G-L-O-R-Y D-A-Y-S

by Nestor on Oct 10, 2006 10:53 AM PDT in Football

Since Bruin quarterback position is such a hot topic this week these higlights couldn't be more timely. It was about time a Bruin fan loaded up these babies. Here is the greatest quarterback ever to play UCLA football (thank God for You Tube):

Many thanks to 'theriles" who loaded that YoutTube. The dude needs to load up the last minutes of that double OT '96 game against Southern Cal. If Pat Cowan shows 25 percent of Cade's fight, we are going to win this Saturday.

Riles also loaded up some other Cade higlights inluding this pass to Skip Hicks in that legendary route 66:

We are still waiting for something that special from Karl Dorrell. Remember he still hasn't beaten a team with winning record on the road. Perhaps Oregon game will be the start. As noted in our poll he is going to get three shots this season. Can he bring back some of those glory days? Time to find out the answers will probably run out after this season.

GO BRUINS.

Tweet Comment 62 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Cade vs. WSU

I was at that game and remember that play very well.

I miss those days. Far and away the highlight of my student life.

by bruinbabe2000 on Oct 10, 2006 11:18 AM PDT reply actions

Wow...

... way to bring some great memories back. Last week on FSN (thank god I have my DirecTV package) they were showing the UCLA-UO game at the Rose Bowl in 1998. What a great game, and what ballsy offensive play-calling. Say what you will about Toledo's lack of discipline, but he had a great offensive mind.

by uclaike on Oct 10, 2006 12:08 PM PDT reply actions

Nestor, did you know you are a racist?

http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/?p=2677#comments

"Given the hatred they have for Dorrell I think some of it has to be racist in nature."

EDSBS brought in the Trojans for the feeding frenzy on Bruinsnation.

by BruinMac04 on Oct 10, 2006 12:44 PM PDT reply actions

Jealous Trojans

Mac it looks like three Trojans are going back and forth among themselves talking sh!t anout N and the Bruins Nation. They are calling out all Dorrell critics as racists:

Shitty cheap shots is most of what they do over there at Bruins Nation.

Given the hatred they have for Dorrell I think some of it has to be racist in nature. Otherwise it makes no sense at all. The guy leads the team to a 10-2 record and beats a Big 10 team in his bowl. That's a fantastic year for UCLA, a team that hovers around a 60% all time winning percentage. The AD gave him a contract extension this year and now the starting QB is injured he will have a pass even if the team goes into the tank this year. Dorell is secure this year no matter what happens and the only way his job would be realistically in danger would be if UCLA were to totally collapse next year (to the tune of one or two wins all year). Even then he might be given another shot.

Comment by oc phil -- October 10, 2006 @ 2:31 pm

That 'oc phil' is a Trojan douchebag. And it's pretty clear where Dorrell is getting most of his support from when everyone on BN is calling KD out on his record. This reminds me of Zona fans sticking up for Lavin.

by bluestreet on Oct 10, 2006 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions

LOL

The southern cal nitwits sure were out in full force on that one. They just can't resist an opportunity to circle jerk all over one another, congratulating themselves on a "job" well done. I especially love how they've deluded themselves into believing that what they say is right.

by scittles on Oct 10, 2006 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Jeolous Dumbshit Trojans

it is really funny to see how they get their panties all bunched up on what we discuss on BN. From Conquest Chronicles to WeSucHard.com to other team's blogs, they actually take time to comment on what writers are posting about BN, a team they are not supposed to care about.

by bluestreet on Oct 10, 2006 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

FWIW

I think Paragon over at CC is doing a great job in putting together a fine Trojan community that is actually aiming towards getting folks who are providing thoughtful, substantive, interesting commentary on Southern Cal. Sure there are some individual posters on it who need some help, but not our problem. But I wouldn't get all worked up those Trojan morons on EDSBS. They need some mental help. Obviously they got nothing to live for except for their thuggish football program, which now may be going through a slow meltdown, now that Chow is gone.

