The Talent Excuse is Once Again Rearing its Ugly Head

by Ajax on Dec 13, 2005 10:48 PM PST in Football Comment 31 comments

There seems to be a familiar refrain coming from the die-hard Dorrell supporters that have been rushing to the coach's defense after USC molested UCLA on national TV just a couple weeks ago. It couldn't be the coaching. It has to be the talent.

"We can't possibly compete with USC." They just have too much talent."

For those of you who are new to the BN, our very own Odysseus addressed the talent debate in our blog's earlier days. His conclusion--while USC has more talent than UCLA, UCLA definatley has top-tier talent. My point? There is absolutely no excuse--from a talent standpoint--for the beat down that the Bruins suffered at the hands of the thugs and gang members from South Central Community College.

Let's forget the disgraceful performance of Larry Kerr's defense for the time being. (By the way, with each moment that passes without an announcement that Kerr has been relieved of his duties Dorrell loses that much more credibility). What happened to the offense? Every MSM talking head was raving about how this game would be a shoot-out, and how UCLA would have little trouble scoring against USC.

You know where I'm going with this. That pathetic offensive showing falls directly at the feet of Karl Dorrell and his OC, Tom Cable. Bottom line--the coaches failed us--again.

Back to the talent debate.

The talent that most teams rely on is based on the junior and senior classes. Odysseus' analysis shot down the notion that UCLA does not have the talent to compete at the elite level. Unfortunately, the talent that Dorrell has had for the past 3 seasons will be playing their last game in the much anticipated Viagra (or is it Vitalis?) Sun Bowl on 12/30.

You think our talent is an issue right now?

CFN just released their 2005 Sophomore All American First and Second teams. Guess who doesn't have a player on either team? USC has 4 representatives, Oregon State has 3, UA has 2, and ASU and UW each have one.

Let's not even get into the reports coming from the various UCLA message boards about elite recruits at positions of dire need calling UCLA a "finesse" team or just eliminating UCLA altogether after witnessing the events of 12/3 unfold.

What does this say about the next few years of Bruin football under Karl Dorrell?

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

KD & UCLA

I guess there will always be those who criticize KD and those who worship KD. I don't consider myself to be in either category. Unlike most people in here, I try to evaluate KD in a fair and impartial manner. Despite the debacle on December 3rd, I believe Karl Dorrell has improved the program in the overall picture (the record of 9-2 speaks for itself) and he has earned himself another year in Westwood. Many of you will say that 4 of those 9 wins required a rally in the final minutes against crappy teams. Guess what? A win is a win, and that is all that matters at the end of the day. It doesn't matter if you win by 1 or by 100. Victory is all that matters, especially if you're a player or a coach. Not only that, in years past, those 4 situations would have resulted in 4 losses. The fact that UCLA managed to have the heart and rally for victories in each of those circumstances speak volume for the players and the coaches. KD is not the best coach out there, but he is our coach. At times, he has shown signs of being able to call great plays. At other times, you wonder what the fuck he's doing. I have no interest in giving KD a lifetime tenure at UCLA, but I do honestly believe he does deserve another year in Westwood.

As far as the issue of talent goes, it shouldn't even be relevant. It would be nice to litter your roster with Heisman winners and All-Americans, but many teams have shown that a lot can be achieved with a lot less talent. It all comes back to coaching and to that degree, the fault falls squarely on KD. The fact that a much-less talented but well-coached Fresno State team gave USC a run for their money up til the final minute should say something about UCLA getting blown out, with the Bruins having a shitload more talent than the Bulldogs.

In a previous post, I only brought up the issue of talent to address Nestor's point of his low expectation of our basketball team. If he doesn't think that our basketball squad is talented enough to make it to the Final Four, what would make him think that our football team is talented enough to knock off a team that has not lost in more than two years? Hell, I think we have a better shot of winning the basketball national title than beating SC in football, simply because our basketball team is in a better position than our football team. We have a basketball team that is very talented and a coach with a proven winning record. In football, we are also very talented but we have a coach who is still learning the ropes. This is the path that DG is taking us down and it is a painful path. Although I never approved of the KD hiring since there were better coaches on the market at the time (this was in winter of '02-'03), I have come to accept KD as our coach. For those crying and whining about KD, we could be in a situation much worse than this. We could be everyone's bitch and stay that way for a couple more years before DG realized the error of his way.

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 7:40 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Problem

"I have no interest in giving KD a lifetime
tenure at UCLA, but I do honestly believe he
does deserve another year in Westwood."

This statement makes no sense. KD is not worthy of a long term contract but he should get one more year? Why? If KD is not a coach worthy of being at UCLA for an extended period of time, he should be fired to make room for someone who is. Giving him one more year just delays the inevitable.

by Koach Karl I on Dec 14, 2005 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So what do you want to do?

Be like Peter Dalis and give the coach a 10 year contract only to find out that he sucks and you have to fire him and send him home with a multi-million dollar severance paycheck. Last I checked, UCLA is still paying Bob Toledo to play golf every morning at a country club somewhere on the westside. That money can be better spent like paying for a high-caliber coach to take over a program that generates millions of dollars rather than bargain hunting for an alumnus who has never been a head coach.

With new coaches, we have to take small steps at a time. He may work out, he may not. It takes anywhere from 3 to 5 years. Some programs jump the gun, some are more patient. I believe Dorrell's next season may very well be the test of whether he goes or stays. The schedule next year will be much tougher with games at Notre Dame, at Oregon, and hosting the Trojans. As someone posted earlier, it is rare for a coach at UCLA to get back-to-back 9 win seasons. Even if Dorrell win 9 games in the regular seasons next year, many questions will still remain if those losses are to Notre Dame, Oregon, and USC. I'm not sold on KD yet but he is our coach. With the exception of the game against USC, I do see tremendous improvements in the program.

The Sun Bowl against Northwestern will set the stage for next year. A loss to Northwestern will definitely put KD on the hot seat. A win and KD will have next year to prove his worth. I am not an endorser, have never been, and never will be of a 10 year contract. Coaches and teams change over time. Sometimes, adjustments have to be made. And if a coach has to go, he has to go. Granted, many in the Bruin community is leaning towards getting rid of him. But KD has 9 wins this season and we'll see if this is a fluke or the start of something special. Only time will tell. Getting rid of him now will serve no purpose other than to restart the rebuilding process all over again. Not only that, we would lose many of the recruits who have verbally committed to us.

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 11:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

For fans who think talent is the issue

Here is USC's margin of victory over their PAC-10 opponents this season;
Arizona State - 10
Arizona - 21
California - 25
Washington - 27
Stanford - 30
Oregon - 32
Washington State - 42
UCLA - 47

Is UCLA the least talented team in the conference?
Is it even in the bottom half, talent-wise?

by McCloskey on Dec 14, 2005 8:13 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Facts don't matter ...

for excuse makers. Otherwise they would have realized the contrast between complete rebuilding project Howland inherited from Lavin v. the fairly stocked cupboard (even according to Dorrell supporters when he was hired) KD inherited. It is beyond silly ... time will tell the story I suppose. I expect us to beat a Northwestern team with no defense with in a high scooring shootout, but a 10-2 record this season will mask the weak foundation of this program, just like those Sweet-16 Lavin appearances were doing for basketball. Sad really.

by Nestor on Dec 14, 2005 8:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sad

What's even sadder is that everyone will be jumping for joy when we make the Sweet Sixteen this year. I'm still holding out some hope that we can go deeper than that. But first, the Wolverines this weekend. GO BRUINS!!!

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 8:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Got it wrong again newbie

No one here is going to celebrate Sweet 16 appearances like it is some kind of national championship. But are we going to be encouraged by the progression of a basketball program's move into Sweet-16, which just three years crashed into rock bottom posting one of the worsts records in the history of UCLA basketball. Harrick didn't win the Pac-10 until his fourth year in Weswood, and didn't bring home the banner till his 7th year in Westwood. His Sweet-16 appearance in his second year was considered a HUGE UPSET in a hard fought win over Kansas. But what was important that he was building up the program. Howland is doing an even better job. While there are many more concerns about Dorrell.

You sound like someone who doesn't follow recruiting very closely and doesn't have any idea how building of program takes place both on and off the field/court. Othewise, you wouldn't be making such ignorant comparisons between Dorrell and Howland.

by Nestor on Dec 14, 2005 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sweet Sixteen

I don't know if you're in your own bubble or what not but based on what I've read on various messageboards and conversations I've had with other Bruins, people in Westwood would be thrilled to make it back to the Sweet Sixteen. Of course, the celebration would be nowhere near the level of winning a national championship. That's when you crowd the street and start a bonfire at the intersection of Wilshire and Westwood.

As for Howland, I think he's doing a great job and very pleased at the future of this program. But for Dorrell, you and a lot of bloggers in here are not giving him the credit that he has earned. Maybe the ignorance is on you for ignoring the fact that KD has compiled the first 9 win season in nearly seven years and potentially could get 10 wins for only the 7th time in the history of UCLA, spanning a period of 85 years. But you can ignore that fact if you want. It just makes you a little more ignorant. I understand the concerns and pitfalls that surround KD's program, but I'm also aware of its great potentials. Should I remind you that a week and a half after that shellacking at the hands of the Trojans, we still hold a top 10 recruiting class in football, coming in at #9 and SC coming in at #17? Then again, your negativity may have blinded you from that fact. Go check rivals.com, old fart.

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, hold on now...

At the start of the season it was "we need a 9 win season." That morphed into "We need a 9- or 10-win season." Now 10 wins isn't enough? I understand that the two losses were particularly bad. But that doesn't ignore the fact that there's still 10 wins there - masking anything or not. The most common argument is that Dorrell was bailed out by his players, most notably Drew Olson. Honestly, you and I both watched Drew Olson play for 4 years at UCLA. People were hailing him as Cory Paus part II, even up to the beginning of this season (many fans were happy for Drew but worried for the prospects of the team when it was announced he'd be starting over Ben). And they would have had good reason to think as much, to boot. Can you really tell me without a doubt that Karl Dorrell isn't responsible for his major improvement this season? This blog's roots show quite distincitvely, as much as I like the majority of the commentary. Dorrell is blamed to some degree for every failure - which is fair, he's the head coach. But he is also not given nearly enough credit for most of the successes. Talk about excuses, how about looking at the excuses of some of the anti-Dorrell camp so that they don't have to give him any credit; BOTH SIDES do the same damned thing. "Dorrell got lucky that Drew Olson blossomed into a brilliant QB." Well, guys... Who has been his coach for the past 3 seasons? And who was willing to give him a shot this year naming him the unquestioned starter even though he could have had a built-in *excuse* for losing if he had started Ben Olson ('the kid's just learning...')? I don't think Dorrell shouldn't have been hired. He was, and still is, learning on the job. It was apparent then, it's apparent now. But what is also apparent to me is that he's improving. Lavin was not. At all. Period. There was not a single season when I watched UCLA basketball during the Lavin era and thought "gee, this team looks better-coached than last year." There's no question in my mind that's the case this season. "Well-coached" and "better-coached" are different matters entirely, it should be said. But it seems like the writers here have a bit of a blind spot to most improvements. This season's schedule was weak, true, but there have been plenty of years in which the Pac-10 hasn't been all that good. It's just, normally UCLA had been in the middle or bottom of that pack . The Bruins have a great football tradition, but it's not a top 10 tradition, it's a top 25 tradition, and to argue otherwise would suggest some interesting logical choices. Though there have been a number of years with UCLA up towards the top, there have also been quite a few years with the Bruins down towards the bottom, looking beyond the past decade or two. I'm all for promoting a winning atmosphere, but I think part of that atmosphere means that you have to support a coach who is making noticable strides forward. I would not have hired KD during the coach search. I might not hire him now. But he's here, and firing him will force the team back into rebuilding mode no matter when it's done. I say he's earned an offseason without people sniping at him over and over and over again (and sounding like a bit of a broken record, really), and another season to prove that those close victories weren't flukes, they were the product of a mentally tough team that believed in itself and believed in the coach. I really want to believe that you all hope in the latter as well, but I can't help thinking many of you wish it to be the former so that you'll have been proven right in your early opinions (as opposed to simply taking a moment to reasses the situation several YEARS later).

by Underbruin on Dec 14, 2005 8:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Yikes, formatting got mucked up. Sorry.

by Underbruin on Dec 14, 2005 8:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Damn

I didn't realize I had a twin sibling roaming around.

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 8:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Black and white

I think there is a disconnect here in the way people on this message board seem to react to comments about KD. I don't think it is a black and white issue, as in "Dorrell needs to be fired," and "I love Dorrell, give him a 10-year extension."

I have always maintained that he may not be a good coach, he made stupid decisions (especially during the SC game), and that he had an easier schedule. However, I think there are people who think that 0-3 against USC is the SOLE reason to fire him. I don't think that a 9-win (and possibly 10-win) season is justification for firing him, but I think that this next year will show what kind of a coach he is. I don't think he should be fired right now because I do think that the team has improved win-wise, and on offense, skill-wise, although not coaching-wise or on the defensive side of the ball. I think if he hires a new DC and he gets us to 9 or 10 wins again next season (without any blowouts or more than 1 embarrassing almost loss) then he deserves to keep his job. If he ends up with a 7-4 season (or worse), and someone better is available, we should hire someone else.

But this is not a black and white issue where everyone either loves him or hates him. There are plenty of people like me who say give him one more year to prove that he can coach a big-name school in a good conference before deciding to kick him out.

I do, however, agree that our 10-2 record would be kind of a sham considering how good our team was (like those Sweet 16s under Lavin), but I'm willing to give KD another year to right his wrongs and learn from his mistakes.

GO BRUINS. HOOK 'EM HORNS.

by uclawarren on Dec 14, 2005 9:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds about right ...

None of us here are asking for KD to get fired today. All we are really saying is this regular season should not be considered a successful one, given how 2 out of our last 3 games turned out, and especially considering the dreadful performance in the SC game. SC game should always be one of the most prominents barometers to measure a UCLA football coach. Sure it would help Dorrell if he wins 10 games. Numerically the numbers would indicate that to be a successful season. But given the quality of those 10 wins against some pathetic Pac-10 opponents, and how completely blew it down the stretch, those 10 wins would have as much merit as a Boise State or Marshall's wins in the pathetic WAC or MEAC conferences. If Dorrell cannot achieve a baseline 9 win seasons and end the streak against USC next season, he should be either fired or resign next day. Like it or not we are going to keep up that narrative every day here on BruinsNation.

by Nestor on Dec 14, 2005 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

USC

If we don't beat USC next year, then I don't know when the hell we're gonna beat them. If you look at the Trojans, they will lose Matt Leinart at the key quarterback position. Sure they have John David Booty and Mark Sanchez but both kids are untested and could be bust which I hope they are. At the running back position, I'm hoping both Reggie Bush and LenDale White take off for the NFL. That would seriously deplete the Trojans depth at the tailback position. And on defense, I believe Frostee Rucker who continually harassed Drew Olson a week and a half ago will be heading for the NFL as well. So USC will be breaking out new players at several key positions and I hope that they're not as good as they're hyped out to be. We must preserve the 8-win record streak and stop the Trojans at the Rose Bowl next year. And considering that we may pull in a better recruiting class than SC, we may very well have an excellent chance of beating those bastards next year. So it could be KD's last year or the start of something great. We'll have to wait and see.

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Next year

Minimum expectations for next year should be 10 wins and appearance in the Holiday Bowl. What do you guys think?

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not good enough

The expectation should also include a win over USC in our house at the Rose Bowl. Period.

by Nestor on Dec 14, 2005 9:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

10 wins. One of them has to be against USC simply because I think the Trojans will be more vulnerable than ever.

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree about SC being a must win, but

see my comments on the "10 wins" threshold below to my response to UB.

by Nestor on Dec 14, 2005 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think you fire a coach after consecutive

9+ win seasons. This is not Miami or Nebraska.

It's a rare achievement in Westwood; '54/'55, '75/'76, '84/'85, '87/'88, '97/'98

If KD goes 9-3 in regular season, for instance, losing @Notre Dame, and losing two out of; @Cal, @Oregon, @ASU, & USC, but beating everybody else, I don't think he should be fired.
A 7-2 PAC-10 record iscompeting for the conference championship.

Anything better than that would be wholly unexpected.

by McCloskey on Dec 14, 2005 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That is a good point ...

I will concede that. But how do you think an 8 win regular season is going to taste like after a season ending loss to SC? Would you keep KD if he pulls out a win in some meaningless fourth rate bowl game?

by Nestor on Dec 14, 2005 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Next year we move to a 12 game regular season

That's why in my scenario, he has to go 9-3, before the bowl game. I'm expecting a loss at ND; new QB in his 3rd road game ever, 1 week after playing at Autzen, etc. So that means 7-2 in the conference. I think that's good enough for 2nd place, at a minimum. The 2nd place bowl is the Holiday Bowl. I think that's an acceptable finish, for next year, given the schedule, the younq QB, etc. etc. etc.

by McCloskey on Dec 14, 2005 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to clarify, then...

If UCLA were to, say, win every game except the USC game (including a victory over a resurgent Notre Dame program and coaching demigod Charlie Weis and an eventual bowl slot which could very well be BCS if they were a one-loss team), you would still find the season a failure solely because the Bruins would have lost to a USC team that will be the odds-on favorite again next year to win the Pac-10 and finish amongst the best teams in the country?

I know it's unlikely, I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint here.

by Underbruin on Dec 14, 2005 9:53 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Crazy hypos ...

Let's not get into crazy hypos. Given that we have a new QB (albeit billed as once in a generation talent), it is not practicable to expect a double digit winning season. But I do think it is reasonable to expect a baseline of 9 win season (including the bowl game), which must include a win over USC (who are also breaking in a brand new QB without Bush).

by Nestor on Dec 14, 2005 10:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

talent?

