Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

[Updated] Spaulding Roundup: Revolver’s Appeal, Steady Carter & Other UCLA Football Notes

Carter (85) is emerging as the new leader of Bruin DL. Photo Credit: dabruins07 (flickr)

The signs of upcoming football season are starting to pop up everywhere. We are just 26 days away from the start of our training camp. EA Sports NCAA 11 is out for the video game junkies.  03rdn9 wrote his initial impressions of the game here (although I have heard a little grumbling about from some other UCLA fans). As we kind of expected recruiting has really heat up in July, bringing good news from all over the place. Definitely lot of things to get excited over when it comes to Bruin football. So let's get to our football notes from today.

As noted last night Darius Bell is a Bruin. The LA Times got a hold of the first Bruin scholarship QB from the Bay Area since Drew Olson:

"I wasn't interested in UCLA until I found out that they were incorporating the ‘pistol' " said Bell, who will have three years of eligibility remaining. "That, and academics, were the things that attracted me to UCLA."

UCLA already has a No. 1 quarterback in sophomore Kevin Prince, who started 11 games last season. Bell, though, said he was not deterred by the fact he would have to beat out an incumbent.

"The way I see it, most teams have a No. 1 quarterback coming into the season," said Bell, the brother of former UCLA running back Kahlil Bell. "As long as I get the opportunity to show I can play. They told me I will have the opportunity to prove myself and that's all I can ask for."

From what I understand Bell has three years of eligibility to play in the NCAA. It is unclear how much of an impact he is going to make this season. Lot of this depends on how quickly he picks up Norm Chow's offense which will include the revolver formation, installed during spring practices. I think it is too much to expect Bell to immediately come in move up to number 2 spot in the depth chart, given the head start other QBs have had in the system.

What is going to benefit here UCLA is really the competition Bell is going to present to someone like Richard Brehaut. From what I understand Kevin Prince has emerged as the clear cut starter heading into this summer. He has been working hard to maintain that edge. Now Bell can also put pressure on Brehaut to step it up more during practices. That kind of competition hopefully will bode well for our offense. More after the jump.

Star-divide

Shifting focus on the other side of the ball the official site posted a Q&A with DT David Carter, who gave us a close look at the kind of grueling schedule these guys have been maintaining this summer:

How is it incorporating this type of training program during the school year while trying to balance it with academics?

"That is definitely one of the hardest parts of being a student-athlete here at UCLA. There's so much to do for both the team and my schoolwork, so its all about finding ways to fit it all in. Even this summer it has been tough because I'm taking a language class which meets five days a week. I've had to figure out ways to work around my class schedule. I have to do my workouts at six in the morning, and be in class at nine, and then do the 33 workouts in the afternoon. And this class is five hours a day, so pretty much the only time I have is the hour break between class and afternoon workouts. So overall it's very time consuming and sometimes a bit overwhelming, but it's all worth it in the end so that's what keeps me going."

Carter also talked about the family atmosphere in the UCLA team:

How are you embracing your role as a leader on the defensive line?

"Well, the mentality of our defensive line is all about working hard. Guys like Datone Jones, Damian [Holmes] and Nate Chandler are all guys on the line who are working extremely hard during this offseason to make sure that we're all in our best shape for September. So even though experience may not be on our side, we're making up for it in hard work and effort. And even though it's a competition, we're all working together to make us the strongest unit around. And some of the younger guys do come up to me and ask for advice and tips, so I just do my best to let them know everything they need to in order to make them the best they can be. But beyond advice, I'm leading by example this offseason. No matter how simple the drill is, I'm always finishing through the line, which has shown the newer guys how we play ball. And honestly, we're more than a team, we're family and so we're all just doing the best to help each other to make sure we're as competitive as we can be this upcoming season."

The word that comes to mind when watching, hearing and reading quotes from Carter comes to mind is "steady." He has been great since the departure of Brian Price in terms of doing his best to bring a sense of steadiness in our DL. Hopefully all the work he and his team-mates are putting in will result in steady performance off the field.