Anyways CC guys (except for some individual blowhards who probably post on all Trojan sites) are turning out to be cool.

by Nestor on Oct 10, 2006 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Agree

Definitely didn't meant to lump Paragon and most of the guys on CC. But there are couple of morons over there that are just total assholes, who have nothing better to do than taking shots against us who post on BN. It is kind of bizzarre ... those idiots are more obsessed about what we are writing about their team, than actually commenting on our team. Just weird freaks.

by bluestreet on Oct 10, 2006 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions

FWIW

My comment on that thread:

OC Phil: with the best will in the world, I can't see the Bruins Nation guys as being racists. Their critiques of Dorrell tend to revolve around offensive play calling (in either sense of the phrase), overall coach management, and recruiting / motivation. If they were bigoted, it would have come through by now -- I mean, they have a truly extensive body of work on why they think Dorrell isn't the right man for the job.

I'm not going to claim that I don't need mental help, but hopefully not in this area.

by Trojan in DC on Oct 17, 2006 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions

My response to OC Phil

OC Phil:

To say that we do not give Dorrell credit is a clear indication that you just do not read our blog. There was plenty of credit given to Dorrell at times last season, until, of course, the wheels completely fell off. Then again, "fans" like you --who can so readily explain away nationally televised humiliations such as Arizona and the Southern Cal games of last season-- are the reason we are saddled with a head coach who is still learning on the job. Did coaching not cost UCLA the game against UW?

Why does one man deserve to be put ahead of an entire program and its dedicated fanbase?

Getting to your allegations of racism--Rather than run over here like a little girl talking your shit, feel free to visit BN and lay out your case as to why you think any of our criticisms of Karl Dorrell are based on anything other than what has taken place on the field during his tenure. Contrary to what you have done, we've mad our criticisms very clear and back them up with objective evidence. I expect to see specific quotes from any of us to back up your assertion, which is obviously a desperate attempt at race baiting.

by Ajax on Oct 10, 2006 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions

OC Phil is not woth your time A

The guy is trash. He is a Trojie idiot. Not worth dignifying his stupid drivel.

by Nestor on Oct 10, 2006 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Coaching and the Washington Game

I don't know if coaching cost us the Washington game. The players may have to take some blame because they were the only ones on the field. I also know that UCLA would have scored more than one touchdown if Ben Olson wouldn't have overthrown 3 receivers downfield in the first half. Same thing in the Stanford game.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions

It is ludicrous

to blame for the Washington loss.

Do you remember exactly how many running plays we called on first downs and within the red zone?

We threw in red zone something like only once in our first 4 trips against UDub. That was not Ben's fault.

It is totally bushleague and classless to even trying to place the blame on Ben's shoulder for that bad loss which was cost by coaching miscues.

This kind of post reminids me of those Lavin loving losers trying to blame Ced, Dijon for all of our losses.

What a joke.

by Nestor on Oct 10, 2006 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions

Don't call me bushleage...

for pointing out that Ben Olson can not hit receivers downfield. He couldn't do it against Washinton or Stanford. He also had a bad habit of putting the ball at the receivers' knees on short passes.

I was not talking about the running plays in the redzone, but maybe the coaches didn't have any confidence in Olson's accuracy. I know I didn't.

Trying to bully someone by calling them classless in an anonymous forum is pretty weak.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions

It is bush league

to blame Ben Olson for the Washington loss when it was clearly the coaches who let us down.

by Nestor on Oct 10, 2006 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions

Certitude

You seem so convinced that it was the coaches, but what about these statistics. Ben had two picks, one deep in Washington territory and his longest completed pass was 16 yards. If you want the coaches the call big pass plays on first and second down, the quarterback better be able to complete them. The other problem with Olson is the interceptions. I have been at every home game this year and can tell you that Ben locks in on his primary receiver and does nothing to throw off the defense. He is telegraphing every pass downfield. Pat Cowan did a great job on Saturday of checking off his second and third receivers before throwing the ball. As you have said we have played some pretty bad defenses, if they can pick Olson 2 times a game, think of what good defenses like Notre Dame and Cal would have done with Olson.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 7:49 PM PDT up reply actions

It's a chicken and egg situation

When the D knows exactly what you are going to do, e.g., run on first down, run every time you are in the red zone, its pretty easy to sit back in zone and make the passing game very difficult when inevtiably put in those long yardage situations.

Svoboda himself came out and admitted that the playcalling was bad. Dorrell did not intervene.

by Ajax on Oct 10, 2006 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions

QB fundamentals v. Play Calling

I'm not defending the play calling, but I am saying that Ben never looked away from the receiver he was throwing to. None of Olson's interceptions, that I remember, have been because of a tip or a DB getting position. It has always been a linebacker or safety watching Ben's eyes and following the ball. If he would look off of his first option that would put the defenders out of position to get in front of the ball.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions

In the washington game

it went through Brandon Breazell's hands and into the hands of a Washington player.

by UCLAFreak88 on Oct 10, 2006 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions

You are right

but wasn't that ball thrown 2-3 feet over Brandon's head? If so that goes to my arguement that Olson has a hard time hitting his receivers downfield. I will admit it when I am wrong and that was one play where the defense was not able to get in front of a pass on a pick.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions

No it was not...

over his head, it went through his hands.

by UCLAFreak88 on Oct 12, 2006 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions

The QB still has to do his job...

and not just look to his #1 receiver the whole play. From row 68 I have been able to tell who Olson wants to throw to all season. All I want Ben to do is look to the other side of the end zone for a second to make the secondary shift a bit.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions

Olson

was not having any problem checking off his primary target in his first game.

But something happened in the second game. In a game in which the coaches should have run, run, run, and destroy Rice through a ground attack, they inexplicably put together a stupid game plan, putting Olson in tough situations. It sure impacted his confidence which showed up in the Washington.

And they then totally screwed it up in the UDub game by making bonehead calls in the first half. Again they didn't call one f*cking fade route (in which Olson connected in his first two games) in our four first tries in the end zone. And their play calling agaist a UDub defense, which had one of the worst secondaries in the league, was inexplicably putting Olson in difficult situation time after time.

It was the coaches who totally failed to put our team in a position where Olson and his team-mates could make plays. They let the team down, and then went on to blame the players.

Classic Lavin tactic.

by Nestor on Oct 11, 2006 5:18 AM PDT up reply actions

Excuses

Ben Olson is 23 years old and I believe this site had him pegged as a Heisman hopeful early in the season. To say that the play calling "impacted his confidence" contradicts the idea that he is a top tier quarterback. If he is really so good he didn't need to have his hand held before the Washington and Stanford games, teams this site has shown to have bad defenses. Regardless of the play calling, Ben needed to make the passes when his number is called.

As for putting Olson in a difficult position, there were 3 or 4 times in the Washington game where Ben had a wide open receiver, downfield, on first or second down and he overthrew the guy. You can't blame play calling on those mistakes.

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions

Keep blaming the players ...

You are starting to get ridiculous. This blog had pegged him as a Heisman hopeful because of his great start in the first game. Now I am not going to read into what N, A, M and rest of the guys are thinking, but everyone was euphoric about Ben.

But then the Rice game happened and that horrendous playcalling completely disrupted the rhythm of that offense.

Perhaps Ben was trying to be to perfect in the Rice game after all the hype he got following the Utah game. But the bottom line is its the coaches whose game planning/scheming let the whole team down.

Pat Cowan may turned out to be a very decent QB. Hopefully he will.

Oh Ben had bad game against Stanford but so did the entire offense, which didn't score a TD in the first half. Ben did miss 3 wide open receivers, but he wasn't the one responsible for offensive line schemes, not creating a lot of daylight, receivers dropping the passes, or running backs just slamming into the OL for small gains on first and second downs.

But you blaming the Washington loss on Ben shoulder's is outright cheap and classless.

by bluestreet on Oct 11, 2006 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Read what I wrote.

I agree that the play calling has been suspect. I am not "blaming the Washington loss on Ben shoulder's" (whatever that means) just saying that he has not executed when he has been asked to throw the ball down field. Some of the blame has to be placed on the players on the field and I bet if you asked them, they would take responsibility.

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Ok

I kind of agree with that as well. Players shoulder some blame. And I myself alluded to WRs dropping passes, OL missing blocks, RBs just running up the middle etc. But I strongly believe that the buck stops at Dorrell's desk. He is the leader. He is responsibile for the over all game planning for each game, and making half time adjustments. He blew it in Washington. Sure everyone had a part in that loss (Ben did too). But the big kahuna who was responsible is Dorrell.

Now lets hope PC's confidence is not shot like the way Ben's was shot after Utah performance.

by bluestreet on Oct 11, 2006 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Nice

I like how in your first sentence you specifically call out every other offensive position but the Quarterback for responsibility. You do, later, place some responsibility on Olson, but only after trashing the coaching.

I don't think that Cowan or Olson needs to have their confidence stroked by the coaches or play calling. Their confidence should be based on how they execute when they are called on to complete plays.

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Uh

All I was trying to argue how it was the entire offense, which has been playing out of sync since the Utah game. yeah Cowan had a nice start against Arizona in the first 2qs, but then the offense went into the conservative shell, and looked somewhat out of sync again in the second half against Zona.

The whole offense has been playing bad since Utah. And that blame goes to Dorrell and Svoboda. Upthread you were pretty clearly implying it was Olson who cost us the game. That is just not cool.

by bluestreet on Oct 11, 2006 9:18 AM PDT up reply actions

You obviously didn't read what I wrote

All I have been arguing is that the players (in this case Olson) have to accept some blame for their play on the field. I know posters at this site have some connection to Ben or the Olson family, but lets be realistic, he has not delivered on the promises of being a big time quarterback.

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions

Nice

Indicting Ben just after four games at UCLA.

Keep at it. You give all Bruin fans a bad name.

by bluestreet on Oct 11, 2006 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Don't put words in my mouth

I am not indicting Ben. I am pointing out that the players (QB included) have been to blame for some of our poor performances this season. You choose to blame Dorrell for everything, I disagree. I guess I didn't get the memo when I was at UCLA that lock step conformity in blaming the coach was what made a "good" Bruin fan.

I want Ben to win, I want Dorrell to win, I want the Bruins to win. But, if we are going to assign blame for poor performances against Washinton and Stanford (which I agree they were) then lets be complete

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Keep back tracking

You originally wrote:

That is going the DeWayne Walker route of blaming Van for the loss. You were pretty clearly attempting to blame Ben for a loss that squarely fell on the shoulders of a HC.

by Nestor on Oct 11, 2006 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions

I specifically said

that I was not laying the blame for the loss on Ben. read above post.

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions

That is just pathetic

Ben did accept responsibilty. He had more than gracious in his post game comments. He has taken blame unlike his head coach.

And to conclude that Ben has not delivered on being a big time QB just after 4 games at UCLA is just dumb.

by Nestor on Oct 11, 2006 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions

I know ...

that Ben has taken responsibility for himself as he should. It's just this site has decided to give all the blame to Dorrell. It isn't "dumb" to point out that a quarter back this site called "Jesus" coming into the season hasn't gotten the job done when his number was called against some of the worst defenses in the country.

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeap keep blaming Ben

keep scape goating Ben.

Yeah Ben should have thrown more TDs against UDub, even though the coaches called something like only 1 pass play in the red zone the first four times we went in.

And nice of you to bring up the SPJ nick name when it was obvious to the whole world that we were having a little fun. Yet we stopped as soon as we got multiple sources of info. saying we shouldn't be using the nickname even if it was meant to be in fun.

But right now you are making a lame attempt to blame Ben for our offensive troubles since the first game. It is pathetic.

by Nestor on Oct 11, 2006 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions

SPJ

The only reason I brought up the "Jesus" reference was because it implied that he would be our "Savior" this year. Well he has not been. I know the reason you stopped using the nickname and I think it was a stupid issue. I am not placing all the blame on Ben's shoulders, just pointing out that it should not all be placed on the coaches shoulders. The players have not made plays against bad defenses. That is going to be a real problem when we go against strong teams.

Sumarize (because I have to get back to work)
-Play calling has been bad, especially in the U-Dub and Stanford game.
-Offensive players (all of them) have missed plays time and time again.
-I am a horrible Bruin fan (even though I buy season tickets and contribute to the progam every year)

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Oh .. what drama

You did specifically mentioned how Ben has not lived up the expectations just after 4 game and from the comment up thread, it is pretty reasonable for a reader to think you were blaming Ben for the loss against Washington.

by Nestor on Oct 11, 2006 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions

Except

for the specific language I used saying that I was not laying the blame on Olson. Coaches and players lost that game.

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions

Now you are contradicting yourself

you said again:

I don't know if coaching cost us the Washington game. The players may have to take some blame because they were the only ones on the field. I also know that UCLA would have scored more than one touchdown if Ben Olson wouldn't have overthrown 3 receivers downfield in the first half. Same thing in the Stanford game.

Seems pretty clear to me you were looking for someone else besides the coaches to blame for the UDub loss, and you chose Ben in that instance.

by Nestor on Oct 11, 2006 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions

You are avoiding the point

that Ben Olson could not deliver when he was called to throw the football deep. I don't know if the result would have been different had the play calling been different. I do know that our quarterback had a problem hitting receivers downfield.

Ben does deserve SOME of the blame and I think he took responsibility himself.

This is becoming a cyclical argument

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions

and he did take responsibility

unlike his head coach who blamed everyone else but himself for that loss against Washington.

Yet in the original comment which started this Florida thread you were implying perhaps the coaches were not to blame for the UDub loss. No one was really arguing that Ben made some mistakes. He had a pass picked off for a int. and did miss 2-3 open throws. But it was his coaches who didn't call the best plays leading up to the dire situation in the second half.

So the blame for that loss falls on Dorrell's shoulders. And that's the point.

by Nestor on Oct 11, 2006 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions

All I was saying

was the coaches weren't the only ones to blame.

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions

Accuracy

Going into the Washington game Ben was one of the most accurate passer's in the country. He was somewhere in the top 20 in passing efficiency, so his accuracy is a terrible excuse for anyone to use when justifying the fact that we had virtually no pass plays in the red zone.

by BenIsTheMan on Oct 10, 2006 8:34 PM PDT up reply actions

From your screen name...

I see you have no bias.

If you read closer I was talking about his ability to hit receivers on big plays downfield. 18 for 31 is does not tell the whole story. His longest completion was 16 yards and he missed at least 4 TD passes in the redzone. If you want to use statistics, I don't think that 135 yards, 2 picks and no TD's is that impressive of an outing.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Retarded

This screen name is for BEN HOWLAND. Don't make assumptions.

by BenIsTheMan on Oct 11, 2006 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Retarded?

You keep classy Ben

by MOlson on Oct 11, 2006 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions

You're right

I shouldn't have said that, but saying I was biased just because of a screen name that had absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about didn't seem like something a well-informed person would say. I apologize.

by BenIsTheMan on Oct 12, 2006 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions

"Only ones on the field"

I guess the whole Lavin era can be laid at the feet of all the players who were unlucky enough to play for UCLA during Lavin's tenure.

Fresno State. Wyoming. Southern Cal x2. UA. All the players fault.

by Ajax on Oct 10, 2006 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions

I never said....

that the players were the only ones to blame for the loss. There was some terrible play calling in the Washington game. However when Ben's number was called to throw the ball deep he blew it. He also has been telegraphing his passes all season. Don't you dare put words in my mouth insinuating that I am putting all the blame on the players. The diarists and commenters around here throw enough crap at Dorrell and the other coaches I am just trying to put some perspective to the whole thing.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Well...

when Ben did get his chance to pass, it was usually on third and long after two running plays. So, I'm wondering what do you think the defense is going to in that situation. Attempt to stop the run or pass? I'm thinking they would want to stop the pass.
And, also since the Utah game teams had been keying on the pass against Ben because obviously if they attempted to stop the run Ben would throw all over them, evidence of which can be seen in the UTAH game. However, for some reason Arizona deviated from that tactic and keyed on the run, making the situation easier for Pat.

by UCLAFreak88 on Oct 10, 2006 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Stanford 3rd quarter

Ben was given deep pass plays on consecutive downs (1st and 2nd) and he missed his receiver by 10 yards or more. Those receivers were not covered by anyone and there was no pressure on the pocket.

by MOlson on Oct 10, 2006 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions

and by Stanford game

KD and Svoboda had done a heckuva job blowing up Olson's confidence through their shitty play calling in prervious two games.

BO made some mistakes but his confidence was already shaken by high school level play calling in the previous games.

by Nestor on Oct 11, 2006 4:11 AM PDT up reply actions

I'll just make a quick comparison here

If there is some sort of train of thought out there that rhythm has nothing to do with the success of a quarterback, I will have to wholeheartedly disagree. Coaches use the tactic of "icing the kicker" which is dumb and rarely works, because the kicker is only playing in the game for maybe 15 seconds in an entire game and is used to performing after sitting on the bench.

The QB on the other hand takes every snap, and there most certainly is a way to "ice" a QB, and that is to call run, run, pass on third and long, a staple of this season's offensive "gameplan". If you are only going to get one chance to pass in three downs, and that chance is severely limited by the yards you need to gain to sustain the drive, it is likely not going to be a very happy day for the QB.

I hope that PC will not have to deal with these awful situations, and that the coaching staff has made the necessary adjustments.

by scittles on Oct 11, 2006 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions