Neuheisel's Power-Running Fantasy Leading to An Identity Crisis for UCLA
by tasser10 on Sep 26, 2011 10:19 AM PDT
Email
PrintSince the 2011 season started, a lot of us have been struggling to figure out exactly what is this UCLA football team's identity. With the display of multiple personalities (only a few of which actually help you win games), it has been hard to discern.
Instead of guessing, let's just let the man in charge tell us exactly what he's trying to turn his team into. What is Neuheisel's vision for the future of the UCLA program (or at least this team)? Well here it is:
"Our gameplan every week has been to pound it," Neuheisel said. "That's the identity that we've chosen by going to this brand of offense. That doesn't mean we can't be explosive."
That's right folks: Rick Neuheisel wants to turn UCLA into a power running team, and that's why he went to the Pistol. Now, on the surface, that seems reasonable. But personally, I see many issues with this.
More after the jump.
I think those who know football well (which means, not me) will likely tell you that run-blocking is easier than pass-blocking. Fine then, it makes sense, given the issues with our offensive line, to use this type of offense. On the surface, it looks like our run game is powerful, second only to Oregon in the conference. But when broken down, it is not as good as we think.
You can see now why Neuheisel kept trying to put in Kevin Prince. He doesn't want a QB who's a good passer. He wants someone who will make the right reads on that zone-read play that he loves so much, so that we run the ball well.
Here is the thing with a power running game though: it is ultra conservative. It makes the game shorter, which in theory makes sense if you are in a conference with high-powered offenses. But here is the problem: it only works if you have a good defense. And UCLA does not. The good offenses in the Pac-12 will still score on us, we will fall behind as we did against Texas, and Neuheisel will still run the ball up the middle giving us no chance at catching up.
Basically, Neuheisel is telling the fans, and the team, that UCLA is just not good enough to keep up with the rest of the teams in the conference, so we'll just play keep-away. You know who used to play like that? Oregon State, until the mid-90's. The Beavers could not recruit enough talent to Corvallis, so they stuck to the wishbone, or option, or whatever it was, to stay competitive (and I remember some games against UCLA being nail-biters, because Donahue essentially played the same way despite having way more talent).
So there you have it. That's who Neuheisel thinks we are now. And it is pissing me off.
It pisses me off because we DO have a QB who can be a pretty good passer and who could make us dangerous.
It pisses me off because we DO have a good amount of talent, especially at wide receiver. By the way, Rick, did you tell Randall Carroll, Devin Lucien, Shaq Evans, that UCLA would be a power running team when you recruited them? Did you tell them that they would spend 80% of their time on the field blocking for running backs?
It pisses me off because our defense is nowhere near good enough for this strategy to work, at least not yet.
It pisses me off because our coach is a QB specialist and I just don't think he can somehow turn us into a successful power running team. Frankly I think our coach has been abducted and replaced by a clone with unclear intentions
HT Telemachus
And it pisses me off because it looks as though Neuheisel has simply conceded that we're just not good enough to compete in the Pac-12 straight up.
It could be that he is waiting for XSF to come back next year so that our pass blocking improves (it was much better in 2009 when he was with the team). But if this is not temporary, then I for one may not want him back to coach the team, no matter how successful. It is a boring, uninspired, and cowardly style of play that speaks volumes about the mindset of our coach and where he thinks our program should be headed. I am not interested in squeaking out wins like we did against Oregon State. The talent on this team is being wasted in an atrocious way and it may cause some players to transfer.
It may sound a bit selfish for me to complain about our style of play, but it's not really the style that I am complaining about. It's the strategy. If we had a LSU or Stanford caliber defense, it would make sense. We don't. Not even close. Between that fact, and the conference in which UCLA plays, I think this is an incredibly misguided strategy.
Unfortunately, it looks like that is what we should expect for the remainder of the season. Wins like against Oregon State, losses like against Texas. Oh the joy.
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.
69 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If indeed Neuheisel is
playing 12 games with 104 players on the roster in what you perfectly described as “a boring, uninspired, and cowardly style of play” while waiting for one player to be back next season, I don’t want him to return tomorrow.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
by KSBruin on Sep 26, 2011 11:50 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
IMO
that first quote, that we are planning to pound it, is to throw off Stanford… I hope.