Lastly, wanted to end this roundup  with a note on the three freshmen. The LA Times report that came out yesterday is inaccurate. Foster posted:

Paul Richardson, Shaquille Richardson and Joshua Shirley, the three UCLA football players arrested on suspicion of theft in June, have had their letters of intent ruled null and void.

The three are free to be recruited by other schools and can play immediately.

From my understanding the second line is not accurate. Those three may be free to be recruited by other schools, however, they cannot play immediately. Note that all of them were already enrolled during UCLA summer school sessions.  So no matter what they will have to sit out for a year should they chose to transfer immediately somewhere else. So the issue of being released from LOI is kind of moot in technical sense.

That said, the release on its face was a good move on the part of UCLA. Ultimately what matters is that we want student athletes in the UCLA program, who wants to be here. No one should be forced to play for UCLA. That would create an unhealthy situation and will not be helplful to anyone in the program.

What would be preferable is for these three student athletes to go through JC, reflect on their mistakes, take responsibility and rejoin the Bruins seeking redemption. However, the intiative has to come from them.

I think Gold made a great point on this:

Well, first and foremost, I think it is the nail on the coffin on the "Slick Rick" moniker. Now, I'm not saying he won't toe the line and make borderline decisions on occasion - I truly believe that any coach needs to play that line with utmost care - but the recent trend of good behavior no longer appears to be a trend. With this decision - not just delaying their enrollment but actually allowing them to choose new schools - it's not only clear that Neuheisel is running a cleaner ship, but that he's making it known to recruits and players.

Can't agree more with him on this. Ultimately CRN's decisive actions will help UCLA in the long run because he has now made it clear exactly what kind of program in Westwood. Times have changed and from early indication lot of reasons to be hopeful that things are moving in positive direction at UCLA.

GO BRUINS.

UPDATE (N): Wanted to correct a note from above. I wrote that the LA Times report that those three will be immediately eligible was inaccurate because they would still have to sit out a year due to their registration as summer school sessions at UCLA. Well, it turns out that LA Times was correct, while my interpretation was off base. From what I have no heard via UCLA is that because the three freshmen were denied admission for Fall quarter by UCLA, they can go elsewhere and be eligible immediately because the letters of intent were nullified when they were denied admission. The fact that they were enrolled in summer school is not a factor because the letters were nullified. So they are free to sign with other schools and be eligible immediately. Will be interesting to see what they chose to do. Either way, CRN made the right decision and we wish them luck. GO BRUINS.

Comment 52 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Could a Bell be used in certian spots?

Somewhat like Michael Vick was used in the pros last year. In other words, in certain situations when we want a more option style running quarterback than the more traditional Prince. I agree this year is likely too early for Bell to compete for the number one job but it might be a good change up. Just thinking aloud.

by DCBruins on Jul 14, 2010 7:13 AM PDT reply actions  

I imagine

Coaches will consider all options to maximize matchup advantages.

by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 7:16 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

i could see instances where we could have two quarterbacks on the field

given Bells athleticism allows him to play a few snaps at WR, which would make him an extremley marked man by the defense.

A bruin is good forever, a Trojan is only good... ahh eff it, just use tin foil

by MaltBaa on Jul 14, 2010 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Red Shirt Brehaut?

Nestor, you’ve mentioned, on occasion, that we might benefit from redshirting Brehaut so that he might gain experience and really shine when Prince graduates.

I’m hoping Bell will give us a solid hope for #2. As I understand it, even if Brehaut takes a red shirt year, should the need occur, during the season, we could “activate” him.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jul 14, 2010 7:57 AM PDT reply actions  

Gold is not spot on

because it was never fair to call CRN “slick”. To argue he has changed his spots is to argue that he had spots in the first place. I don’t accept that.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jul 14, 2010 7:58 AM PDT reply actions  

Hmm

I don’t think Gold was asserting that the “Slick Rick” moniker was fair. Perhaps I read it differently. I think he is just saying it is certainly is idiotic to throw it around now.

by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

I may be too sensitive to this

I bristle whenever someone puts the words “slick” and “Rick” next to each other.

He’s been called that so often that it gets traction.

And, as one of the people around here who went back and read the primary documents surrounding the “charges”, I wrote here that they were BS.

Gold could have written a laudatory argument without tying it to the “slick” moniker.

He could have simply focused on the strong action CRN took and why it was the right thing to do.

By throwing the moniker into the argument he continues its life as he professes to bury it.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jul 14, 2010 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well Gold

I feel a little bad for him. He is a kid. I don’t even think he knows the whole story. He is learning and he is trying. As for right now though in Los Angeles, he is the only UCLA friendly traditional reporter in town. It’s mindbogglng but true.

by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

Like it or Not, CRN is Slick Rick to many

The key is whether he is acting like it. He is not. The difference between $UC and UCLA could not be stronger in this case and that is good.

by DCBruins on Jul 14, 2010 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

sjh is right

Mrs. Fox 71 was reading George Steinbrenner’s bio, and was suprised to read that he had pleaded guilty to some crime for an illegal campaign contribution. A long time ago, Billy Martin called Steinbrenner a felon in one of his tirades, but the whole issue of having pleaded guilty somehow got tossed overboard decades ago. It writers had insisted on calling him Georgie the Felon his entire life, he would have been perceived much differently by the public.

Rick did nothing that could or should be described as “slick” in a negative way. It’s time to end that. It’s time to end it here, in house, and it’s time to call out reporters who insist on it.

by Fox 71 on Jul 14, 2010 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

Fair enough

I was wrong to concede the point and it is a good thing for board’s like this to fight against.

by DCBruins on Jul 14, 2010 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

In the words of Coach

You should worry about character, not reputation. While I don’t like him being called “Slick” either, you DC, are spot on in pointing out that the only really important thing is that he is not behaving like he is “slick”.

We're havin' too much fun today. We ain't thinkin' 'bout tomorrow.

by Steve Bruin on Jul 14, 2010 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

with the greatest of respect

my reading of this maxim is that you yourself should worry about your own character, not your own reputation – being a good person is more important than being perceived as one.

This in no way impacts on whether we (as UCLA alums and football supporters) should care about the reputation of our football coach and act against those who would smear him. From some kind of spiritual perspective, the only thing that is “really important” may be CRN’s character – but given we have no influence on that, and the question of his reputation is at least “slightly important” to us as UCLA alumni, we should act to oppose the slurs where we can.

by britishbruin on Jul 15, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

I am learning a lot

I may sound wishy-washy because I agree with everyone.
1. CRN can’t worry about it ala Wooden’s maxim.
2. We, UCLA supporters, should oppose it.

Good points Fox, BB, and Steve.

by DCBruins on Jul 15, 2010 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

"slightly important" indeed

CRN’s reputation reflects upon the school’s reputation. He is one of the highest profile employees of UCLA (how many Nobel Laureates can you name who are working at UCLA without looking them up?). No one nick-named “Slick” deserves to work at Coach’s School.

A CNR’s rep strongly influences both his recruiting ability and authority among the players and his assistants. (“If Coach Rick is so Slick then why shouldn’t I take a couple of freebies?”) Also, the coaches of other sports would be more tempted to bend rules if he had a shady rep.

The thing about reputations is they work just the same if they are undeserved.

by KnudsenRockne on Jul 15, 2010 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

agreed!

and i don’t care for him saying that CRN might toe the line and make border line decisions. WTF? He didn’t need to add that….

"Success is never final, Failure is never fatal. It's Courage that count's"
John Wooden.....

by TheUclan on Jul 14, 2010 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sorry if this has been re-hashed but ...

