Random Thoughts On The KSU Game
by Class of 66 on Sep 6, 2010 8:21 AM PDT
Email
PrintBumped. GO BRUINS. -N
I started to write this as a response to a front page post -- but it kept growing and I did not want to disrespect or hi-jack that post, so:
1. A Recurring Problem We Have to Fix: For the last several years, our D has given up long drives and scores on the first series of each half. There is absolutely no excuse for that. In the old days, people blamed the O -- improperly -- claiming that the D was on the field so long it got tired. That excuse does not work when the other team shoves the ball down our throats the first time the D is on the field and the first time it comes on the field after resting during the half time break.
Although the players have to make the plays, the D coordinator has to: 1. have them mentally prepared to play from Moment 1; 2. have them understand the D schemes from Moment 1; and, 3. teach them to tackle, tackle, tackle -- make is so ingrained that the skill is not forgotten under the pressure of a game.
I was not a Walker fan; and I think Bullough is too close to that mold. I, for one, would have hired Rocky Long, at the end of last season. I hope Bullough makes me eat these words.
2. A Recurring Problem We Have to Fix: Penalties -- we have not improved in this area. We had to. And, we should have. There is absolutely no excuse for two of the critical, stupid things we did, yesterday.
As much as I love Akeem, that late hit was absolutely unnecessary. The penalty was blatant and had to be called. Yes, I know he gets amped up. But, he is one of our best players, one of our leaders -- and he has to set the example. Penalties are harder to accept when they are committed by more experienced players (Paulsen) or leaders.
3. We really miss Brian Price. Without him, our middle is vulnerable. He was an exceptional player and will be hard to replace. Yesterday, showed just how important he was to us.
4. I went into this game believing that our receivers were the strength of the team and that if the OL could hold up. and give Prince time to throw, we would move the ball easily.
The OL exceeded my expectations -- albeit against what may be a weaker D front. I'm pleased with the O line.
Obviously, the receivers did not have the game any of us expected from them -- with the exception of Marvray and Harkey.
Speaking of Harkey, why in the world did we not go to our tight ends more? They are a very talented group and were under utilized.
5. This loss was not on Kevin Prince. It was a team loss on both sides of the ball. Blaming Prince or calling for his replacement is simply not fair. For the most part, I think he made good decisions. Whether or not he executed well is open to debate -- he would have looked a lot better with a little bit of help from others. I actually think we will see him run this offense very well, soon. His ability to run -- as he did on the touchdown -- may well be the key to the season. This new wrinkle to the scheme, with the improvement of the O line, and a stronger and wiser Prince, will let CNC work his magic. We saw some of it, yesterday. I think we will see a lot more in the conference games.
5. KSU is a good team. Coached by one of the best. This was never a game we "should have won". It was clearly a game "we could have won". For us to have a good season, we will have to win the games we should win and pull off some wins in the "could wins".
I am confident we will. And, I think we will win at least one game no one thinks we will be able to win. I did not see Oregon play. But, sc's D looks suspect. And, Oregon State's QB did not look invincible. The Rodgers brothers are the real deal. But, we have the speed on D to stay with them. We will really need the D line to do better on the running plays -- but I really think they will.
6. My player of the game? Probably Locke. He gave the D good field position by touchback kick offs and good punt placement. He is a great weapon IF the D can step up and force 3 and outs.
7. Overall, we are an older team but not an experienced team. We are a bigger team. A faster team. But, not an experienced team.
I know we wanted to win that game, but I'm glad we got some freshmen on the field. And, I don't see how they hurt us. I would have liked to see more get some game time -- particularly Reilly.
Games like, yesterday, prove the value of experience. And, that's why spring and fall practices can't tell us what we really have. We need games. And, now we know what we've got. And, I'm excited about it.
8. Stanford is a game in my "should not win but may well win" column. Andrew Luck is the real deal. He played for Stratford High School -- Jen's rival school. In person, I've seen him play 3 times. He's smart. And, a really good kid. Yes, Gerhart is gone. But Stanford remains a very tough, physical team. But, I have a feeling we will build on this week and win. Yesterday, was only one game. But, I think many of our players will settle down now that they've have one under their belts.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.
28 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow. I agree with everything you say.
I would like to add, since they are learning, I’d like to see Owa in there on D. He’s built and strong and fast. And I think he’d learn fast given real experience. I think he’ll be a beast and we need that.
Go Bruins!
Luck may very well be the real deal,
But I will reserve my assessment on him when he:
A) isn’t turning around and handing off to the man who would have won the Heisman if he had both more exposure and more victories, and
B) is not playing against Sacramento St.
I do hope that even if he is the real deal, we don’t get any confirmation on that until after Saturday!
I like what you said about Prince. I was thinking that Brehaut should have gotten the start because of the potential rust, but if Prince is healthy and he is their guy, then he needs to experience and the chance to shake off that rust before we get to those all-important conference games.
formerly Westwood78
The loss isn't solely on Prince
there was obviously more than enough blame to spread around. I’m not sure how good his decisions were, but his execution was mediocre; and if he is going to decide to keep it so often – or, if the coaches are going to call run plays for him – he absolutely needs to protect the ball rather than going for the extra yard.
The reason people are questioning whether Brehaut should have got time is partly on Prince’s mediocre performance, but partly because of all the sunshine we have been hearing about Brehaut and the receivers lighting it up in practice; and partly also because the receivers may actually be better at anticipating and catching the passes thrown by Brehaut than those thrown by Prince given the respective reps they’ve had over the last few weeks.
Totally agree on the penalties in general; and on the Ayers penalty, if you think he is in bounds, light him up! It’s doubly frustrating to me for some weak contact to be result in a loss of 15 yards. A huge hit that gets called for the player being out of bounds at least sets a tone of aggression for the rest of the defense; shoving someone weakly in that situation just looks petulant to me. I heard him say he thought he was inbounds – if he did believe that, I think he would have (or, should have) hit him a lot harder.
Hard to say if
the receivers would have caught Brehaut’s passes. My simple view is that if a ball hits your hands, you catch it. If it’s in reach of your hands, you catch it.
I don’t want to blame either the receivers or Prince — that’s why I think it’s was a team loss.
Actually, Marvray caught a bad pass for a touchdown — the had to turn around to get the ball. Most of the drops were on balls that would have been easier to catch.
If we’ve learned one thing, year after year, it’s that lighting it up in practice — against ourselves — is probably not the best indication of how good a team we are.
That said, I think we are a much better team than last year’s — playing a much tougher schedule than last year’s.
We can see the difference in size and speed. Sometimes that speed and aggression worked against us — particularly Ayers on a few plays.
But, I don’t think it will take long for our very inexperienced players to adjust to the difference between practicing against ourselves and playing another team.
I, for one, think we will beat Stanford. And, that’s as far down the line as I will look.
sjh
I disagree re: Prince
His stat line says it all. Yes, the receivers should catch everything that comes their way, but that doesn’t mean the QB can’t make it easier for them. You can’t not blame either the QB or the receivers for a slew of dropped passes. I think in this case, both share the blame, albeit the receivers’ share is a bit bigger.
Of course, when it comes down to it, it was the coaches’ decision to play KP instead of RB. I felt unsettled going into the game that Prince was going to start after getting only 2 good practices in for most of Fall camp. We as fans can really only speculate here, but I’d wager we would have done better with RB playing in game 1. KP can warm up through next week and start for the Stanford game.
The only reasoning I can think of that would be a completely justifiable for not playing RB is if we are planning to redshirt him this year.
have you ever played football
Because you have no idea what your talking about wrt Prince. Everybody wants the backup when the starters aren’t doing well, but RB may have and probably would have done worse . Probably like a deer in headlights. Our coaches gave us the best opportunity to win, we just did not execute !
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
Last season fans were clamoring for Brehaut to replace Prince
… as if he would magically win but he wasn’t magic.
Prince was uneven but not uniformly bad. Our offense kept
showing signs it was going to ‘click’ but it never did. Go back
and look at Prince’s plays – the things he did right as well as
his mistakes.
by KnudsenRockne on Sep 6, 2010 8:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Nice write-up!
I do not agree with parts of points 4, 5-1, 6, and 8. 5 of 9 isn’t bad.
Was posting in a hurry...
4) I personally feel our receivers are being overhyped.
5-1) Prince was to blame for the loss, IMO (and yes…I know he is not fully responsible, but I feel we would have won with Brehaut). I know some of you are saying that we were still in the game…but our inability to move the ball, and capitalize when we had great field position, comes down to Prince. This placed us in the position to play from behind, and settle for field goals, yet again. Prince overthrew, underthrew, and misplaced his passes through most of the game. I personally feel Brehaut would have done better – given his cannon of an arm, people’s own analysis of the off-season, and likely better chemistry with the receivers from more reps. Note I feel Prince should have gotten more rest before practicing, and Brehaut more reps.
6) He had a solid game..but he could still use an even more superpowered leg.
8) I agree Luck is the real deal. I just think that some people are overlooking how good Stanford can still be. That said, hopefully 66 will be right.
what makes you believe we would have won with Brehaut?
I know its not his performance last year.
Secondly there is a reason he’s a backup , he’s not quite ready to take over yet. It’s only one game if we play poorly against Stanford then there will be personnel changes, I promise.
Bruin for life!!!!
You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. - John Wooden
Cannon of an arm
based on what I’ve read from people who have seen both QBs extensively, Prince not only has a stronger arm, but also has better speed and a better grasp of the playbook than Brehaut.
I’m not necessarily saying that Brehaut doesn’t deserve a chance to show what he can do, but at this point I think Prince gives us a better chance for success against Stanford and throughout the season. For this reason (and because he missed Fall camp), I think it was important that Prince get as many reps as possible in the KS game.
by truebluebruin on Sep 7, 2010 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree with point # 5. Anyone who thought this was a sure win game is delusional.
KSU had won 20 straight home openers and had a stud back. They were a game away from going to the Big 12 championship game, had the same regular season record as UCLA, made big strides throughout last season, and have one of the best coaches in the game.
Outside of WSU and ASU, UCLA will likely be underdogs in most of the games on its schedule this season. Anyone who thinks Houston is a sure win is delusional as well. Not saying UCLA won’t win, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t.
Stanford is winnable. Houston, Arizona, OSU, Cal, U$C*, and UW appear to be winnable but would anyone be surprised if UCLA lost any of those games?
Bruins will have their work cut out for them at Texas and at Oregon.
Ah, it must be fall
The leaves are beginning to turn, the air is getting chilly, and 66’s Random Thoughts return. Good stuff.
I thought that, overall, the team speed was a dramatic difference over last year. Not only did the speed show itself in the double reverse and fly patterns, but also on kick coverage. Thigpen’s tackle of the KSU returner on the five was a beautiful thing.
Also, it was good to see the playbook opened up a bit. I think that referring to plays of deception as “trick plays” cheapens them, reduces them to gimmick status. But, as Bob Toledo showed and Chris Petersen shows, plays of deception capitalize on what is probably the biggest advantage the offense has over the defense—the O knows what it’s going to do, and the D doesn’t.
Good stuff, 66. Thanks for your “random” perspectives.
Thanks.
I actually think Chow held some stuff back for conference play. Really can’t wait to see what he does against Stanford.
sjh
Thigpen's tackle...
was sweet!
We still need to make more use of him, as I know he has the ability to be a big time weapon.
Well-Stated, As Usual '66
I strongly agree with points 1 and 5-1 and 5-2…1. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why we so consistently seem caught by surprise and unprepared for play to begin with a bang at the beginning of each half. It happens again and again. 5-1. Logically, our D must share the responsibility for the mistakes made that culminated in this loss—how could anyone lay a loss solely on our QB when they put up 31 points on us? 5-2. KState was absolutely ready for this game, ready to fight for the win, ready for the crowd and for the heat. Coach Snyder is talented, experienced, and he knows his players. The word is that he literally spends every moment he is awake working. There is a reason that stadium is named after him.
Love My Bruins
Totally agree 66 thanks for the writeup
I liked Walker more than you, but I agree, Bullough needs to do something to scheme more creatively to get the D off the field. These long drives are killers
Respectfully disagree on a couple of points
Kansas St was a “should have won” game. Not to take anything away from them, but this was a ballclub that we beat comfortably last year, albeit at home, with Kevin Craft as our QB. They were a .500 ballclub that did not go to a bowl game last year. I feel, talent wise, that we are a better ballclub on both sides of the ball, and I am of the mindset that the more talented team should win, home, neutral or away, unless you are getting outcoached or outprepared.
Stanford is another team we should beat. Remember, this is a team we lost by one possession to on their home field, again, with Kevin Craft as our QB. Their MVP from that game is now playing in the NFL. Our defensive co-captain, Rahim Moore, was knocked out of this game early in the 1st half. This is a program that we are 5-1 against since 2003. We are playing in our home opener, in front of what should be a fired up, Bruin blue-clad crowd, looking to bounce back from a tough road loss. Yes, their QB is good, and they are a solid ball club, but we should still beat them, IMO.
To say that KState and Stanford are could-win games, and not should-win games, is an important distinction. Not only does it keep in perspective of whether or not this program is living up to expections with results on the field, it is an impression of where you feel the state of our program is in relation to those programs and their respective year to year progression. Now I can live with a program progressing from year to year more rapidly than ours. Sometimes good fortune finds you, and that happens. What I have a problem with is REGRESSION, something that I would consider unacceptable during this regime’s rebuilding process. So the question is this: are Kansas St. and Stanford progressing more rapidly, or are we regressing? I know it is too early to answer that question. And again, I do feel that these are should win games, and not could win games, so I think you have my answer to that question.
"I don't forget very much" Rick Neuheisel, 11/28/09
Generally agree, but ...
1) After replaying the game a few times, I gotta say that it looked like Ayers was committed to the motion prior to the KSU guy going out of bounds – and I can’t fault a kid for going full steam even if it means he’s so committed to a course of action that he cannot put on the breaks. Was it a late hit? Yes, but I think he chose to hit the guy and pulled up as much as was reasonably possible under the circumstances.
2) I am a Bullough fan – scheme wise – but somehow (because of Bullough or the whole D staff) our guys keep finding themselves out of position. C’mon guys, this is assignment football – you can’t just keep leaving your teammates hanging out to dry like that. Price tried to jump a route and left Moore (I think) to cover 2 men deep – WTF? Our LB, as a group, kept over-pursuing instead of staying home and letting the play develop before committing to a hole. The good thing is that these are coachable issues – the bad thing is that they haven’t been coached out of existence yet.
3) Yesterday’s dismal showing aside, I truly believe that our O is going to be really good. CNC made all the right calls; KP made all the right reads (except where time became an issue and he tried to force plays); the OL looked like a group (albeit against a bad DL); our RB looked patient and fast; and Josh Smith looked like a playmaker on that reverse. I don’t foresee our WR’s having any more trouble with dropped balls – they know that they were the weakest link in this lost – and they know that they were being counted on to be the strongest for the season.
Is it time to call out the coaches?
I’m just an average fan with a lot of years experience watching Bruin football. I have no coaching experience nor do I think I know how to coach, I’m just offering up an observation and asking questions.
For the last several years we have discussed the talent level that the current coaching regime inherited, i.e. as we say in Yiddish, Bupkis! Now we have improved our roster with star rated talent and even a QB recruit that walks on water.
From my observations and that of others, we haven’t yet improved that much as a team. I did see an improved OL, from my seats in Bill Snyder Statdium, as well as an improved running game but not enough improvement combined with some regression and a L in the record book.
When does it become time to call out our coaching staff? When do we hold the D-Coordinator accountable for us spotting the opposition a TD or two before we decide to play defense? When do we hold the receive coach accountable for the poor play of our pass catchers? When do we start seeing QB play that befits a Heisman guru?
I throw these topics out because they warrant discussion not because I am a fair weather fan but because I go back to the days we played the single wing and I think I’ve seen a lot of what we call Bruin football and this, my friends isn’t Bruin football.
When do we hold coaches accountable?
Maybe two days ago?
However, if your definition of “calling out” is being hysterically reactionary like we saw in the hours following the game, and using nebulous and indefinable terms like “Bruin football” to beat around the bush and disguise demands for wins without delving into any logical analysis of the actual details of the game, then the answer is never.
"Bruin football" is totally concrete and definable
it refers to football played by the Bruins.
However, under this definition, it is impossible to ever say that a Bruin football team engaged in the act of playing football (as opposed to, say, an intrasquad tiddlywinks scrimmage) is not playing Bruin football.
But if it is being used in some other metaphorical way… well, who knows what it could mean? Maybe conversion to the pistol formation is part of an overall progression that will eventually lead us to the single wing that is the true essence of Bruin football? Or if it is about winning all the time, does this mean the true essence of Cal football, Oregon football and the like is being worse than they are currently? Are the Oregon alumni on the message boards saying “I’m not sure about these trips to the Rose Bowl… that’s just not Duck football…”
Here's the breakdown as I see it
UCLA win = Bruins played “Bruin football”
UCLA loss = Bruins didn’t play “Bruin football”
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.