Based on the first 4 games
that’s not a quote to mislead our next opponent. We ran the ball in our comeback effort against Texas.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
It's a quote
to mislead our players. Keep telling them we’re opening up the playbood yet run it over 40 times while throwing 11.
Heh.
Wouldn’t bet on it, we have yet to deceive anyone.
Only reason he’s even saying this is b/c our MVP so far has been Coleman and CRN is just going with like it was planned.
At first I had to agree with you on this
But in every game he seems like he’s intentionally trying to hold back our quarterback play, especially as Tasser noted with the Brehaut/Prince situation. Brehaut is clearly the better passer but Rick seems to only care about Prince’s greater mobility and ability to decide to hand off the ball or keep it himself.
The good news is...
It DOES set up the PA situations. That will give RB a chance to air it out to some to those fast WR. And when you don’t pass as much you don’t get picked as much. Right? (Except for KP).
Less TO in running teams I think. Catch up is harder. There’s the rub. PA on 1st down is a good call now and then.
Worse than Terry Donahue
Dear God. Hw did we wind up with this clown. Rick Neuheisel manages to do less with more than any coach at any level in any sport I have ever seen. Even worse than Donahue.
You got that right, Seth
I was listening to Donohue this past Saturday Nite doing color for the Oregon-Arizona game on 570am radio, here in LA… thinking back to how often I and my buddies lost our voices yelling at that dude for having “low goals” and squandering talent. TD said that UCLA was about Rose Bowls – not about playing for National Prominence. Donohue was focused on the Rose Bowl. That used to piss me off. But guess what. Since he was so focused on the Rose Bowl, when we fell short (often enough), we still got to a Bowl. Post season was a regular occurance. Losing records? No sir. Aiming for the top half of the league? Not on your life. Fast forward. I was fired up about Rick, because I thought he was going to be the improved Donohue. I thought Rick came in with something to prove. I thought he wanted to prove that Donohue screwed up by not naming him Offensive Coordinator back in the day. I thought he was gonna prove that UCLA screwed up by not hiring him instead of Toledo. I thought he’d come in all hot and bothered because Karl got the gig before him. I just knew we would dominate the then Pac 10 so that Rick could shove it up Washington’s you-know-what. I thought Rick was gonna show Petey a thing or two about running a dominant program at his own alma mater, no less. Now… I want Karl back. Now… I’m wondering if Bob Toledo might could find his way back. Now, Terry Donohue is a god. What’s become of me? What happened to us? I’ll accept any kind of win at Stanford. Any kind at all. Maybe we’ll get Luck-y.
U-C-L-A Fight, Fight, Fight! Go Bruins!
Go Lakers! Go Dodgers! Go Angels!
by Bruins78 on Sep 26, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I stand corrected, we did have a few losing seasons during the Donahue tenure.
U-C-L-A Fight, Fight, Fight! Go Bruins!
Go Lakers! Go Dodgers! Go Angels!
We sure did. Also had to forfeit 7 games in 1977. And were on probation in 1980.
In Donahue’s last four years, we went 6-5 (3-5), 8-4 (6-1), 5-6 (3-5), 7-5 (4-4). In his last 10 years, we tied for 2nd, tied for 1st, were 2nd, were 9th, tied for 6th, tied for 2nd, were 8th, tied for first, tied for 5th and tied for 5th. In Donahue’s 20 years, we did beat $C 10 times.
What I remember most about the Donahue years was losing games we should have won due to his conservative play-calling. That and the fact that our best years were when Homer Smith was offensive coordinator.
Donahue’s overall record was one of unparalleled mediocrity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Donahue
Maybe we can bring Dick Vermeil back.
by Seth Chandler on Sep 26, 2011 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, 13 bowls in 20 years. Only four Rose Bowls. Four!
THAT is mediocrity. If Going to the Rose Bowl was Donahue’s standard, he gets an F.
by Seth Chandler on Sep 26, 2011 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions
First, I love the pea pod picture.
Second, New Mexico (or something similar to New Mexico) just fired their coach. In mid season. Not waiting for the end of the season. It can be done.
Except, of course, if the AD has been replaced by a pea pod guy.
New Mexico?
as in D. Walker? Oh god, please don’t let him be available if we fire CRN.
The other one
DW is at NMSU.
