smart. Punt there, like Neuheisel did. How’d that game work out for us in the end?
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
We didn't lose because we punted.
There seems to be a logical non sequitur there that we wound up losing the game because we punted at that time. A team doesn’t lose a game, because they punt on their own 35 yard line. That’s what teams are supposed to do in that situation. However a team very well can lose games if they go for it and don’t make it that deep in their own territory. The only thing worse than a team going for it in that situation is a team with a struggling offense going for it in that situation.
I do agree with your other point that the offense should get less conservative next year. i think we saw a taste of that in the Arizona St, game, and I think that’s going to happen.
That's fair enough
As hwn44 posted, it’s easy for me to criticize a play call after the fact. I’m not saying we lost simply because of that play. But I thnk we have to make those kinds of plays to start winning in the future.
The personnel situation should be better next year. The philosophy has to grow with them. I’m worried it won’t.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
RogerT, you are arguing a losing proposition.
The proof is in our Win/Loss record.
No one has argued that one play cost us the game. But the handling of that one situation in this one game is an indicator of why we have been as bad as we have for the entire season. Playing not to lose as opposed to playing to win.
I’m going to have to repeat myself but:
it tells me he lacks the daring to make a gutsy call like that. We have all read about the crazy trick plays Michigan State and LSU pulled this year and for wins. Yes, it takes guts. But it doesn’t take guts because its the smart thing to do.
You have repeatedly argued the “right/smart” decision, but playing ‘smart’ has gotten us exactly where we are today. We have settled for Field Goals far too often. We have punted to play field position, and not once have those decisions earned us a win.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
RogerT shares CRNs mentality so much
I’m starting to think he may actually BE HIM.
These players sense that CRN/CNC have no confidence in them. That might explain the apparent disconnect.
As you said, CRN has been making the “right call” (statistically speaking) all year. We ended up 4-8. Something isn’t working.
Uh, why attack RogerT? Attack his argument, instead.
Have we all forgotten our inability to make 1 yard to score a touchdown?
Who amongst us can really be confident of our ability to get that first down? Brehaut was the QB at the time we did not score. The O line was the same.
It’s way too easy to argue we would have made that first down, now.
Or to argue that had we missed it, sc would not have scored a touchdown before the half. Our D was not playing well at that time.
I think the only thing we can agree upon in that situation was that their FG kicker was out of range. So, the equation is go down 21-7 at the half, or go in down 14-7.
The problem was not the punt.
It was the entire game including our failure to make and adjustments at the half.
This was not a well coached game. And, we did not play well.
sjh
We're a bad football team
I think everyone gets that. When you see bad football teams rise to the occasion and beat teams that were favored to beat them, you see these bad football teams do things they normally don’t do. What I saw on the one or two plays that are up for discussion here were microcosms of the things we were doing all year. We didn’t play any differently against southern cal than we did against, say Stanford, or Cal, or Kansas St., or Washington. No different, and predictably, the results were the same. I believed the formula for winning this game was to come out and play UNLIKE we have played all year: loose, attacking, ram-it-down-your throat, without fear. We come up short on 4th and inches, so be it. At least you gave your offense the chance, and the message to them was “I believed in you”. Now, you go challenge your defense to stop them before halftime. It may backfire, but it’s a mentality that has a carry-over effect for the rest of the game, and maybe even into next year. One play doesn’t win or lose you a game.
We are a very bad team
I’m not sure giving a very bad offense a “vote of confidence” makes them better. Opening up the playbook with a QB who cannot hit open receivers, and who has to play behind a line that is not giving him time to throw, does not make a lot of sense to me.
My biggest disappointment is that Bullough did not go all out to disrupt Barkely. We touched him maybe 3 times. Wild abandon on D stood a much better chance of success than opening up the O.
I agree with you that in a rivalry game you should take risks to win. We did not and we lost, in great part because we did not.
sjh
I would argue our defense
has been every bit as ineffective and poor performing as our offense has been all year, yet you advocate that this unit be cut loose, but in the same breath argue that it was prudent to keep our offense bottled up in a conservative shell? Sorry, but I am having some trouble wrapping my arms around this logic. I still think this game warrented both units playing with wild abandon. What did we have to lose?
You make an excellent point
Why should we support a coach who will not even make decisions that could potentially save his job, or is even incapable of making those decisions?
One caveat
that makes him a coward as GBruin suggests
CRN has put on a helmet in D-1 and the NFL. Neuheisel is not a coward. His, and Chow’s, offensive philosophy is. There is a fine line. I mean no personal disrespect toward the coaches, but I disagree with their overly conservative approach.
greg in denver, UCLA guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Football ain't a street fight, kid ;)
Although I understand your point, I think that it is possible to be a successful team without approaching every competition as a fight to the death.
