Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Eden Hazard In London For Medical, According To Reports

The "Eye Test": Bruins GPA After Unleashing "Puke Bucket" Against Texas

Rick Neuheisel's favoritism of seniors/experience over trusting and developing young talent is costing UCLA.  (Photo by Harry How/Getty Images)

Hmm. Not sure how long I am going to keep doing this if we continue to see the kind of performance we have been subjected to for three straight Saturdays. When we devised this "eye test" during off-season we thought it would be a decent standard by which we could judge with our eyes what we are witnessing on the field. I had no idea the numbers were going to be so obvious in the wrong direction after the first quarter of 2011 season.

I don't have much to add except to agree with every points raised in gbruin and freesia's post game reflections. However, for the sake of due diligence I will try to go through this "eye test" analysis for the Longhorns game so that we have at least a reference point - number wise -  to discuss the first quarter of 2011 UCLA football season. Let's get to them after the jump.

Star-divide

1) Is our defense prepared for each and every team we play?

There is really not a lot of analysis needed to answer this question. Our defense came out and stopped the Longhorns in their first possession. Honestly though if Coach Mack Brown had decided to go for it on 4th and 1 from Texas's own 27 yard line, I doubt our defense would have stopped them.

The whole game was essentially watching that clown riding a vespa through a carwash. The defense looked slow and lethargic all game. Collectively it played without any life or any sense of purpose. There were couple of moments that generated some semblance of hope. After the Bruins scored a touchdown to bring the score to 7-21, Joe Tresey finally woke up at the Rose Bowl and decided to bring some heat on 3rd and 7 via Jordan Zumwalt. Guess what? Chase McCoy's pass was rushed and incomplete. Then, Dietrich Riley dished out a huge hit in the second half causing a fumble. Other than that the defense was another joke.

In fact it looked like the guys had essentially given up. At one point Texas had converted 9 of their 11 3rd down conversions [9 for 15 overall]. Texas with a brand new QB platoon featuring a freaking freshman, put together a perfect passing performance, as the tandem complete 16 of 20 passing attempts for 204 total yards and 3 TDs. It was humiliating.

Our starting LB unit continues to look like a joke. We appreciate the effort from Sean Westgate but he does not look a LB, who should be playing in a BCS conference. Justin Edison, Damien Holmes and Nate Chandler continued to get abused in the trenches. Datone Jones looks slow, making all the reporters hyping him during the pre-season practices look downright silly. Cassius Marsh and Luta Tepa have shown some signs of life but not all that much.

I will get to our secondary in other sections of this eye-test. Overall this unit looks as poorly coached a unit I have ever seen at UCLA. They are soft. They cannot tackle and worse at times they look like they don't really want to tackle.

I should also mention a note about scheming. I think it was pretty revealing watching the Texas defense. Manny Diaz dialed up the pressure almost every time the Bruins were in 2nd and long or 3rd and long situations. He brought in his LBers. He brought in his DBs (IIRC). The Longhorn D befuddled our QBs by bringing heat, while our DC was dropping back our DBs, without making much of an effort to rattle the young QBs from Texas.

The grade for this category for this game is an F:0.0. In case you were wondering, the grade for last week was an F in this category as well.

2) Do we call offensive plays to catch our opponents off guard?

This is another easy question to answer. I think the first series gave us a good clue when on second and short, when the entire playbook (whatever that is) was available, the UCLA coaches called for a short out pass resulting in a pick. Since then the Bruins kept making Manny Diaz's day pretty easy by calling staying true to Terry Donahue school of run, run, pass nonsense. We saw that approach right after Jackson Shipley gifted us with a fumble on punt return. Instead of going for the throat, the UCLA played for FG position by ramming the running backs up the middle on first and second down, before Prince decided to complete his pass to a Longhorn on third.

There is no imagination in this pistol based offense. The plays are so slow developing that anyone can figure out what is coming. It was absurd to watch the coaching staff dialing up  what looked to be an obvious option to Anthony Barr to end Q3 when we were down by 2 scores. It was surreal to hear Bob Davies discussing during broadcast about how the Bruins needed to add  some "speed" at wide receivers, when any well informed Bruin fan knew who Neuheisel and his staff were wasting away at the sidelines.

Richard Brehaut threw a nice wheel route to Jordon James resulting in a 40 yard completion. James was never to be heard from again. It is becoming obvious that Derrick Coleman should be the go to guy around the red zone, yet coaches kept slamming Johnathan Franklin up the middle.

When the Bruins were down by more than 2 scores in late in Q3, there was zero sense of urgency in the offense which was still operating with a run-oriented zone-read template. What is amusing is somehow the coaches do not trust Richard Brehaut to air it out, even though he has been more efficient (relatively speaking) than Kevin Prince this season.

Speaking of coaches, players don't seem to have a clue (from what we see with our own eyes) on who is calling the play. We heard Mike Johnson talk about the "turbo" package during the pre-season practices and yet we have to see UCLA offense calling TOs in obvious no-huddle situation to figure out WTF it is doing. The grade for this category is another F:00, lower than C- from last week.

3) Do our players look like they know what they should be doing at all times?

Answering this question is not very difficult either. The answer is a resounding "NO." gbruin already zeroed in on the clownery that we had to witness with a 3rd and short with 8 and half minutes to go in Q1.  That sequence capsuled Rick Neuheisel's on field performance as the head coach of the UCLA football program.  I guess it just amusing at this point to see Prince looking completely confused and looking for play-call from the sideline, while looking to run a "turbo" package on 3rd and short. I say amusing because I am past the point of being upset.