In case anyone was wondering, the New Mexico situation is a slightly more disfunctional situation. 2-26 (?) record, capped off with a recruit getting busted for DWI while driving a car registered to the coach.
formerly bruinhoo
Is Doughnut Dan putting a new name on speed-dial for when we go coach shopping?
A guy who went 2-26 would be a perfect fit for Guerrerror. He would be so grateful for a job, he would make no waves at all.
some interesting stats
Between ARK and ALA, ARK split between pass/run 40-19 vice ALA of 20-39. ARK avg’d 3.8 yds/play (y/p) and ALA 6.7 y/p. Mizz vice OK was Mizz, 33-42 for 7.0 y/p, OK 48-39 for 6.8 y/p. The list goes on and on with the winner averaging ~7.0 y/p (notable exception LSU @ 5.3 vice UWV @ 6.1).
UCLA 12-49 for 7 y/p and OSU 40-29 for 5.4 y/p. Now, what was the point of the article?
The transformation in Neuheisel is breath-taking.
From a back-up QB who lead his team to a Rose Bowl victory by letting go his inhibitions and airing it out, mentally and physically, to a mega-conservative, hold-on-to-the-ball-let’s-not-make-waves-or-mistakes kind of HC, well I just don’t get it.
And, this with a stable full of thoroughbred receivers and a QB who has proven he can get the ball to them and has even more upside. Breath-taking, in an anti-exhilarating sort of way.
Yea I don't really get it
When he came in there was so much talk about how he led UCLA as a QB, and I still remember him talking about how he would “personally” develop our QBs it seemed as though we were on the verge of a new era of great UCLA qb’s but it’s been the total opposite. He can’t even pick a started for heavens sake
the way I read it: the power-running is the primary point of emphasis
when the run game doesn’t go as well as you hope, there are two responses:
1) execute the run game better
2) deemphasize the run
Clearly there is an interaction between the run and pass game – forcing defenses to cheat on one opens up the other. I take it that CRN is saying, we are going to work at our run game until it is right, and that is going to set up the explosive plays; we are not going to move to a more pass-heavy attack to try to set up the run game. With uncertainty at the QB spot and the coaching turnover, I think there is something to be said for having an identity and sticking to it, to take away one parameter of confusion. It also makes it clear to guys that they need to work their butts off to fit the system, rather than hoping the system fails and the coaches move to something different.
Everyone has their own aesthetic preference. I really enjoy the pistol when it is going well – I like the relentless power running softening things up and dictating to the defense, and then throwing in a wrinkle when the defense is selling out to stop the run. I find a 20-play, clock-draining drive up the field with no sacks and no tackles for loss more enjoyable than a quicker drive with a mix of nothing plays and big plays; but I know that is not everyone’s preference.
I don't understand one comment above
I don’t understand the logic of this:
It makes the game shorter, which in theory makes sense if you are in a conference with high-powered offenses. But here is the problem: it only works if you have a good defense. And UCLA does not.
it seems that with a weak defense, you want to keep them off the field as much as possible, and hope that you can come up with a few big plays to get a couple of stops; and you win the game. With a strong defense, you can take more risks, knowing that going a quick 3 and out on offense isn’t such a big deal, because your defense is stout. In a game with a lot of possessions, your weak defense will almost certainly get exposed; in a game with a few possessions, you’ll be able to send fresher bodies at their offense, come up with enough surprises and different looks, and get the stops.
If the offense works and is efficient, then we shouldn’t be falling far behind anyone- because we should be scoring a decent number of points and denying our opponent the chance to score a large number of points. The idea that we should prioiritize an offense with the abiltity to come back from a 3TD deficit in short time just reminds me of the 2LiveDrew 10-2 season, and not in a good way.
Weak defense
means you get scored on. And UCLA cannot play its brand of football while playing from behind.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
We can play our brand of football from behind
We just can’t do it from 3 scores behind in the 4th quarter. And if our defense is that bad, no offense can save us. I see no logical reason that a bad defense should encourage a strategy of increasing the number of possessions.
by VeniceBruin on Sep 26, 2011 7:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You know VB
you often have good takes, but you also argue for the sake of arguing.
In the last 4 games, which has been true? Is our defense more apt to get scored on, or is our offense more likely to score? I say it’s the defense, hence our offense should try to score more.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
We have something that works...
And it’s our run game. That’s been proven. So we can either stick with what works, or put our hands together and pray that all of a sudden, when we haven’t for the last 3 years, that we can start some spectacular passing offense?
I have no issue with the running the ball because it will allow us to wear down defenses, it will open up our passing game, and give us a solid base to come out in. If we compare our running back recruits to our wide recievers, there really isnt any comparasion, our rb’s are way better. If we get pass happy all of a sudden were going to see an increase in sacks and turnovers. We as a team do have to manage our games. We’re not steller. We dont have McKown back there. RB is solid, but still needs to prove that he can make the right decisions before we open it up. That TD pass to Embree, was all Embree. It was thrown into double coverage and any decent secondary would have picked it. I understand peoples concern with a more “balanced” offense, but IMO we play what is working and grow from there.
for
In game one we still rushed for 200+ yards. We’re averaging 214/ypg rushing. We want to slow that down? I think the issue at hand is our defense’s inability to stop the run (or pass, or punt returns, or anything else). Our running game is not a flaw, it’s a blessing.
and against
OSU consistently stopped the run in the second half, because it was all. we. did. When nothing else is coming at you, it’s easy to prepare for.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
From ESPN's box score
(which is not completely accurate, as we had one drive with simply 2nd down, 2nd down, 4th down, and 4th down, and Jordon James was renamed Tony Dye, but it’s the quick source I used)
Third quarter rushing: 30 yards.
Fourth quarter rushing by running backs: 64 yards. (Jordon James added runs of 14 and 11.)
From the same imperfect source, in the second half we had 24 rushing attempts to 4 passing attempts.
I agree our running game has been impressive, and we should keep using it…but Brehaut can air it out. We have receivers that can run, and can (amazingly) actually catch. We need to take advantage of that more than we have to do better than barely beat another crappy team.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
I Agree
It seemed like the first 3 games RN was determined to prove we can pass, and didn’t play to our strenth of pounding the ball with the run. Against San Jose State we could have ran wild, but we would run once then pass twice. If we established the run early to set up the pass we could have controlled the game early on, and the game wouldn’t of been close. Instead it wasn’t until the 4th quarter that the coaches discovered this.
Have you guys even watched our games?
And furthermore, I don’t think you understand the point of the post.
I’m not saying to stop running the ball. I’m saying that we won’t be able to use that strategy with the type of defense that we have, and the type of teams against which we will play. We didn’t catch up to Houston by running the ball, did we?
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Unfortunately Yes
I have seen every grueling minute of every game, and have not missed a home game since 2006. I was agreeing with Bruin_jim… No offensive strategy will work with the defense we played the first 3 weeks, but I am saying a run first strategy (our strength) is a better option than pass first. Because we are better at it, and we can control the tempo better.
Who said pass first?
I didn’t say we should become the Patriots. This offense is predictable, even when playing from behind.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
"Every grueling minute"
How true and how telling. Bout sums up the messy affair.
by GogetemBruins on Sep 28, 2011 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Running and wearing down the other side is a tried and true formula for success
provided that it works. This formula says we grind out 12 play drives for TDs, and then let our rested defense stop the other side, and then we do it all over again.
If we go three and out, and the other team slices through our defense like, well, like Texas or Houston or even SJSU, then our grind it out offense absolutely MUST grind out a 12 play drive for a TD. Otherwise, we fall behind, and then, Bruins, our grind it out offense isn’t going to help us out much.
Real question – what was the last successful grind it out team (and we can leave out the Woody Hayes teams)? I seem to remember the successful teams used speed everywhere to make the defense tired, but not from having the ball shoved down their throats, but from trying to catch all the fast guys.
If grinding it out is going to be our offensive philosophy, then I would expect no punts on 4th and 2 or fewer, no matter where the ball is. And that goes for field goals, too.
And for you grind it out fans, if we have ground it out to a 24-0 halftime deficit, and if your grind it out offense has no rushing first downs, by half time, do we stick with our game plan in the second half?
So, If I understand The Rick right, he wants us to play 70s and 80s era Big Ten ball?
Does he realize it is the 20Teens? The era of the spread and dual threat QBs?
So, at the very least, he is admitting he is not a cutting edge, push the envelope guy.
SMH
The best thing you can do for your children is to love their mother. John Wooden
Look, Mexi, if it was good enough for Woody Hayes, it's good enough for us.
Only three things can happen if you pass the ball, and two f them are bad. (Which I believe is a Woody Hayes quote.)
And we are playing a wide open style game. It’s pretty much like Oregon’s offense, in that both UCLA and Oregon have ugly uniforms.
I agree with 96, Rick's just talkin about runnin because it's the best thing going right now.
I’ll add that if anything else good happens in a game, Rick will call that a wrinkle we’ve been trying to add. Rick’s talk game is among the best.
U-C-L-A Fight, Fight, Fight! Go Bruins!
Go Lakers! Go Dodgers! Go Angels!
best thing going?
Only because he won’t try the pass. I don’t think anybody wants a pass happy offense, rather a more balanced offense that uses all of it’s weapons.
Why not a pass happy offense? Have you watched what Boise State is doing.
Look at what Boise State has accomplished in the last 4 years compared to RN’s Bruins. That passing attack has opened up some huge holes for the ruinning game. They remind me of the San Diego Chargers when the AFL was in its infancy. Boise State is one dam fun team to watch. I really envy them. This is especially true considering Boise State is not getting the cream of the crop when it comes to recruits. I could just imagine what Fauria would be doing if he was at Boise State. WOW, WOW, WOW!
Impressive
but still need to keep in mind the competition in their conference…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Sure
I was just pointing out that there’s a good reason why Boise State has been able to air it out so effectively over the last few years. For my money, Kellen Moore is the most accurate passer in college football. If it weren’t for the whole 6’0" 190lbs thing people would be referring to this as the “Moore Luck draft”.
Also
he was 28 of 34 for 82% against Georgia, maybe they aren’t Alabama or LSU but their not New Mexico either
He is really good, no doubt!
I don’t want to take away too much from him. Wonder if there’s a place for him in the NFL…he is just so small, but Flutie somehow made it work. Drew Brees isn’t the biggest guy either…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Not trying to argumentitive really...King77
but maybe he just doesn’t trust RB to "check down " and find the open receiver. Case in point: On Embree’s TD catch against OSU, he was covered by 3 db’swhile their was an wide open receiver on the 10 yard line. Against a better defense the chances of that pass getting intercepted is almost a sure thing. Hence yet another turn overin the red zone.
I think RN doesn’t “Trust” brehaut’s accuracy or his reads to be comfortable enough rely more on passing.
As for Boise State…they have a senior QB who can SEE the field…has pinpoint accuracy…that is a major difference between the situations. Put Brehaut on the “Blue turff” and Fauria and the rest of the receivers would still be wondering if a trip to the optomitist would be in order for someone.
Not saying RB can’t or won’t be able to do the job, just saying it’s obvious the game hasn’t slowed down for him yet enough to be truly and really effective.Once again though…you gotta TRY and pass because that’s part of the growing process and you need a Balanced offense. I’m hopeful in time it will work itself out.
Time will tell that’s for sure. Remember, I am certainly not an expert by far and this just a conversation by two CFB fans chewing the fat.
by GogetemBruins on Sep 28, 2011 7:51 AM PDT up reply actions
One point re Boise State's Senior QB
Look at his line as a freshman QB. Another major difference is when a coach lets a QB pass the ball versus just telling him to hand the ball to some other guy. Anyone know who the Cleveland QB was who handed the ball to Jim Brown all those times?
Brehaut is no Moore, that’s for sure. Could he become Moore? No one will ever know. Not in our system, and not with this coach.
Two styles of coaches.......
There are two styles of coaches. One has a system and he recruits players that fit that type of system. The other style of coaching adopts a style of play that fits the available players.
I think what Rick has done is to find a system(Pistol) that complements the available players we have on the team. Remember, when he got here CRN had no OL and was down to his 3rd string QB.
Slowly but surely, we have replenished our stock of players except at one position, QB. Until Hundley takes over the QB spot, we are working with so so QB’s. RB can be a good QB and is well on his way to realizing that goal, he is not an elite QB that leads his team to a National Championship ala Cam Newton, Colt McCoy etc.
I think Rick is trying to maximize his chances of winning games, based on what he has available to work with. Our one true area of mediocre play has been at the QB spot until recently. I think you’ll see his style of play change as he gets the type of players he wants.
Right...
Randall Carroll, Shaq Evans, Joe Fauria, Devin Lucien. Is the system fit to them? Do they fit the system? I don’t think so.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
34-30.
Rick’s combined career Head Coaching Record for Year 3 and Year 4 at Colorado (13-10), UW (15-10), and UCLA (6-10)…including our current 2-2 campaign.
I was interested in his record starting at Year 3, because after 2 full campaign’s, that program is yours. 2 years worth of your best guys, combined with the best guys of the previous campaign.
Wouldn’t it be great if he hold’s at 10 losses? Yeah!
FWIW, Rick has not been anywhere for Year 5. 4 more wins, and he’s back. There’s no way Gu-error let’s this decidedly nice man go after making a bowl game. Football just doesn’t have that kinda priority under the current Administration.
U-C-L-A Fight, Fight, Fight! Go Bruins!
Go Lakers! Go Dodgers! Go Angels!
PISTOL - SHOOTING OURSELVES??
So we’ve got BIG (average over 305) lineman and a couple of pretty good (proven) running backs – we SHOULD be able to run run run. But we keep shooting ourselves in the foot with stupid mistakes… A good running game must be almost error free to work.
Just curious – besides UCLA and Nevada how many other teams run the Pistol? More importantly how many SERIOUS BCS TEAMS run the pistol? How many teams in the NFL run the pistol? Just seems like we’re swimming upstream against the rest of the league.
I like the pistol
I’ve been observing and taking notice of lots of teams when they run it, and more often than not, it’s successful. But the difference is, those teams don’t do anything fancy out of it. They’ll simply just throw a bubble screen to some small quick F-back type and let him try to make guys miss. That along with a strong rushing attack opens the field up even MORE downfield for the guys like Fauria, Rosario. Our small quick guys all ride pine. All of the pistol plays in our playbook take tons of time, while other teams have quicker tempo.
I’m really not concerned about the offense, it’s the defense. There are some “star-studded” recruits and physical specimens out there on D who just are not performing, far more so than the offense. Now that the QB is settled, the pressure is squarely on the defense’’s shoulders.
You make good points
Our weak defense affects our offense way too much.
If we play faster then more opportunities for the opposing offense to get the ball back to whip our asses. If we play slow then we wont catch up to the good teams who usually score first and more often.
I like our running game a lot and that should open our passing game to speed up the offense when we need it. Our OL has done a decent job of pass blocking so I am not sure why XCRN has not opened up the playbook. Brehaut is a gunslinger.
I would understand if didn’t have the horses but like you mention we have a talented group at wideout who can run in the open field. It’s hard to see Mavray, Carroll, and James on the sideline or just running up the field like decoys.
Against good teams like Standford,ASU, Arizona, etc we will have to speed up the offense and pass more to keep up. I have very little faith in the defense. We played better this week but this was OSU so not sure if it’s a good barameter.
Scoring First and Fast
Very few ties these days.
As much as our D has reverted back to non-tackling style, the offense has to score, and more importantly be in the lead first. Then you dictate what the opponent’s offense AND defense does.
Oregon doesn’t worry that their offense scores too quickly. Neither did we back in Cade days. Oregon cares (and we did care) most that they can outscore their opponent.
We should let RB call all the audibles he wants as long as he’s good at it. Playing catcher was good practice for that, too.
Can't say that I completely agree
with Tasser10, because to me no win is boring, though I do admit to feeling a lot of frustration with Donahue. I do see many advantages to possessing the football and going down the field — you know, 4 yards and a cloud of dust — holding on to it forever. However, a quick check of Stanford’s stats show that the running game has not been successful against them. Opponents have done a lot better passing, as far as amassing yards is concerned. As for scoring, neither has been very successful. Their defense appears to be as solid as ours has been shaky. Once again, we have to pass and we have to run. No way around it.
Tasser10, Last June 13th you made predictions on the pending season.
Considering your article above and what teams have done so far, do you want to modify your predictions on the games yet to be played?
GAMES PLAYED
9/3/11 UCLA @ Houston 24-20 W Actual: 34-38 L
UCLA offense beat expectations, defense let us down.
9/10/11 UCLA vs S.J. State 37-13 W Actual: 27-17 W
UCLA offense scored 10 less points, defense allowed 4 more, not bad.
9/17/11 UCLA vs Texas 20-17 W Actual: 20-49 L
Right on as to UCLA scoring 20, but defense let us down.
9/24/11 UCLA @ Oregon 21-27 L Actual: 27-19 W
This was, maybe, your worse prediction.
10/1/11 UCLA @ Stanford 21-42 L
10/8/11 UCLA vs WSU 31-17 W
10/20/11 UCLA @ AZ 10-24 L
10/27/11 UCLA vs CAL 20-10 W
11/5/11 UCLA vs ASU 20-27 L
11/12/11 UCLA @Utah 13-28 L
11/19/11 UCLA vs Colorado 34-27 W
11/26/11 UCLA vs USC 20-27 L
Based on the games played so far and considering your pending predictions the Bruins will end up 5 W & 7 L.
What does that have to do with this post?
In a nutshell, I will put it to you this way: there are no excuses for this team not being competitive in every single remaining game. Based on the talent alone, there are at least 6 more games they should win. Even U$C should be beatable, so make that 7 games. And I don’t concede the Stanford game, they should have to earn that win from us.
But that is my expectation (what should happen). Different from my prediction (what will happen).
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I though your predictions were partly based on a UCLA's identity.
Based on UCLA’s personnel, the new coaches, etc., you had expectations last June. Since RN has now defined that identity as pound it in (run), you can now consider that definition in light of how the team has performed in the last 4 games and how Prince has performed. When you made your predictions I think you obviously were considering who the starting QB would be. Last June if you heard the team was defined as a pound it threat you likely considered Prince would be the starting QB. However, currently Brehaut is the QB of a pound it in offense. So I asked you how would RN’s definition of the team change your predictions? I can’t believe you asked me the question you posted in your headline above. You must be tired. Your headline comment makes me feel you are upset about something. Possibly rightfully so the way RN is coaching the Bruins.
So tasser 10 you feel we can win 7 of 8 remaining games. Barring any major injuries and based on your previous predictions, Stanford is UCLA’s strongest foe. After watching how ASU beat USC last week I have moved ASU up into a tie for third with Utah as the hardest game to win behind the Arizona game. The Bruins have 12 days to prepare for Arizona and 9 days to get ready for ASU. Will the extra time to prepare help? We will learn more about ASU when they play Oregon this Saturday at 7:30 p.m; the same time as the Bruin game against Stanford. That game might really be worth watching.
It's not about whether we "can" win
Anyone can win a game on any given day. It’s about whether we should. It’s about competing. UCLA has the best talent in the conference, second only to U$C, and shouldn’t take a backseat to any of these teams.
My predictions wouldn’t really have changed if I had known we were a power running team. Two years ago, we had no running. Last year, we had no passing. You can’t just be a one-dimensional offense.
I am not upset, I just don’t understand why we are discussing predictions when the post is about the identity of the football team. I’m trying to have people discuss if this is the type of team they want for UCLA, not which games we are going to win.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
If RN really valued Prince for his running abilities over RB
Then why the 3 INT in the first quarter by Texas? IMO I think RN wanted to open up the passing game, but Prince’s performance against Texas scared him straight. Seeing a pass from the UCLA offense is like betting on roulette (to RN). You take your winnings and leave that table. Despite the couple of glowing passes from RB starting out against OSU, RN must have thought his string of betting on black was over, and went back to playing blackjack.
Therein lies the mystery
And that is part of the problem when you have a QB as a head coach. They put so much importance on that position that they get paralyzed sometimes. It would have been interesting to see how Harbaugh would have done, and what type of team Stanford would be, with a more average QB than Andrew Luck.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Tasser is totally right, and it's really simple
The forward pass is a pretty important part of football. It’s much easier to get 10 yards from a pass than from a run. On saturday we averaged 5 YPC, and 15 YPP. You don’t need to be full of pro-bowlers to throw the freaking ball against a 7 yard cushion, to take advantage of single-coverage, to mix in swing passes and screens. Lots of undertalented teams ONLY pass the ball.
The point of this is that passing is more productive than running. As long as the field is available to you and you have a QB who can get the ball off at least decently well, it pays more to throw. We’ve reduced our passing game almost exclusively to play-action, which is extremely self-limiting.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