`66 could you point us to those documents online? (I have some Trogan relatives and friends and it’d be fun to clear things up by showing them a copy)

by KnudsenRockne on Jul 15, 2010 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Darius Bell

Creates a concern for me. Are we going to a running quarterback or a drop back passer? While it gives us flexibility, it also creates a possibility of shifting gears, meaning uncertainty. To me, the key to the offense is controlling the line of scrimmage to give us a running game and protect the passer. Bell gives us some depth, but overall, he should not be considered a major component to the offense.

by 75NatChamps on Jul 14, 2010 8:11 AM PDT reply actions  

That doesn't sound like 'concern'

It sounds more like concern trolling.

No one is looking at Bell as some kind of savior. We have made that clear. He will give us depth and learn the offense as it has been set up. Your “concern” seems to be making too much of … well nothing.,

by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

Nah, it is good

Depth is good. I have not met a QB who wants to be a running QB and no one is talking about changing the offense for that.

That said it might be nice to have a few Wildcat plays for him next year if he is really good.

But as practical matter, the QB issue is settled, it is Prince next year. It is good to have options and depth if Prince forgets his mouthpiece again or if we have a lot of injuries at QB as we have had in recent years.

by DCBruins on Jul 14, 2010 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions  

I have always wanted

a drop back passer who has the ability to drop back, pat the ball once, and go if he doesn’t see anything. I want to see passing first – high percentage throws, and, if it is too risky, scramble for 5-10 yards. Best of both worlds. I love having a QB who can run because it either gives that ability to scramble, or keeps the linebackers closer in respect it, thus opening up more green to work with and pass opportunities.

by sponkey21 on Jul 14, 2010 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

I share some of this

though would maybe put it slightly differently.

I am concerned that he wouldn’t have been interested, but is now joining us because of the pistol; but it is as yet unclear how much of a component that will be. Worst case scenario for him: it doesn’t get used much at all, he bounces around across a few positions and never settles, ends up taking up a roster spot to no benefit to either side. I don’t know if it has any effect on QB recruiting, either in that it puts someone else ahead of any new recruit in the depth chart, or insofar as other coaches start telling traditional QBs that they shouldn’t go to UCLA because UCLA is going away from traditional QB schemes – presumably one of our selling points to QB recruits is CNC’s experience getting people to the NFL.

I am concerned about the idea of bringing in a different QB to run different packages, as I think it damages continuity and makes it more difficult for our O-line to get to know their quarterback’s tendencies. I dislike the idea of the pistol working better with Bell in, and then we end up splitting the QB position between two people, to the detriment of our base set. I think it may serve as a distraction to the coaches and the QBs. There is areason that cliches like “if you’ve got two quarterbacks, you don’t have any quarterbacks” persist – clearly this is not universally true, but it points to the historic challenge teams have had in trying to use multiple QBs.

Overall, though, I don’t think there’s huge upside or downside to this move. If he ends up playing a lot, then that’s good on the one hand, but may reflect that Prince will have underperformed in harnessing the pistol (or be injured); if he doesn’t end up playing much, then that’s a pity, but may reflect that the offense has gone well without him.

On a separate note, it’s a nice story that he is Khalil’s brother, and I like the idea that people who have experienced UCLA are excited to get their friends and relatives to have the same experience. In that sense, it’s a nice reflection of the positive vibes around the program right now.

I think we’re all pretty much in the same place here. Can’t really be a terrible thing, unlikely to be an amazing thing. No dramatic expectations either way; welcome to the Bruin family, let’s see you give it your all and get a great education to boot.

by britishbruin on Jul 14, 2010 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Another trashing by N and some trace of intelligence discovered by BB

I generally find your posts to be close to what I think. I think Prince and Brehaut are our immediate future and prefer those types of quarterbacks. (Troy Aikman is my idea of the ideal quarterback, and the kind of guy who fits best with NC’s offenses.) If Bell is good, it might create some controversy, especially with Brehaut. My concern may not be well founded, or born out by the future, but it was my reaction nonetheless. I don’t know what concern trolling is. I’ll inform my brain of the concept once I understand it better.
Khalil was a great Bruin and I expect the same from his brother, which means that there is a good chance he may challenge for playing time.

by 75NatChamps on Jul 14, 2010 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

The UCLA Corollary to "if you’ve got two quarterbacks, you don’t have any quarterbacks"

That is a good adage. The only caveat for modern times is it seems okay to run sets like the Wildcat. I don’t think that distracts from your “main QB” but the jury could be out on that.