The talent argument is such BS. Look at Notre Dame and what Weis has done with Willingham's players. The fact is, you're not going to get a scholarship at a major-conference school without talent, but talent needs to be developed and molded. The show we put on against Second Choice proves that there are some major coaching problems that havent been resolved (to be fair, though, outside of that - the team does seem more "together" and more solid than it did in the past few years).

by njbruin on Dec 14, 2005 10:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

9-3 or 10-2 it's still a fraud

People are forgetting that this team is 5 plays away from a 5-6 record. KD is not a good coach because the team never improved over the course of the season. To get manhandled, not once but twice, and come out flat twice as the Bruins did speaks volumes about the coaching and lack of preparedness. I understand it is hard to argue with a 9 or 10 win season, but this a season where easily half of those victories are suspect at best. The defense is just a joke. For a team with top tier talent the Little Sisters of the Poor could score on this defense! Dorrel may be great in communicating with the crowd, 'Believe in this team' he says. Well, I do, I believe they are a badly coached team!

by seernst on Dec 14, 2005 11:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe it is a fluke

We won't know until next season. Give KD another year and see where he's going with this. Then, we can decide whether we want to hold on him or toss him to the side.

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 11:38 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

And what has KD done in his first 2 seasons?

Were those freebies. I agree ... 9-3/10-2 doesn't matter, this team didn't improve over the course of the season, and Dorrell was exposed a fraud again when everything was on the line at the end of season. And now reports are coming that some of our recruits may not even qualify academically. It is not looking very good. Like everyone here I am not advocating for KD's firing today, but the point is he has had two horrible season, and one mediocre season disguised under a sham 9-2 record this season. Right now he has not any given reason to "believe" in his program.

by bluestreet on Dec 14, 2005 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hypothetically

Say Northwestern blows out UCLA (which is not improbable) and KD says in his postgame comment that his team wasn't as prepared as they should have been and he was outcoached. DG moves to fire him the following week. Who would be the candidates to replace KD and who would we want?

Personally, I'd like to see Norm Chow take the rein in Westwood. That would be classic. Every USC-UCLA game would be Norm Chow against Pete Carroll. We'll see how good Carroll is then. We wouldn't even need an OC since Chow himself is the offensive mastermind. On defense though, I'd like to see Phil Snow (at the very least) cuz he did miracle to our defense as evidenced in the 2001 and 2002 season or someone from the SEC.

What's your take? Of course, this is just for fun, at least right now. I don't foresee UCLA getting blown out by Northwestern or KD getting canned by DG later this month. But then again, never say never.

by ucla2k3 on Dec 14, 2005 12:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Why not?

I could definitely see a big loss to NW, they beat more high quality teams than we did. KD has shown the longer the layoff the less coaching and innovation involved.

Anyway, I would love to see Butch Davis as head coach, he is nationally recognized and probably still has good contacts in FL.

by drillerdoc on Dec 14, 2005 1:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A big loss to NW?

How do you figure? The NW sched and results:

9/3      Ohio W 38-14
9/10     Northern Illinois W 38-37
9/17     at Arizona State L 52-21
9/24     Penn State L 34-29
10/8     Wisconsin W 51-48
10/15     at Purdue W 34-29
10/22     at Michigan St W 49-14
10/29     Michigan L 33-17
11/5     Iowa W 28-27
11/12     at Ohio State L 48-7
11/19     at Illinois W 38-21

Scores that jump out at me:

Arizona State, LOSS, 52-21. Sure, it was at ASU. It was still a 30-point loss to a Sun Devil team the Bruins were able to score against at will.
Wisconsin, win, 51-48. Very good victory against a good (but not great) Wisconsin team. They lost close to a good Penn State team, but got destroyed just as badly by Ohio State as UCLA did against USC. Illinois, Michigan State, and Purdue are all bad teams, as are Ohio and Northern Illinois. Iowa's a good team, but no better than Cal has been this season, and Oklahoma's about as good as Wisconsin (the Badgers are a clear 2nd-tier team in the Big 10, as they beat all the bad teams but lost to the good ones).

The Bruins have played a schedule not quite as tough because they missed Oregon (the Pac-10's "Ohio State") and the Big 10 is a little tougher top-to-bottom, but it's not so much so to account for two more losses. Northwestern has beaten two 'good' teams (rather like UCLA), no 'great' teams, and a bunch of mediocre-to-bad ones. Much like the Bruins, minus a good out-of-conference victory or the extra couple of wins.

by Underbruin on Dec 16, 2005 3:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doubtful

Even if his team loses to Northwestern, I doubt he would be fired. I don't think they would fire him after a 9-win season. But essentially he will be on thin ice all next season and will need at least another 9-win season to stay.

GO BRUINS. HOOK 'EM HORNS.

by uclawarren on Dec 15, 2005 7:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs