Post KSU: Premature Invectives, Correctable Mistakes & Building On Positives
by britishbruin on Sep 5, 2010 8:32 AM PDT
Email
Print[This is a slightly modified repost of my comment in the post-game thread, per N's suggestion and in case anyone has any response now that that thread is closed; a lot of it is along the same lines as N posted on the front page this morning, so apologies if it is overly duplicative]
I am not sure whether the naysayers were reacting yesterday to DCBruins' notes of optimism, and after 9 months of anticipation people may have been a little overhyped, but I want to respond to some of the totally disproportionate anger and invective in the game and post-game threads.
There were some good things to say about yesterday. The primary thing is that even with a fraction of the OL personnel we might have hoped to have for this game when last season ended, our newly installed pistol offense allowed us to run the ball. This is GOOD COACHING. This is what CRN and CNC are paid to do. Some of the nonsense in the game and post-game threads about offensive play calling is unbelievable. Having watched us struggle to run the ball for 2 years, the run game today looked significantly better.
What killed us yesterday was our inability to make plays in the passing game. Two factors: receivers dropping catchable balls, and Prince looking pretty rusty (his stats would have been improved by receivers catching balls, but some of the throws and decisions were terrible). I am surprised Brehaut did not get at least a series or two. CRN showed a willingness to pull Prince last year, and by all indications Brehaut is in comparatively better shape to perform this year. Could it have made the passing game perfect with the way the receivers were playing? No. Could it have been an improvement on a fairly below par performance from Prince? Maybe. Seemed worth a shot to me.
On a separate subject: comments on Prince not being quick enough for the pistol also seem nonsensical. Is he a dual threat QB who is as good a running option as a running back? No. Is he a decent enough runner that defenders have to account for him? Yes – and if you don’t, he can run in a touchdown. The success of the running backs would not be possible if defenders didn’t have to respect Prince’s threat to run.
(much more after the jump...)
Overall on our offense, the receivers and Prince were not at all in sync, but our backs, our OL and our scheme appeared to be good. I have optimism about being able to correct some of the mental errors in the passing game – if I had the option of a strong run game and poor passing performance, or a weak run game and a good passing performance, I think the first option gives much more cause for optimism in the future.
The other thing that killed us today was the untimely penalties. With the passing game struggling, there is a big difference between 2nd & 6 and 2nd & 11. Occasionally people make split second decisions that lead to avoidable-but-understandable penalties; what is upsetting are penalties like having too many men on the field (for which I blame the coaches); illegal shifts or illegal motion or any other pre-snap brainfart; and penalties for ill-discipline. Making mistakes at gamespeed in a maelstrom of activity under pressure from opponents is one thing – a big problem today, but we will have better days – but making stupid mistakes before or after the play is really aggravating.
Don’t know what to say about the defense, other than we missed the guys we lost from last year’s front 7 when facing this power run team; but they were good enough that we could have won today. And Bullough seems uninspired. And that not having Datone on one end of the line makes it easier for offenses to key on stopping Ayers from being a disruption.
Overall, I was thoroughly frustrated to see us lose a game that we could easily have won, and found the failures of the passing game inexplicable. However, the invective above seems totally out of proportion. We didn’t just lose at home to Jacksonville State, we lost to a well-coached KSU team with a stud running back and a powerful experienced OL. Some things functioned well, some did not. Our OL exceeded expectations, our receivers fell way below expectations; Prince was off his game and could have been pulled (but maybe we are more concerned about him getting in the time before Stanford?). Schematically we looked good on offense. Our special teams were good as ever. None of that overcomes the fact that the overall performance was disappointing – but the lynch mob above are either delusional or haven’t been paying attention.
For what it's worth, and to give some perspective on my expectations going in to yesterday, this is what I said in response to N's pregame thread (in which he was "not feeling all that great about how today is going to go"):
I am excited to see what CRN and CNC have cooked up on the offensive side, after 2 pretty vanilla years with underwhelming and inconsistent talent on offense.
I’m looking forward to seeing whether Ayers and Moore can step up and lead the defense and prevent too much drop off from previous years.
I’m intrigued to see what the frosh and other first time players can bring to the table.
I’m really pumped to root for a group of seniors across the O-line coming together in adversity with no-one believing in them and giving it their all.
The only thing that scares me right now is the prospect of injuries. If we can get through this game healthy in those positions where we are thin, then I am sure there will be enough positives to build on going forward.
I am no Nostradamus, and from an analytic standpoint I would not have expected Rahim to impact the game much if I had paid more attention to the KSU offensive strategy - he will have plenty of work to do against Stanford and (particularly) Houston in the next 2 weeks, but against a dominant run team there's only so much impact you have from the FS position. Nevertheless, I thought our offense looked like we were a work-in-progress with some significant uspide potential, compared with what we saw the last 2 years. First time players like Jones and Smith looked exciting. Our OL was one of our strongest and most consistent units all game. As far as I am aware, we had no serious injuries in our less-deep positions and so we can learn from this and move forward.
We come out of yesterday's game with some positives to build on and a lot of eminently correctable mistakes to work on. We looked like we needed an extra week of healthy preseason for Prince and the WRs to work together. If this is what we still look like by the end of the season, then people will have some justification for the "wailing and gnashing of teeth" that filled the game and post-game threads, and for directing significant hostility at coaches. But right now, it is totally premature and a little ridiculous in the unforgiving light of the morning after. Back the players, back the coaches, and get down to the Rose Bowl next Saturday to give them the sort of support K-State enjoyed yesterday.
GO BRUINS
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
29 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This optimism would've been justified last year
But yesterday was the beginning of year three of CRN. In year three of first-rate coaches (usually earlier), you do not see sloppiness. You do not see receivers who still can’t run routes, still can’t get open, and a qb who still locks in on receivers. The problem with our passing game was that it showed zero improvement at all in any respect. Only so much of that can be attributed to Prince’s rustiness.
Does rustiness account for not checking down and locking in time after time? How, given so much time to throw against an undersized secondary, could Prince find nobody open?
These are the same sloppy things we’ve been seeing for years. That’s what’s so despairing.
The fact that our OL looked better against a tiny weak DL is not enough to counteract problems which seem ingrained in this program. We were playing an undertalented (but obviously superiorly coached) team that could do only one thing on offense, and we couldn’t stop them at that. Fine. I expected no better, frankly. But this was a game where you should and must score 30 points, and through an age-old combination of conservatism and sloppiness we failed. Bad receiving, bad route-running, and bad tackling are fundamentals. Well-coached teams should be fundamentally sound.
I like the look of the pistol scheme and the options it provides us. But I would like, for once, to look at a team the plays sharp and looks like it knows what it’s doing. We just lost to apparently our second-weakest opponent of the year, so the pressure’s on big time improve dramatically and make up for it with an upset down the road.
Yep
and yes, it is only one game, but this is the only data point we have to draw upon so far for year 3, and so far, I’m disappointed, for all of the reasons you mentioned above. If that makes me less of a Bruin fan, so be it.
Bounce back next week, with a nice home win against a quality opponent, and that will be another data point to consider while assessing the performance of this coaching staff and state of the program currently.
Good post.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
I am disappointed too
and if the rest of the season plays out in exactly this manner and we go 2-10, sign me up for the negativity bandwagon. But, as you say, “this is the only data point we have to draw on so far for year 3” – which makes any definitive judgement impossible to reach, and makes the cacophony of naysaying at best premature and at worst ignorant.
by britishbruin on Sep 5, 2010 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Uh ...
What?
[T]his the only data point we have to draw upon so far for year 3.
Perhaps for you. But not for us who follow this team 24/7 and 365 days a year. You are showing up here to draw "datapoints" after 1 game without taking into account how improvements are taking place in other aspects of the program day by day. Not going to let you get away with that kind of reflexive analysis just coming over here on Sundays.
If you are making general conclusions on the big picture based on datapoints from one game … Blue Me … then you forgot what BN is all about.
Perhaps for me, yes
Without being able to attend practices, scrimmages, etc, this is the 1st time I have laid eyes on the 2010 version of our football squad. So, in the most objective format, this is the only data point I have to assess the effectiveness and quality of this team’s talent, execution, preparation, and play-calling against an opponent other than ourselves.
Not that you particularly care about my credentials, but I do follow BN on a daily basis and have been posting on this site for over 4 years. I have been a UCLA fan for over 3 decades, completed undergrad in ‘93 and medical school in ’97. I have been a season ticket holder and athletic department booster since. I regularly attend alumni functions and try to stay as closely involved with my alma mater as I can with my busy schedule. Like you, I bleed Bruin blue, and I truly believe that I have a finger on the pulse of this program. While I am happy with the many positive steps that this coaching staff has taken since the last pathetic regime, I wasn’t happy with the product I saw on the field yesterday, and honestly expected better. I honestly don’t feel my expectations for this program are off base. KState is a program that this program should handle, comfortably. You can dismiss my criticisms as uninformed, out of touch, reflexive Sunday-morning quarterbacking if you wish, but, after reading your posts for over 4 years, I really don’t think you and I are that far apart on this.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
I have no problem with constructive crticism
However, I do have problems with rash conclusions being drawn after watching just game. We gear this place for folks who do follow the teams closely on year around basis. There are lot of other places to follow the team on a casual basis BM.
We know your contributions and the thoughts you have shared before. That is why we expect a little more level headed takes from you. You are right that we are not far apart. So its a matter of how you articulate it. Consider that our expectations from you is a little higher. Not fair I know. But you set the standard with your datapoint driven analysis in the past. Don’t want t see you to turn into the cranky bandwagoners who rant on talk radio and message boards.
on the passing game, rustiness etc
I think you’re overstating the inability to find open receivers and for the receivers to get open. Sometimes Prince made bad decisions, locked in and threw into double or triple coverage. Sometimes Prince moved into the right place, a receiver got open, and either the throw or the catch (or both) were not executed. The optimism I have on the pistol is it seemed to allow us to run the ball successfully, and that passing plays were there for the taking if we had executed. I think Prince and the WRs had bad games, but that the coaches did put them in a position to succeed with the new scheme and playcalling. I have optimism that D-1 WRs and TEs really can catch balls that are thrown their way and I need more than one bad game to write off a season. The overall results in the passing game were no improvement on previous years, but yesterday seemed more like a case of errors and being out of sync rather than a fundamental lack of talent or lack of coaching. And so I believe we can expect improvement when Prince and his receivers have had another week.
Bad tackling was disappointing; you are right that this is fundamental. It is also something that the players hadn’t done in practice for 2 weeks because we couldn’t afford to lose any more players to injury after Kai Maiava went down. We were rusty on that side of the ball as well. With hindsight, maybe CRN would go back and change that coaching decision; but we wouldn’t think so if it would have resulted in another O-lineman going down. I hope they pick it up – I have less optimism about the defense improving than the offense, because I expect more improvement from the skill players on offense than I necessarily expect from the defensive personnel. For us to be successful we are going to have to put up bigger scores this year than in previous.
On the judging of coaches – the needless penalties seem to be a trend, and if we do not improve in this area over the season it should be a mark against CRN et al, as I agree that in your 3rd year you should have an imprint on the overall culture of the program. But on turning around programs – CRN has two years of guys he recruited, a year of guys he rerecruited after the previous administration was removed, and a year (or two) of guys from the previous regime. Some local teams with turnarounds in record (say, Stanford and Washington) did it with at least a few stud players left over from the previous regimes complementing the new recruits. Give me a junior Jake Locker running the pistol yesterday and we win; let Brian Price stick around for his senior year and we win. We do not have enough talented seniors and juniors to complement the young talent CRN has brought in; many of the starting seniors are guys who are starting due to emergency, or are starting in positions for which they were not recruited.
by britishbruin on Sep 5, 2010 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Not giving up on this season
Just pointing out that the problems we saw yesterday can’t be excused with the same excuses from year 1 and year 2. I am going to stop now. Stanford is a must-win and a must-shine, so is Houston. Our offense has to score a LOT of points against those two teams, setting the path for a conference season in which we make up for this with a big upset on the road.
not to belabo(u)r the point
but calling any game a ‘must-win’ at this point in the season just seems a little hyperbolic to me. “Must win” – or what? And losing next week but winning 10 straight after that would not avert whatever apocalypse lurks behind “must-win”?
Maybe all you’re saying is shorthand for “it’s really important we put this game behind us and have a good game against Stanford if we want to build some momentum going forward, otherwise it might be difficult to get the confidence we need to make a fight of our brutal schedule this year” or something, but talking in terms of “must-win” gives the impression that you are a prisoner of the moment, even if you are not.
by britishbruin on Sep 5, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Lack of talented upper classmen
I don’t think this point can be overstated. I’m not generally in favor of drawing parallels between our football and basketball teams but when you look at last years b-ball squad one of the big problems was that where there was talent there was little experience and vice versa. The same can be said of this football team. Of course, this issue is far more pressing in football where the maturation process is significantly more important.
2nd-weakest opponent...
We just lost to apparently our second-weakest opponent of the year…
I would say you’re not giving KSU enough credit, if that is your take on their standing within our schedule. I fully understand some of the rest of your opinions.
Prince & Brehaut
A couple of thoughts on our QB situation from yesterday:
First off, I thought that Brehaut should have been given the start yesterday, given the fact that he had a majority of the snaps with the 1’s this summer. That being said, I think the coaches made a good decision not putting Brehaut in the game (after they had already decided on Prince) for a series or two. Yesterday’s game was way too close to bring in a cold QB to see what he can do. In addition to that, it would have been more difficult to then reinsert Prince back into the game, given the struggles that he already had up to that point – there were indeed a lot of dropped balls, but some of those throws were reminiscent of Joe Kane (from the movie “The Program”) when get got out of rehab and returned to the field the following week.
The odds were against Prince having a good game to begin with. Let us look at the circumstances:
-A Sophomore (redshirt) QB – Let us not forget that Cade wasn’t setting the world on fire early in his career either.
-breaking in a new offense (though the plays were the same, the passing game is all about timing, and if you have a QB in a semi-shotgun as opposed to taking the snap under center, timing will be affected).
-being injured for a good portion of Summer ball and not getting that timing down with all of the starters (and Barr, how many passes has he EVER thrown to Barr? Probably just a few more than you and I).
With that being said, I think he is going to show vast improvement over the next few games. He will get the timing down, more reps with his receivers, and all will be right with the world. NOw Bullough and the defense, that might be another question.
formerly Westwood78
do you think their philosophy has changed?
or that they decided that past actions were wrong? The reason I ask is that CRN and CNC were apparently comfortable pulling Prince last season in close games – partly in order to talk to Prince about what was going on on the field and adjustments he should make. What changed?
I'm wondering if it isn't that the problem was different.
Last year, maybe bad decisions.
This year, lack of reps.?
Go Bruins!
Pure speculation on my part, but
I would say that the difference between last year and this year is the vast improvement of Brehaut (he now has a legit chance to take the job) coupled with Prince’s lack of reps to this point (missed practices and scrimmages). I’m not 100% comfortable hearing Prince and Ayers in the video brushing off the loss saying it doesn’t count and conference is what matters, but they are right (at least for this season where were never delusional in thinking we’d be competing for a national championship) and the coaches know this. Thus, the more game reps for Prince to find his rhythm, the better.
formerly Westwood78
And...
what would be wrong if Brehaut had entered the game – given Prince’s inaccuracy – played well, and won the job?
I am hoping that we see more of Prince showing up as a quality QB, but would not have cried had he lost the starting position.
It does seem like Prince is the golden boy for CRN and CNC, and they want to instill as much confidence in him as possible. The same thing happened for Craft, so I am not exactly surprised. We can only hope it works out for Prince and the coaching staff.
Quick question
Did any of you two attend practices, scrimmage and saw Brehaut in action? Did you see him more than once?
Simple answers please. Thanks.
Nope, just going off of what I read here.
formerly Westwood78
+1
Plus, what I saw from Brehaut last season. Based on this, I feel he has the potential to be a very good QB – one that could have been more accurate than Prince (in the KSU game) had he been given the reps, and the coaches had Prince rest and completely recover from any injuries.
So you were clamoring for Brehaut
Without seeing him take a single snap in practices with your own eye. Okay. Whatever. This is why the hysteric calls for Brehaut has been so dumb. I will go with Chow’s and Neuheisel’s analysis from watching these two QBs through hundreds (if not thousands) of snaps than giving credence to hysterics based on datapoints on few isolated PT last year and “report” on 2-3 weeks of practice this year. It’s ridiculous.
I hardly call my mention of the facts
clamoring. Because of Prince’s injuries, Brehaut got the majority of the snaps. And by all of the accounts of our fellow BNers, Brehaut had a good camp. There are no hysteric calls there. Having said that, in another post, you see me saying the same thing you said. If the coaches chose to go with Prince, they must have chosen him for a reason (I would assume that the coaches think that Prince gives us the best chance to win this season, so go with him now). The same thing I said last year when Craft got the nod and everyone was screaming for Brehaut to get the start then.
formerly Westwood78
I agree
It would have been great if Brehaut did come in and light the world on fire. I wasn’t thinking along those lines. I was thinking more of him having a good, not great game which would start chatter (even though we are already hearing grumbles). Honestly, I’m for whomever the coaches choose. If they think the guy is Prince, great. If its Brehaut, great. I think Prince will be much better (than the K St game) going forward and he continues to get more and more reps. That game was full of so much potential. If some of those passes had been caught, maybe that helps his rhythm out more, and everyone here is singing a difference tune. I’m definitely optimistic for the Stanford game though. It’ll be exciting to see our offense in their second outing. I’m sure the WRs will have a chip on their shoulders and will have a better performance next week.
formerly Westwood78
receivers
I would say our receivers took way too much blame for the problems of our offense. They did not have the best hands last year, and despite some of the hype during the off-season, they still had some problems.
However, I would say the biggest problem was Prince. He consistently overthrew, underthrew, and misplaced the football on his throws. Plus, he put his receivers in position to be lit up multiple times.
I agree that Prince didn't help his receivers
but I think that some of the drops were really very very bad (though in fairness a couple of catches on not-perfect balls were very good).
Further, I think that the reaction to the WRs is partly because much more is expected of them, being a pretty deep and experienced group; and because we believed the chatter about their great play in practice against our secondary (who ought to be the most solid unit on the defense). Prince had a mediocre game but some allowance is given for his injury and the first time running the revolver in a game; the degree to which you allow WRs some leeway because they haven’t had much time with Prince either is debatable – a lot of those balls seemed eminently catchable, but it is conceivable they might have had better timing on balls coming from Brehaut’s hands.
One other point, though – on some plays it may not be obvious whether Prince was missing his target, or whether he thought the receiver was going to be in a slightly different place, or whether the receiver actually went to slightly the wrong place, or what. Some of Prince’s decisions were flat out bad, but on some number of the near-misses on catchable balls, it may be fairer to see it as QB and WR not being on quite the same wavelength rather than the QB missing the spot – both QB and WR may get tentative when things are not quite right, and each trying to compensate for the other may not work. But that is purely speculative, I have no idea whether any particular route was supposed to go 10 yards down the field and then slant at 45 degrees but the receiver ran 11 yards before breaking… definitely coming off the field a couple of times Prince and CRN seemed to be exchanging hand gestures…
by britishbruin on Sep 6, 2010 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions
drops...
The main drops I had a problem with were Presley’s 1st two.
I guess I can understand the expectations for the receivers – but off-season talk always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. No matter the level, talk about off-season football tends to always be “relentlessly positive”, as CRN likes to say.
If the receivers are not running their routes right, it definitely makes things more difficult for the QB. However, sometimes the QB just needs to make it playground football, and read what’s going on the field. Have you ever noticed how the elite QBs can make good receivers look great? (And vice versa…)
more on drops
Not the worst drop, but certainly the most frustrating drop in my mind was the Embree drop at the 2 yard line. Has that dude ever dropped a ball? His hands were amazing last year, and to drop that ball, which would have likely given us 4 more points on that drive, is just maddening.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