But there is a UCLA corollary for the last three years: On Average 3 QBs play every season.

2007, we used 4 QBs significantly because of injury.
 2008, our 3rd String QB stared every game (Olson and Cowan were injured and never played.)
2009 We used 2 QBs significantly.

The last three years we have AVERAGED three QBs playing in the season because of injuries. Thus I welcome Bell if for no other reason than that.

by DCBruins on Jul 14, 2010 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think I disagree with you here

I think the jury is still definitely out on Wildcat – at least at the pro level, there is no indication it worked well for the Eagles, who had a veteran pocket passer QB in McNabb and about as good a wildcat QB as you could possibly hope for in Vick; and the Miami situation is as much to do with their LACK of a #1 QB and real passing game. At the college level, the resurgence of the Wildcat seems more about highly talented RBs taking the pressure off mediocre QBs than any genuine two QB situation system. The only obvious exception is Florida with Tebow as a freshman coming in for goalline plays.

The UCLA injury bug at QB is certainly something strange, which is why having QB depth may be a good thing – but wrt Bell I would still argue that it would be better to have the same style of QB as your 3rd choice, if you anticipate your 3rd string guy may have to start games. The situation is somewhat different from a few years ago when Rashaan had to play, because now we are incorporating more “dual threat QB” sets into our general rotation of plays to keep defenses on their toes; but it’s tough to ask your O-line and RBs to adopt a completely different set of blocking patterns when your QB goes down.

Regardless, I still have faith in CNC to work out how to make an offense run. We’ve been in damage control / mistake minimization mode on that side of the ball for a while, so I am looking forward to seeing what a slightly more confident offense can do. If Bell gives CNC an extra weapon to deploy, cool.

by britishbruin on Jul 15, 2010 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hmm

Fair point on the Wildcat. I remember when we had Aikman and even Cade we would occasionally put in another QB (Bennet and McCracken) for a running set or situation (option). But the jury is definitely out on that.

I know for a QB to be left handed versus right handed can cause problems for an offensive line to change for blocking patterns as you mention. But if you are on your third string QB the fact of the matter is he is not going to have many reps with the starters because there are just not enough in practice. He is going to be relatively new to everyone. And I don’t think anyone is a copy, Brehart and Prince are different although more similar to each than Bell. Thus I think it is okay if Bell has a different style. Also, if we do run a Wildcat or running type offense some, then at least he has some reps with the first unit which will be a plus if he is ever called upon to be the main QB.

Hopefully, we don’t need three QBs. But given our history, I think it is a good thing and also marginally better IMO to have the 3rd string QB able to do other things such as a Wildcat type offense.

by DCBruins on Jul 15, 2010 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

in my ideal world

we would have a 3rd string QB in the same mold as Prince, except younger (and possibly redshirting this year if possible, but able to be called on if injury bug hits); and Bell would be an all-purpose athlete who was productive in some other position (WR?) while giving an option for a different look occasionally as the QB in some designed package and as emergency QB to avoid burning a redshirt in the last 5 minutes of a game that was no longer in doubt.

No obvious reason why this couldn’t come about, except that he seems to be making it clear he is coming to UCLA to be a QB, not to be a player; and there may be a infinitessimally small effect on being able to recruit QBs given an extra QB already in the system. But these are minor points.

Not sure what you’re saying when you say

if you are on your third string QB the fact of the matter is he is not going to have many reps with the starters because there are just not enough in practice. He is going to be relatively new to everyone.

as that seems to be backing my point – that you would rather have someone who plays in the same style and basic schemes as the fallen QBs, given the lack of reps available to break in both a new QB AND a new system to suit.

But maybe we are starting to draw distinctions without differences here.

by britishbruin on Jul 15, 2010 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, but let me clarify

But preface by saying I am not certain of this argument and you are right to poke holes in it. Let me restate it but generally say that I am looking at it from the perspective of the 3rd string QB why you are looking at it, it seems to me, from the perspective of the other 10.

1. If the third string QB plays some in say a Wildcat type formation then he will have some time with the first string offense on a regular basis.
2. Looking at it from the QB not the other 10 players perspective, he will not be ready to run the whole play book or even most of it. It would be better if he was more a runner and able to deal with broken plays. (Note: this does not work if Bell starts and Brehart, a pocket passer only, is the backup. ) Backups need to be able to deal with broken plays and as a result run more. Shoot Patrick Cowan beat $UC a few years back by running the ball. That does not work all the time but short term could work and your third stringer will hopefully be short term.

I agree with what you wrote on Bell here though:

Bell would be an all-purpose athlete who was productive in some other position (WR?) while giving an option for a different look occasionally as the QB in some designed package and as emergency QB

That works for a third string QB and if he turns into more at QB down the line or WR now okay.

  

by DCBruins on Jul 15, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Both of you are thinking too much

I also get the sense that you don’t have a good grasp on our personnel. Otherwise you wouldn’t call Brehaut a “pocket passer only.” Seems like you haven’t done any research re. the tools he displayed in high school.

Moreover, you guys are also missing the basic concept that revolver formation is going to part of our offense. It is not clear whether it will evolve into our base scheme.

Also, it is a little silly to suggest Prince might not be a good fit for revolver given he has shown plenty of mobility (he just needs to be smart about protecting himself). I find the discussion above kind of amusing because it doesn’t seem to be based on any kind of facts (you guys haven’t seen much of Bell and it doesn’t seem like you don’t have a grasp on what Brehaut could potentially do).

So let it play out before making it so academic.

by Nestor on Jul 16, 2010 5:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

yeah

this conversation is mostly the product of there not being any real action going on right now. But I don’t think I myself state anywhere that Prince/Brehaut are one-dimensional, or that they won’t be able to fit in the pistol; rather that Bell seems unlikely to play much unless we decide to use more of those packages AND those QBs ahead on the depth chart don’t do a good job of running it themselves. Hypothetical scenarios, not predictions or statements of fact about QB abilities. Having attended precisely zero practices with Prince/Brehaut running the pistol, I have no first hand evidence of their feel for that set; and I have never seen Bell in anything other than edited highlights.

by britishbruin on Jul 16, 2010 7:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

Agree

“this conversation is mostly the product of there not being any real action going on right now”

by DCBruins on Jul 18, 2010 7:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

Anybody read

Ted Miller’s Best Case-Worst Case: UCLA yet? It has its moments that make me smile, but makes my stomach churn a bit as well. Overall it’s entertaining, but Miller gives Kiffin far too much credit.

by Chris09 on Jul 14, 2010 10:08 AM PDT reply actions  

Chris09

You should really fanshot comments like this … when you share something new. Thanks.

by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

Will do

I think it’s a psychological thing where I don’t deem most espn content worthy of its own fanshot lol.

by Chris09 on Jul 14, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Does he honestly think

that u$c* will be undefeated? It is expressly stated in both the best and worst case that we go into the u$c* game with them undefeated and no. 1 in the country. I’ll eat my…well, I’ll eat just about anything if that happens. There is no way they do better than 3rd in the conference this year if you ask me.

by sponkey21 on Jul 14, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm sure Ted Miller thinks

that UCLA will savor the victory over USC that much more if they are undefeated, not that USC will go undefeated.

by captainqtp on Jul 14, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I dislike the idea

that UCLA going 9-4 next year is seen as equally fantastical as Kiffin and Barkley fixing the BP oil spill.

by britishbruin on Jul 15, 2010 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bell ...

IMO makes up for the loss of Notthingham.

He might even be a better fit than Notthingham, because there will be a larger gap between him and whatever incoming freshman we bring in this year (making it more attractive to the incoming freshman).

We needed more bodies at QB.

The situation is sort of similar to Kevin Craft. When Craft came in he was not supposed to start right away. But Olson and Cowan got hurt and he had to play. He was really only supposed to be insurance. Bell seems like more than insurance, I realize, but he’s coming in with two guys ahead of him in the system. If he plays this year, it’s either because he’s great (a good thing) or Prince and/or Brehaut got hurt or just played bad (a bad thing).

by Achilles on Jul 14, 2010 11:41 AM PDT reply actions  

re: LOI release...

Now I think this shows CRN’s guts. It would have been easy to become “creative” with the Richardsons/Shirley situation (ala Oregon with Blount/Masoli), but now these guys will have to prove themselves as really wanting to demonstrate change without the guarantee that a spot as a UCLA student is there for them. In a dog eat dog world where top college recruits are babied, I commend CRN for taking the hit. And I have a feeling that the Richardsons in particular are embarrassed by the situation and want back in. Nothing like losing a dream to make you work your behind off to regain it. If they do what they’re supposed to do, I bet you it’ll be CRN’s easiest job getting them back on the team and in school in January.

by BlackandOldGold on Jul 14, 2010 12:31 PM PDT reply actions  

Shirley is going to be interesting

Specifically if he is recruited by Steve Sarkasian at UDub. It’d be kind of amusing to read the reaction of Washington fans seeing their coach going after Shirley who was disciplined by CRN.

by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Can they leave the area?

Seeing as they are up on felony charges?

"Make each day your masterpiece."--JRW

by Give me a B... on Jul 14, 2010 1:02 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions  

good point...

depends on the bail conditions

by Bruin'96 on Jul 14, 2010 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not sure

Don’t have any info. on that or info that provides context in that decision making process. So cannot offer any informed speculation on this.

by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 6:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

In a way, it was kind of strange.

CRN gave them a chance to come back, which wasn’t bad after they take care of the legal issues.
Unless the families wanted out, but go where?
CRN knows the Richardson family too.

by LA Bruin on Jul 14, 2010 6:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

HALO_86

Don’t come here and post second hand rumors (especially when you don’t have any kind of track record of posting reliable information on BN). The speculation that Shirley might be interested in going to a school like UDub and Southern Cal is nothing original. What we don’t like is coming on here about claiming you heard it from so and so, when you have no track record here on BN. Thanks.

by Nestor on Jul 14, 2010 7:00 PM PDT reply actions  

sorry nestor

i’ve been holding back on posting this because of that exact reasons. i have no track record on here and i understand i have to build up credibility before posting rumors of that nature. i was just surprised that he actually had a long conversation with the father of josh shirley before and after the incident. he had a alot to say about the situation. what his real options were and what they were going to do next. it seemed legit to post it but i didn’t mean any harm by it, sorry again nestor.

by HALO_86 on Jul 14, 2010 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

No worries

Just want to make sure that this place doesn’t become a rumor mongering blog. Totally understand when people have legit sources or have honest intentions. However, at the same time I do think it matters to build up credibility. Hope you stick around and participate more. It will be interesting to see how all of this turns around. Thanks.

by Nestor on Jul 15, 2010 4:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

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

Managers

Uclabear1_small Nestor

Arron_afflalo1_small Tydides

Brad_pitt_as_achilles_small Achilles

377011_2642084725867_1068030137_32302525_1166539782_n_small Ryan Rosenblatt

Telemachus_small Telemachus

Licenseplate_small gbruin

2761_small tasser10

Blue_bellerophon_small Bellerophon

Img_0052_2_small Patroclus

Small DCBruins

Of Counsels

094_small Ajax

Menelaus2_small Menelaus

Small Meriones

Small Odysseus

Associates

Eee_small freesia39

Uclabruins_small AHMB