For one thing, we’re going to fight most of these guys again next year.
by KnudsenRockne on Dec 7, 2010 3:14 PM PST up reply actions
Well, let's see . . .
You hit your opponent. Repeatedly. Bloody knuckles are very common. People get hurt. People yell at each other. Some people hit with the intent of ‘knocking him out’ of the game.
So, how is it not like a fist fight, again?
Also, I didn’t say we should approach every game like it’s a fight to the death. I said we should approach the City Rivalry like it’s a fight to the death.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Let me get down to business
Our football team represents us as Bruins. We don’t like to lose. We blame players, coaches, and athletic directors for this state of affairs.
Are we not part of the equation too? When our teams lose, we are also partly to blame. This blog helps the situation but how much?
I see a lot of potential here but we need to feel the sting the way our players and coaches do. What are we doing to make UCLA better? That is what we should be thinking every day.
I’m not trying to be holier than thou but I swear to you (if you weren’t already convinced) that UCLA is something worth something more. There isn’t a day that goes by in my life that I don’t think about her, think about how every action I take reflects on her.
That is why this is so painful. What can we do to make the UCLA better in every way? I have no ideas as far the present situation but maybe we can think of something if we put our heads together. I for one am willing to devote whatever we need to accomplish this.
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
by Bruins102NCAA on Dec 6, 2010 11:29 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
What do you suggest?
The only power I have to influence the AD is to attend less games. Voice my displeasure through letters or email. Buy less apparel. That’s about it.
I’m not a large donor. I don’t have access to the coaches, AD, or Dean. I’m already limited in the number of games I can attend by my other commitments.
I’m not being snarky, I would like an honest response. What can we do as fans to make the changes we want to see on the field?
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
" When our team lose, we are partly to blame "
I beg your pardon, really.
What was our blame ? Not helping Rick & Norm call the play ? Not helping them recruit every 5 star player available in the land ? Oh, I get it. We all should have camped out in Rose Bowl a week ahead just to get in the minute the gate opens on SC / UCLA game
day ?
We heard this before prior to Dorell & Lavin’s departure. All the agonizing excuses won’t make a damn bit of differences for another year or two, whatever the justifications. In the end, what had been obvious and inevitable still happened.
Not making excuses
I say, until UCLA has been enshrined for all time both academically and for it’s athletic program, I’m willing to give more. Call it excuse making all you want but either of our opinions aren’t going to make one lick of difference. Complaining doesn’t make much difference without passion that manifests itself in some real way. If you notice what I stated, I wasn’t calling anyone out, I was merely exhorting others and myself to do more—like showing up to games, donating, guarding our Bruin, our fountains, our school.
Personally I think CRN should resign or be fired if he doesn’t produce next year but I’m completely unwilling to change head coach before that time. Rebuilding hardly ever works to your advantage IMO and getting a new coach is a brand new roll of the dice.
So here we are: We don’t like to lose, we love our school, and we are hoping for change. If I say CRN sucks and should be fired that isn’t really moving us forward. Maybe it helps as far as a consensus goes but we would still be in the same place. We don’t like the this place. What to do?
EGO TROIORUM MALLEUS SUM
by Bruins102NCAA on Dec 7, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
a huge air assault
filled with trick plays against a weak suck secondary would have been nice! CRN was just hoping not to get beat by 40. Maybe he was hoping to be close late in the fourth with a chance to win it late?
its tuesday morning and I’m still hurting! Thanks coach.
"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's" - John Wooden.
Why did'nt he try this?
Wildcat to the halfback, pass to a streaking Rosario? What’s to lose?
If RN had played to WIN
At each juncture, he at least could have found respect from the fans, Going for the 1st down, trick plays, blitzed hard with Ayers when they were deep in own terr. That builds confidence and swagger. What he did was p__sy out. After all, he was known as a gambler. Right?
Good Point.
A daring season of play calls would at least embolden his players to believe in him. By essentially telling his players he doesn’t believe in them, he is going to lose them. What we are going to start to see is players playing for individual stats instead of team goals. Because in their minds, the only way to rescue their college careers is to still catch on with an NFL team.
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
That makes sense too, 1970
There got to be some compelling reasons he coaches so timidly. Unless he can resolve them, whatever the causes, another year or so would not make any difference whatsoever.
Yes, Guerrero guaranteed him the job for another year at least. But what’s the point ? From all perspectives, the odds are against him recovering from such a prohibitively deep hole within another season anyway. That’s why I said that all these are really agonizingly lame justifications not to sack him now.
Rick knows what’s going on. His records are tough to explain and justify, unless you are looking through a different lense. That’s why he needs to do the right thing and walk away. I am not confident if things would be the same or even improving if he stays.
Great Post - Right On Target
That drive in the second quarter when we got down to their 24 should have been the moment where we seized control. But a couple of penalties and then the fumble killed all of that. To me, right there, was the turning point. No question about it.
FWIW, a lot of Iowa fans are still seething over the game with Wisconny after they boldly executed that fake punt that enabled the Badgers to escape Kinnick with a one-point victory that day. That may have very well the moment that propelled the Badgers to where they are right now.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Dec 7, 2010 10:44 AM PST reply actions
good post
Playing not to lose against your hated rival and your last game of the season which is basically your bowl game is pathetic. I don’t care what kind of problems our O has and the excuses they give and who wasn’t playing. The play calling lost us the game. I no some blame Bullough but this terrible O scheme and play calling was embrassing. Our offense has become more conservative then the tea party. I was CRN supporter but if we made a coach change I wouldn’t be upset. I hear everbody wants changes but haven’t heard many names yet. I for one want a defensive head coach and a top notch (aggresive) O coordinater. I would like to us go after Nolan former 49er head coach and defensive coordinater w/ broncos. I know UCLA wouldn’t fork up the money but it would be nice.
I don't have names yet
But in my mind, the next coach after Rick must be someone with an innovative, aggressive coaching strategies. After the inevitable miseries run their course next season, I am pretty sure plenty of names will float around.
I know I am sounding pessimistic, already writing off the Rick & Norm show even before their next season begins, but I just can’t accept their performance this season, supposedly a time for them to build on their previous season’s small gains, if we can call it that way. Instead, we imploded and sank.
i think this best it gets
Someone stated how many big time recruits have done nothing. There’s no way we missed on so many players this falls on not developing our players. My friend came over to watch the SC game with me he is not a ucla or coolege fan for that matter. Braford had some nice runs in the 2nd half and my friend said se this the problem with college football too many missed tackles. I said no this just UCLA we can’t do the simple things always arm tackling.
As far as coaching goes I want to do want harbourg did surround himself with NFL coaches. A defensive head coach and some kind of innovative assistant as coordinator. IMO the longer we ait the farther we fall in the PAC 12 as the other teams are getting better
I think he meant Harbaugh
the Stanford coach if I am not mistaken. But then the guy wanted to be back at his alma mater, Michigan where he was consensus All American quarterback, Rose Bowl winner etc.
The Bengals fell for it...
Yep, the play that nobody ever falls for worked in the NFL. No, that’s not a typo…the NFL. Isn’t that ironic, just one day after so many comments about how it just wouldn’t fool Pop Warner kids.
Of course players want to go for it. They always do, don’t they? Even if they need 3, 7 or 12 yards, players want to go for it. I wouldn’t want to field players that didn’t want to go for every 4th down.
I don’t believe there is a coach in college or the NFL worth their salt that would have gone for it in that situation at that point in the game with our offensive history.
Listen, down by only 7 because of a very rare fumble-returned-almost-70-yards and heading toward halftime in a game we are still very much in, it is nothing short of idiotic to go for it. Idiotic to risk a 2 touchdown deficit. Idiotic to think we’re going 70 yards in a minute thirty or less.
Going for it in that situation could even be looked upon as desperate, a lack of confidence in the team being able to produce in the second half whatever it would take to overcome just a one touchdown lead. Logically, if the team needed that touchdown so badly, what does that say about the team? The confidence to win it in the second half
Nope, no sale. That was a good coaching decision given the circumstances of the team and the situation on the field.
And speaking of the fumble...
We fumble against SC, it gets picked up, no one touches him and 70 yards later…
Stanford fumbles against SC, it gets picked up, no one…oops, someone does touch him. In fact he almost had a concussion from the hit.
Was it a lineman that hit ‘im? Noooo. Was it the fullback that hit ’im? Noooo.
It was the feakin’ quarterback that stopped his clock.
You gotta admit, that ours was returned 70 yards seems just too typical in this rivalry.
NO EXCUSES ... PERIOD
We should be able to play better football and we should win at least 90% of our games every season at least. We have recruits reported to be in the 15% of the best in the nation over the last 3 years.
If we keep on with our “touch tackle” football approach we will soon lose our very good players to the NFL sooner or transfered to another college team like … let me think … Oregon and Auburn and other better managed college teams.
We need to get on it with NO EXCUSES ever in the future…again.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