Meanwhile, let's talk about defense. So the players had some kind of "players only" meeting last week. Not sure what exactly they discussed because the result was worse. Sheldon Prince, one of the biggest talker in this team (who was talking about creating a "Price Island" after finally getting a pick against freaking San Jose State) cost the team with idiotic personal foul call in the second half. It was not just him, the defense kept costing us off-side penalties all game.

I should also the note about Sheldon's botched attempt at a pick in second half which turned into a huge completion. A well coached defensive back would have attempted to bat that pick down. Yet Price showed zero situational awareness, something shared by this entire freaking team.

The secondary looked dazed and confused. Sometimes they just look to be free lancing. Aaron Hester was exposed in the second series, when he left his zone and jumped up, leaving Texas receiver wide open in the back field. The grade for this section is also another F:00. This is a regression from last week's D rating.

4) Do our players play for 60 G-D minutes every game?

Another obvious answer. NO. This team essentially gave up in second half. Players seem to have given up on the coaching regime. Even ABC's sideline reporter Samantha Steele commented that players were despondent after Rick Neuheisel's time out huddle in the second half to rally the team. There is also this nugget from Ramona Shelburne at ESPNLA:

Three Bruins had a shot at McCoy, none of them brought him down. Three more Bruins had a chance to get in Davis' way before McCoy found him for a 25-yard game on a third-and-18 play. None of them even bothered. Texas scored on the next play to go up 28-7.

Why did they all miss? That's the question Neuheisel and everyone who cares about UCLA must answer as soon as possible.

Time is running out to answer this question, if it hasn't already. Anyway, the grade for this category is also an F:00.

5) Do our players execute?

Well, I mentioned above about Hester looking completely confused on 3rd and long in second series. The play call was fine and we got McCoy out of the pocket. They were fucked if Hester didn't ignore his responsibility and jump up, doing whatever the hell he wanted. I mentioned about Price's pathetic attempt to intercept the ball when he should have batted it down. I mentioned about all the drive killing or drive sustaining penalties. I guess I haven't mentioned the penalty that nullified Josh Smith's huge kick-off return. So there is that.

There is couple of positive points here though. I did appreciate how Derrick Coleman keeps his motor running when he gets near the end zone. I appreciated the performance of Jeff Locke who knocked in two long FGs, doing double duty at the Rose Bowl. Although, that leads to the side question of why Neuheisel didn't have Lock kicking against the Cougars in the first game (could have resulted in a tie game at the end of regulation).

I suppose I should specifically mention Kevin Prince's three interceptions in this category. It gives me the opportunity to amplify the questions about Neuheisel's brain cramp of putting Prince back in even after he had thrown 2 picks. I mean I didn't really care much for starting Brehaut after his performance against San Jose State but at the same time it was pretty clear after Prince's first throw that his shoulder wasn't the same. So that leads the question what the heck were Neuheisel and his staff doing all week when they were evaluating Prince during practice?

Anyway, except for those two smattering positive data points, there isn't anything else of note in this category.  The players failed to execute on the field but the responsibility right now is on Rick and his coaching staff since it has become a pattern for three straight weeks. I'd give an F:00 for this section but because of Coleman and Locke, I will give this category a D+:1.3.

6) Do we have leaders on the field?

I will start with some note notes on Kevin Price. I appreciate the fact that this kid has shown courage over his career at UCLA. He has sacrificed his body in effort to win games. However, Prince's starting career should be done at UCLA. At this point he shouldn't be more than a backup. What I didn't appreciate yesterday though was Prince's body language. He sulked in the sidelines after being benched. It reminded me of Ben Olson's body language when Patrick Cowan used to QB the team. Hugely disappointing in terms of leadership and it is telling as he has been given so many opportunities by UCLA coaches in last three years.

Perhaps there is no leadership in this team because the coaches have failed to insert and develop talent and put them in position to succeed. Once again it was revealing to see Texas dazzle at the Rose Bowl with its freshman and sophomores, while UCLA skill players stuck behind the likes of Nelson Rosario were nowhere to be found. It is hard for players to develop leadership skills when everyone know that more talented players haven't gotten their shots for whatever reasons based on performance at practice. If practice results mattered, we'd seen guys like Devin Lucien get a shot. Lucien by all accounts blew up during pre-season practices and yet we haven't seen him at all in our first three games.

There is no leadership from the coaching staff. Tresey is a massive fail. Confusion is paramount on the offensive side as it is unclear who is primarily in charge of playcalling. The category for this section is an F:0.0.

Final Grade Card for Texas Longhorns

Based on the discussion here is how it shapes up:

1) Is our defense prepared for each and every team we play? [F: 0.0]
2) Do we call offensive plays to catch our opponents off guard? [F: 0.0]
3) Do our players look like they know what they should be doing at all times? [F: 0.0]
4) Do our players play for 60 G-D minutes every game? [F: 0.0]
5) Do our players execute? [D+: 1.3]
6) Do we have leaders on the field? [F: 0.0]

Texas GPA: 0.22

The grade card for Houston was 2.05. The grade card for San Jose State was 0.67. So the cumulative GPA after 3 games according to our "Eye Test" is now at 0.98.

Bruins are heading the opposite direction and going down the toilet FAST with one quarter into the 2011 football season.  Not sure how I can keep myself subjecting to this nonsense if we see same garbage again next Saturday against Oregon State.

Last week, I wrote  that I was especially going to be interested in how these numbers look after the first 3 games in the Pac-12, 2 of which are now must win games for Neuheisel (v. Oregon State and Washington State). Not sure if there will be anything to left to find out if we see another putrid performance against Oregon State.

I don't have much "passion" left to analyze what is going on the field. My bucket at this point is mostly filled with puke.

GO BRUINS.

Comment 92 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

only thing I disagree with

wrt Sheldon Price:

A well coached defensive back would have attempted to bat that pick down.

I think any DB would’ve gone for the pick, the ball landed in his lap pretty much. He made a great play adjusting to the underthrow and just botched the catch. Simple as that. It was poor execution but I doubt anyone would’ve just tried to knock it down. Nor should they. Price just didn’t make the play

by bucknellbruin on Sep 19, 2011 5:48 AM PDT reply actions  

Agree – at least he was out there playing.

by DaChiBruin on Sep 19, 2011 6:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Footballs bounce funny

You could reenact that play a hundred times and maybe the ball bounces to the WR once. I’m fine with Price trying to catch it, and agree that the execution was the problem. But right now, whatever can go wrong is going worse than wrong.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Sep 19, 2011 6:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm just wondering, WRs and DBs are wearing gloves

 and how effective are they, really? Seems to me you lose some sense of touch when you have gloves on. Has anybody done a study to find out, other than protecting hands in cold weather, if gloves really helps players hold on to the footballs better than bare hands?

by bruinhawk on Sep 19, 2011 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't know about actual scientific studies

But have you ever tried catching a ball with one of those things? The ball sticks to them like glue. You’d be amazed at how much of a difference it makes.
Not to say that just because everyone does something makes it the right thing to do, but I think at the point that pros who would assumedly know what they’re doing wear them validates their effectiveness.

by kevdude on Sep 19, 2011 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

I just thought the gloves were a gimmick idea the manufacturers sold as a means of making more money

off sports teams. That also explains why I see recievers making more spectacular one handed acrobatic catches I suppose.

by bruinhawk on Sep 19, 2011 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

On a hot day

with sweaty hands, those things are money.

On a cold day, the ball hurts like hell. The gloves serve a double purpose.

On a wet day, same as sweaty hands.

The gloves ain’t the problem!

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 19, 2011 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

Gloves

.. WR do not need gloves to catch the ball except when it is wet (rain). Ucla started to score againts Houston when they open up the offense…but with tall “stick” uncoordinated WR like Rosario it is a gamble…. to throw the ball to him..

by velo route on Sep 19, 2011 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Gloves are like bikes, raquets, skis, etc...

They do make you better, but the person using them is still the most important factor. Cancellara on a tricycle beats me on my Madone. Nadal with a ping pong paddle beats me with a Wilson (K)Factor (K)Six One. Lindsey Vonn in sandals beats me on my Atomics.

Well, maybe not. I’m pretty good on skis. But she’s better looking. Anyway, you know what I mean. It’s not the gloves. It’s the hands inside them.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Sep 19, 2011 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

it's been a long time, still . . .

. . .IIRC, anything below a 2.0 in a quarter resulted in “Academic Probation” and anything below a 1.0 put one on “Subject To Dismissal” status?

The Mad Bruin

by lostnacfgop on Sep 19, 2011 6:16 AM PDT reply actions  

The problem with this rating system

is that when we win, grades are going to be unjustly high, and when we loose, unfairly low. I agree regarding our linebackers, and much of the analysis but I think the 21 pts. we spotted them should be discounted due to the fact that they fall in KP specifically (CRN too, but Brehaut had 0 INT, indicating it’s more KP). 20 points on Texas isn’t ridiculous, and I even remember the announcers talking about how ‘UCLA is going to have a good offense this year…’ etc…even in the 4th quarter.

So, I think the offense should be given like a C- or D+. Defense too. They caused two TO’s, and if not for Sheldon Price’s certain INT but tipped to Texas at the 5, then maybe a third.

Execution should be at about C- or D+.

And what about leaders on the field? I think it’s clear that Brehaut is starting to take charge of this team. They believe in him a bit, I think. Sheldon Price (despite his mistake) is really turning into a great cornerback. It also seemed to me that they didn’t quit in this game…but that’s just me. Overall, I think this should be about a D+ average…but that’s me.

by selby4000 on Sep 19, 2011 6:32 AM PDT reply actions  

If you disagree with the grades that is fine

However, don’t whine about the “rating system” after we had extensive discussions on it during most of off-season.

by Nestor on Sep 19, 2011 6:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

I, too, disagree with the grades.

I address this comment to Nestor, aka Senora Ross.

I don’t think the performances of two players warrant a D+ in the “Do our players execute” category. Good work by two out of about 400 players isn’t worthy of that high a grade. If you want to give something other than an F, I think it should be at most a D-.

And to selby4000, you have a nice hypothetical. Would the grades be higher if we win? Probably so. If we were to apply this grading system to the Oklahoma Sooners, I would say that the grades would probably be higher.

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2011 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Small problem with selby4000's hypothesis...

…that wins translate into higher grades: the Houston loss got higher grades than the SJSU win.

by Bellerophon on Sep 19, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

Funny...

Just like my 3rd grade daughter getting her weekly progress reports to help keep parents in touch with how their child is doing, the grading system is working wonders. So she has areas like work ethic, paying attention, completing assignments, etc. Lol, not much different than the big kids on the field.

Perfect example is SJST last week, even though we won, the score was horrible. System is working great, keep it up. Although if the average GPA is below 2.0 after the next couple games, the final result is fairly obvious.

by Bruin'96 on Sep 19, 2011 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Since the point of the game is to win

Of course the final score will bias the grades.

But read the categories closely. This isn’t a grade for the defensive performance on the whole. It is a grade for: “Is our defense prepared for each and every team we play?”

On a well-coached team, the defense is prepared close to 100%. That does not mean it always executes. It just means it is prepared. And when we don’t tackle well, take bad angles, not cover the proper zones, don’t pressure a QB making his first start, etc, etc, then the grade has to be low.

We wanted these categories to allow for evaluations while tolerating differences in execution or talent. We wanted to see if this team was ready to play football and play to its potential. I don’t think anyone can believe we are anywhere close to that.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Sep 19, 2011 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

The point of the Eye Test

is exactly to avoid unjustly high grades for wins. In short, we were not interested in any Dorrellian wins that look good in the victory column but hide the truth. We weren’t calling for Dorrell to be canned because he didn’t win enough, we wanted him gone because there was an underlying disaster that was masked by the wins.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 19, 2011 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

This team is drifting past the Eye test...right to the Smell test...

This Leadership score situation has me bothered. I think it’s actually worse than an "F"

In the "a%# – kicking in the Arroyo" against Texas it was just so obvious that the team has no leaders (or if they do they’ve quit on the team and the coaches already) and that, from a similar issue, that there isn’t any accountability for performance on this team. Play bad…hey no big deal…"I’ll try harder next time…" and foolishly there continues to be a next time and a next time and a next time…Jeez Rick!

Four years ago the coaching staff had to play the guys they had instead of the guys they wanted to have. Now, after four decent years of recruiting why the heck are we still playing guys like the cupboard is still bare? There is no acceptable explanation for it Rick.

Someone the other day coined the phrase that we’re the Illinois of the Pac-12….nah, were not that good. We’re the NYK (the New York Knights…with apologies to them)

by GemCityBruin on Sep 19, 2011 7:52 AM PDT reply actions  

Not Illinois

Indiana. Illinois has some history of success in football and isn’t exactly the doormat of the conference (not far though).

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 19, 2011 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Thank You!

I needed that laugh. This is so depressing…

by Nigel on Sep 19, 2011 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

Ha ha

That came to mind as the grades were read.

It sucks to think of U.C.LA. Football as fat, drunk, and stupid.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Sep 19, 2011 8:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

This begs the question . . .

1. Rick, does size matter?


2. Rick, how close are you to getting fired . . . again?


by charnaw on Sep 19, 2011 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

Sigh...

I wish we had this Rick coaching our team. He’s a shell of himself.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 19, 2011 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

It's like drinking coffee to sober up

All you’ll end up being is a wide awake drunk.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 19, 2011 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions  

What would Tommy have done in baseball?

No leadership from the HC=no leadership on the field. Would pep talk Tommy have left a pitcher in after he had just given up 2 home runs? TX played freshmen because they were the best players. RN plays the ones who have been there longer. Would Tommy play a veteran if a rookie was better? Who the QB each week is a living in fantasyland. Who the coach will be is to the point. Maybe he will carve out just enough W to stay. More TD stuff. Is that what we want? 6 W and a jr. bowl? Not enough for me to keep following this circus.

by 1970 on Sep 19, 2011 8:12 AM PDT reply actions  

Would pep talk Tommy have left a pitcher in after he had just given up 2 home runs?

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the situation. One thing I think I recall about Tommy was, seemed to me, that he often had a tendency to leave his starting pitchers in too long at times, not wanting to give up on them. If those homers led to the other team gaining a substancial lead off of them, probably.

If Tommy’s spirit was in CRN on Saturday, Prince wouldn’t have made it to the third offensive series. I have to say too, Prince, when he’s pulled off the field, isn’t much of a sideline cheerleader and supporter for his team that he should be, that I’ve seen.

by bruinhawk on Sep 19, 2011 8:50 AM PDT reply actions  

I assume you guys are talking about Tommy Lasorda?

I didn’t ‘get’ it. Bringing him in to talk to the players that is.

First of all, did they even know who he was? Sure you can announce him by saying, here is the man that led the Dodgers to the World Series . . . but it’s not the same as having watched the World Series run. It’s just some old Fogie talking about past glories.

Second; I’ve heard Tommy speak. I don’t see why people consider him a motivational speaker. I was underwhelmed by the speech I heard. Maybe it’s a small sample size, but I only ever heard Coach speak once, and he was a master motivator.

I thought bringing Tommy in was a gimmick more than anything, and like most things The Rick has done lately, Too Little Tool Late.

The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Sep 19, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

They have a great speaker

CTSS is a wonderful speaker. We’ve heard him many times wth motivational speeches (not the drivel following games) and he’s great. What we need is coaches who can coach as well as he speakes, and players who play as well and as hard as he speaks.

I love Tommy, but I always felt his was truly full of crap. Except when he described Curt Bevaqua. (Go to the Healy tribute site.) It’s “Bleeping Bevaqua coont hit bleeping water if he fell out of a bleeping boat.” That was good.

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2011 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

Tommy, what's your opinion of Texas' performance?

the Dave Kingman rant (LANGUAGE WARNING). And background of the interview.

Not sure how many people on here ever heard Jim Healy’s show, Fox 71. My dad and I would listen to it every afternoon. Was always entertaining…especially since Healy was a UCLA grad and referred to U$C as “the brain surgeons.”

by Westwood Wizard on Sep 19, 2011 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's really worth a listen, Bruin Brothers and Sisters

The sound effects (about a thousand one or two second sound bites) were perfect. For example, if Jim were still with us, he would take Doughnut Dan Guerrerror’s stupd statement about expansion, mention, and then play a couple of buys (I think Wally Joyner and teammate) saying “Wow, what a nerd.” Or he would say, “Charles Barkley, what do you think of the Bruins performance.” “Bad team, man, bad (bleep) team.” And it would go on and on.

There still should be some site for him somewhere.

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2011 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Any chance that we'll see Hundley in action by the end of the year?

I know we’ve thrown this idea around earlier in the year, but given the state of our last game, I think this is becoming a more likely possibility.
Let’s say that both Prince and Brehaut aren’t performing. Knowing that he’s on the hot seat and probably won’t be around next year anyway, Rick has nothing to lose in playing Hundley. If Hundley performs well, Rick can hang his hat on recruiting Brett and it would also validate the pistol offense with a true pistol QB.
Even if we aren’t outright winning games, if Hundley can show flashes of that potential that he has, it will cast doubt in people’s mind over whether to can Rick or not when we have this glimmer of hope on the horizon. Not to say that it would change everybody’s mind, but it definitely would be something that’s brought up in the discussion. I know there are those who have already decided Rick should go regardless of what happens the rest of this season, but for all of those closer to the middle (and particularly the higher ups who make the decisions), I think it could be a factor.
And if Hundley doesn’t perform, well, he’s only a freshman what did you expect? And Rick is shown the door as scheduled.

by kevdude on Sep 19, 2011 9:22 AM PDT reply actions  

He's going to use him

and burn Hundley’s RS. Wish it wasn’t true but CRN is desperate at this point. The sad part is, the offense (under brehaut) hasn’t been a problem. It’s getting the D to make stop and get of the field. Unless Hundley can play DT or LB it’s not going to make a difference.

by King J77 on Sep 19, 2011 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

No point in playing Hundley

if you don’t play the other youngsters too.

Embree + Rosario = Dragovic – arrests

Play the youngsters Rick. Can they really fuck up any more than these guys?

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 19, 2011 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

Good point. Pull all the unproductive players

put the freshmen and sophmores in who actually want to make plays. Maybe they’re smart enough to actually learn from their mistakes and improve with time and experience. And with better coaching.

by bruinhawk on Sep 19, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

The things is

if you’re going to play the young guys, you have to be agressive as hell. It’s the only way to limit the impact of mistakes that will be made, IMO.

Asking guys who are not up to speed on technique or playbook to think too much combined with conservative play calling will be a recipe for more disaster.

Get the young guys in and let them play agressive.

by King J77 on Sep 19, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

How complicated is "Everyone block except the two wide receivers - you guys go long."

That play doesn’t take 20 minutes to signal in.

Or how about giving everyone an arm band with the plays numbered, and then hold up a big sign that says 1 or 2 or 3. Or if you’re going for confusion, have two or three guys hold up signs, but the players all have to agree on which sign counts.

Or maybe this – We practice 2 or 3 or 4 plays in practice this week. That’s it. And then we run those plays out of a no huddle. We play fast.

Hey, those are all new things to try. So I guess they won’t happen.

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sometimes I feel like that's what we're doing

In regards to having only 2,3,or 4 plays and running it all game. Except we take our time running them in.

by kevdude on Sep 19, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

yup

and we take forever and a day to execute the play once the ball is snapped.

by King J77 on Sep 19, 2011 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

We're already

running one play 70% of the time…the option read out of the pistol. lol

I’m with you Fox, there is something wrong with the coaching when we can’t get simple things like “11 players at a time”. Other programs simplify playbooks, get innovative methods of calling a play in….even call the pre-snap changes from the sideline.

by King J77 on Sep 19, 2011 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

We should let the quarterback draw up a play himself once every 4 downs

Kind of like in IM sports. “Nelson, line up on the right side run 10 yards up and turn around, Joe, slant left. . . .”
I’m only half kidding.

by kevdude on Sep 19, 2011 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Only I hope it starts with

“Nelson, go take a seat on the bench and tell Carroll and Evans to get in”

by King J77 on Sep 20, 2011 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

Which reminds me

why don’t we have multiple WR sets? Or do we?

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 20, 2011 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

I want to see what Jerry Rice Jr. can do.

At least once. And, I don’t mean one play. One game with meaningful touches.

The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Sep 19, 2011 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

Eye Test - Valid

Does it really make a difference if the eye test grades higher on wins and lower on losses? I thought we’re looking for improvement as the season progresses? At the end of the season we should be looking at an offense capable of attacking on both the ground & air … averaging +30pts/gm. The defense should be discipled, fast(Westgate?)hard hitting(Price?) and good tacklers in the open field(Westgate & Price?) … giving opposing QBs nightmares. Special teams should have the ability to help determing the outcome of at least 2 game via turnovers, returns or a winning field goal. Everyone knows what a good team looks like, the challenge is finding someone that can actually build it.
 
CRN is one of my favorite Bruins but a terrible HC. Looks at his records at CU & UW, in general his teams did worse under his leadership. I think he’s a great spokesperson for UCLA … keep him off the field coaching our football team.

My hope is DG is taking the time to evaluate CRN’s ability to lead the UCLA Football program to the next level. DG should be considering candidates that have actually built a football program, no more guys from the Donohue tree. Let’s consider somebody on the rise(we missed on Brady Hoke) that we can keep for 5-10-15yrs, that will appreciate the opportunity UCLA has provided to him and staff. I’m willing to give DG one more shot cause I think he got it right with CBH, Savage, Caldwell and others.

by dabruins on Sep 19, 2011 10:09 AM PDT reply actions  

For the record

There should have been a flag for PI on that ball to Embree in the picture.

But seriously our defense looks terrible. End of story, no excuses. We don’t tackle, don’t play disciplined, and don’t play fast, which is all Tresey was talking about all offseason. Yes we have low grades on the report card but football is a game of three phases and we fared pretty well in two of the three. Special Teams was definitely the highlight of the game as we may have found our kicker in Locke. And to be fair our offense was playing from behind as a product of our own offense, but there were essentially two different games from Prince to Brehaut. Once Brehaut came in we moved the ball well and put up 20 points while having to play in a way our offense isn’t designed to be run. We are run the ball, clock management offense, but when your down 21 you can’t play that way. From Brehaut we ran the ball effectively and should have gotten Coleman more carries. He also threw the ball fairly well when you take into account that 5 or 6 of those balls came at the end of the game when we need to just sling the ball around and hope we could pick up chunks of yards. So yes, I think we played terribly on defense and it was pretty atrocious in that respect, I thought our offense did some nice things as well as our special teams

by Passionbucket on Sep 19, 2011 10:14 AM PDT reply actions  

It Is What It Is...

And it’s bad. Really bad.

Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!

by Minnesota Bruinfan on Sep 19, 2011 10:46 AM PDT reply actions  

Can we strike that phrase

from the Human lexicon?

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 19, 2011 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions  

It reminds me of Todd Bertuzzi, a disgrace of a human being

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Sep 19, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

I blame LeBron

for its widespread usage. I’m sure he wasn’t the first to say it, but it’s his fault.

by Chris09 on Sep 19, 2011 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

I heard it first from Carl Icahn, but he phrased it "What is, is."

Here’s your tossup for $10.00 – what is more aggravating: “Don’t go there” or “It is what it is?”

Everything pales in comparison to the word which I would make a capital punishment offense: “Like.”

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

"Like" is no where near as bad

because “It is what is is” has become the new default way of answering questions without saying anything. It’s an interview saftey valve that no one ever gets called out for using. “Like” is just dumb filler noise like “uhhh”.

by Chris09 on Sep 19, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I must admit I was mystified by this collective response to...

the phrase under disscussion. It doesn’t bother me all THAT much…but Chris your explanation clears it up for me.

Now “Don’t go there” UUGGGHHH!!! I’m right with ya 71

by GogetemBruins on Sep 20, 2011 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

I blame Lebron for everything

If he didn’t leave Cleveland, then the Mavs might not have played as well against the Lakers, who might have won the championship, which being in LA meant our players would have. . .actually I don’t know where I’m going with this. But I still do get a kick out of Lebron jokes.

by kevdude on Sep 19, 2011 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not Lebron's fault

it’s his damn hair line!!! He might be in Miami but his hair line is somewhere near Kansas.

by King J77 on Sep 19, 2011 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

Sorry for repeating myself and a post from earlier, but this speaks to the lack of coaching acumen and current problems -

if you’re staring one quarterback over the other because of his supposed superiority running the ball – and he then proceeds to run laterally out of bounds at every opportunity, avoiding contact instead of turning it upfield as Prince was doing – why in the world is he starting? is it just me, or is that a total contradiction? As I wrote earlier, it almost seemed as if the coaches had instructed him to run out of bounds and avoid the hit – again begging the question, if he’s in there because he can run, but you’ve instructed him to …. not run… why the hell is he in there?

I like Rick and am so bummed it has turned out this way, but things like the above speak to a lack of thoughtfulness or strategic acumen. Rick is supposed to be a QB guru and yet he he seems to have mishandled our QBs as much or more than any other position on the field. So, so frustrating.

I think he’s gone end of year. Not celebrating that, it’s a shame for him, and for all of us who care so much about UCLA football. And the real shame, as others here have written, is that at this point few us believe the current administration has the conviction or ability to replace him with someone meaningful.

Wow, I’m bummed. Some here can mock Donahue all they like, I get that, but the fact remains that when I was in school in the early 80s the Bruins won games and went to major bowls. That’s the Bruin experience I grew up enjoying. This version is unbearable. I will still renew my season tix and make a healthy donation, but Guerrero will hear some things from this donor in this year’s sit down that he has never heard from me before…

by mwright84 on Sep 19, 2011 10:46 AM PDT reply actions  

We talk about the failed culture around this football team

It had to begin somewhere.

I’ve been thinking about Donohue a lot, too, because I came to Westwood in ‘86, right after our 3rd Rose Bowl win in 4 years, and I thought that’s how U.C.L.A. Football was always going to be. But I think you can easily argue that we have never been that good since and have consistently underachieved from that point on. Consider Troy Aikman’s teams which were absolutely loaded with NFL talent, one was ranked #1 mid season in ’88 but then lost at home to Wazzu, never beat *$c, finished highly ranked (#11 and #6) after winning the Cotton Bowl when it was one of the big 4 bowls.

Since then, we have won 5 bowl games in 22 years: 2 Sun Bowls, a Cotton Bowl (Cade), a Las Vegas Bowl, and an Eagle Bank Bowl. Not a real distinguished list The decline began in the late 80’s. Was there something during Donohue’s tenure around that time that got the fan base content and relaxed, and allowed the beginnings of mediocrity and apathy to set in? I wish I knew the origins of this, because then we could have a target to address and fix.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Sep 19, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Homer Smith

After Homer Smith went to Army, we were not the same. He was a terrific OC and he really helped Donahue. GO BRUINS!

by Forever a Bruin on Sep 19, 2011 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

But we had Toledo and the 20 game winning streak. Was that all Cade?

I heard some stat about no QB or offensive lineman from UCLA being drafted into the NFL in some horribly log time. We’re either not getting good guys on offense or we’re not coaching them well.

OK, this is going to be it for a while. I’m burned out.

by Fox 71 on Sep 19, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Cade and the offense were great.

Our defense during that run got progressively worse, to the point where it cost us in Miami and it cost us in that Rose Bowl and it cost us a national championship. It got overlooked because Cade and Hicks and co. were lights out. We haven’t been a complete team in a long long time.

Well, a completely good team, in a long long time.

greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com

by gbruin on Sep 19, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Was waiting for somebody to say that

That team was great on offense but the defense was nil, and I’m specifically remembering that year we lost to Miami, and the national championship along with it.

by ucla717274 on Sep 19, 2011 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Is the "Eye Test" really necessary?

I’m sorry don’t mean to dis the “eye test”, but do we really need to show that UCLA gets a failing grade on all fronts? I really do think the “eye test” is a good idea, if our team was actually competitive. This whole thing just comes down on CRN and also Dan Guerrero not getting the job done. UCLA looks confused and lost out on the football field and I’m sick and tired of watching all that talent on the field being wasted.

As a Bruins Nation follower we should be having a “hit Rick with the walking stick” campaign just like the “Veto Seto” campaign.

by Trojanswearskirts on Sep 19, 2011 10:58 AM PDT reply actions  

Yes, this Eye Test is necessary

And I, for one, appreciate the frontpager’s daily work on producing content. How else is the ineptitude displayed on the field going to be revealed if not through the work of interested parties. If a fairly objective review wasn’t needed, we’d all settle for the team’s and coaches POV from last week IRT the epic win over SJSU.

by impaulv on Sep 19, 2011 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

The point of the eye test

was to encourage people to maintain a healthy perspective in case we were losing games but losing them the right way because there was obvious improvement on the field (hasn’t happened), and also in case we were winning games the wrong way (i.e. SJSU).

I personally don’t believe in firing coaches mid-season unless a plan is in place. The reason we were so vocal in Dorrell’s case was because he was winning enough games to where there was serious dissent amongst Bruins as to whether he should stay or not, right there at .500. In CRN’s case I don’t think there is such a dissent. It’s more a matter of how it will be done at this point, assuming there is no turnaround. The “we lost a game, fire the coach!” strategy is not our m.o. around here, we will offer thoughtful takes on the whole situation when the right time comes.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 19, 2011 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

In the end I suspect that most of these grades reflect on the coaching staff.

But if we had one for the coaches alone that would be an F, too, especially after 12 men came on the field after a timeout on 3rd and 1. And the play calling on both sides of the ball was, once again, without any imagination or daring. Starting and sticking with KP was unbelievable. What is RN thinking?

Great post (sadly) for a horrendous effort.

by BrendonBruin on Sep 19, 2011 11:30 AM PDT reply actions  

Great review Nestor

1 quick question, I haven’t seen it explicitly mentioned, but the BN editorial position on CRN hasn’t changed to “fire him”, right?

by impaulv on Sep 19, 2011 11:34 AM PDT reply actions  

Sorry..

..that’ll teach me to read the thread before posting. Oh well, at least you’ve got the URL there.

by WHP '68 on Sep 19, 2011 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe we ar not suited for Pistol formation

Since Brehaut is not a good runner and we do have loads of good runners, why not change to Single Wing with 10 guys blocking and one man running. I know I am dreaming.

by NNL on Sep 19, 2011 12:24 PM PDT reply actions  

Has anyone played on a sports team?

Either in high school, or college, or hell even intramurals. From what I remember, it consists of two groups of players: The ones chosen to represent the team and play, and the ones sitting at the side waiting for their chance to play in case something happened. Choosing who gets to play is simple, you do good you stay playing. You do bad, you’re held accountable for your mistakes and taken out either to take a breather, or to give the other guy whose also spending his time sitting there with the team, a chance.

What I saw was a complete disregard to accountability. It said to me that it’s OK, to conduct two grave mistakes on opening drives which essentially wasted everyone’s week-long of practice, and have the chance to do more. That it’s OK, after weeks of practice working “on the little things” to continue and make these “little mistakes” and still stay in the game. That it’s OK, to not play with a sense of urgency because there’s not someone right behind you snapping at your feet.

At this point and time, faith just doesn’t cut it anymore. Having faith in the ability to execute, the ability to clean-things-up, to be better, just isn’t paying out. It’s time for the players and coaches alike to start viewing things OBJECTIVELY. To start being held accountable for their choices, their actions, and their inabilities and seriously look themselves in the mirror and ask: Can I? Because if you can’t, then please let someone else who CAN, do the job that he can do better than you.

by Ganplosive on Sep 19, 2011 12:37 PM PDT reply actions  

Not since junior high, but...
It’s time for the players and coaches alike to start viewing things OBJECTIVELY. To start being held accountable for their choices, their actions, and their inabilities and seriously look themselves in the mirror and ask: Can I? Because if you can’t, then please let someone else who CAN, do the job that he can do better than you.

I’d put pretty good odds that a sizable number of players see things the way you do – they’re the ones who have speed and skill, and they’re the ones watching from the sidelines. I would guess (though it’s just a guess) that some of the players who stay on the field, though by objective comparison don’t deserve to, believe that they are the best at what they do, and only need to try a bit harder, or just got unlucky on this play or that. I’d be surprised if on this or any other team players said ‘you know, I’m just not getting it done…put that guy in instead of me.’

It’s on the coaches, which means it’s on the coach. Period.

Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.

by KSBruin on Sep 19, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

There's no doubt in my mind

that our players have the talent, and the best intentions of wanting this program to excel and rise to another level. But what I’m really concerned with isn’t simple mistakes that just happens Sheldon’s pick for example was not his fault, he had the urgency and the desire to make a play, he went up for it, didn’t wrap his hands around it, and ended up poorly. I don’t blame that kid at all for trying to make a play, a statement and to come out. What I’m more concerned about with our players is too often I see a running back running alone into 5 opponents, while our other guys are WALKING towards the pile. Too often I see our guys putting in 85% only to putter out and not finish a play. Not to beat a dead horse, but after throwing 2 interceptions Prince SHOULD have at least talked to the coach about giving him some time, he’s not feeling himself. No one would blame you for something like that. It’s the mentality that a happens a lot – a player that stays playing despite not being feeling 100%, or because there really is no one on the side itching to get in so they feel like they can’t let their team down.

by Ganplosive on Sep 20, 2011 1:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yes and No

Accountability is important, but you also have to realize that athletes at ANY level will make mistakes. Particularly in a high pressure position such as QB, you can’t take him out after making a mistake or two. A lot of the quarterbacking game is mental, and if as a quarterback you don’t feel the confidence of the coach you’re more prone to making more mental mistakes. As a result, you don’t want to pull a player for messing up if you have reason to believe that those were one of a kind errors. Kobe can miss 4 shots in a row but it doesn’t mean he should be pulled from the game.
With that said, the reason why you leave Kobe in is because you KNOW that Kobe’s going to make that 5th one. As a coach, you have to take into account the player’s body of work and their performance in practice. I think the issue isn’t RN leaving Prince in the game after an INT, but RN starting him when he was obviously rusty and unprepared to play. On a deeper level, I think it’s RN not even being able to name who is freaking starting qb is! It’s being able to assess what players will perform best, and support them to succeed. And we’re doing it wrong.
I know when I played sports, there were certain things our coach would raise a stink about and certain things he would let go. If the QB overthrew the ball to the player he was suppose to throw to, the coach would simply shrug and say nice try don’t worry about it. The player knew it was off and knew what to do next time. If someone on defense left the zone he was suppose to stay in when he’s been explicitly taught in practice to stay put in that formation, my coach would blow up.
My point is that there is an ebb and flow to how you rotate players and it’s not as simple as taking someone out when they’re not playing well. Though I do agree that in terms of effort, every player should feel the bench “snapping at their feet.” Since we’re talking about our past sports memories, I remember in junior high my coach would sometimes substitute one of our best players when he wasn’t putting in enough effort with a clearly inferior player just to make a point. The star player was a Reeves Nelson type of player and now that I think about it there’s actually a lot of similarities, but we’ll save that for a different discussion.

by kevdude on Sep 19, 2011 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed 100%

Mistakes definitely do happen, but I’m more so concerned with the (lack of) intensity, and drive. Everyone knows coming back from a 0-21 hole is very, very difficult, but since the majority of the bruins didn’t leave the game after the 1st quarter, the players need to take it upon themselves to also stay in the game.

What I’m trying to say is that the whole feeling I’m getting from the team is “I’m the best we’ve got. Despite not putting in the full 150%, our coaches and players at the side aren’t going to pull me out anyways. So just at least look like I’m playing hard and we’ll get by”. But that’s ridiculous! we have the talent and the depth, these kids have done the practices throughout the week and they were there against SJSU, and Houston. The guys on the field should be performing, nailing the tackles and catching the balls, while the guys on the bench should be [yelling] put me in coach! I just didn’t see any of that on the entire team, regardless of the scoreboard.

by Ganplosive on Sep 20, 2011 2:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Glad that you mention that

I actually just made a response earlier up this thread that we should let the QB draw up his own play once every 4 downs. I feel like that would be more successful then this pistol we’re trying every play.

by kevdude on Sep 19, 2011 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

Firerickrucla

Remember to like the page and join the campaign. Medicority needs stop at UCLA

by Jeff Gordon on Sep 19, 2011 10:04 PM PDT reply actions  

A warning

Please do not start spamming the threads with your facebook page. You have already put up a post about it, if you have nothing to add to the discussion then don’t just spam with a link.

But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.

by tasser10 on Sep 20, 2011 8:43 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