Missing the big picture ...

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 6:29 AM PDT in Football Comment 16 comments

So the guys over at College Football Resource (a blog which has basically become a good resource full of links to the college football blogosphere), have put up a post taking a closer look at the evolution of Karl Dorrell. It's a pretty interesting (and a loooong) post - making some key points on Dorrell's questionable credentials/experience but also missing out on a few. They end up missing the big picture on Dorrel.

CFR basically tries to zone into three aspect of Dorrell's tenure in Westwood. His resume, his season-by-season records, and the tumultuous coaching changes that have taken place under him during last three mediocre years. I think they hit the nail on its head when focusing on Dorrell's rather mediocre resume full of holes. Of course KD's backers hailed his experienced because he had supposedly great experiences as an OC at Northern Arizona, and at CU and UDub under Skippy. As CFR points out - not so fast:

* He is not an innovator---When he was hired at UCLA, the press clippings mostly harped about his desire to install the "West Coast Offense". Nowhere were there mentions of "Dorrellian" twists to the West Coast, it's as if he'd simply absorbed what had developed under tutors like Rick Neuheisel and Mike Shanahan without adding to the mix.

* Quirky OC duties---This may be a reach, but KD's never been strictly an OC. He's always been an OC and receivers coach. That's a bit unusual. Most OC's, to my knowledge, tend to worry just about the offense, or might add the title of quarterbacks coach. But in all seven seasons where he's been the OC of a team, Karl Dorrell's also coached the receivers.

*Independence---This is what I alluded to earlier. For the five seasons he ran the offense at Colorado and Washington, Dorrell was also under the employ of one Rick Neuheisel. Right or wrong, Neuheisel has been given credit as an offensive guru of sorts. If that's the case, chances are Dorrell's been given questionable coaching latitude by his boss. There are questions as to how independent he has been as an OC; whether he's been in charge of creating and implementing an offense, or whether he was just the manager and puppet for the head coach and what the big man wanted out of the offense. I don't have the answer to that.

Another thing that is worth pointing out is Dorrell's "NFL experience." Keep in mind he was a WR coach for the Denver Broncos in a team that is DOMINATED by Shanahan and (at the time he was there) and Gary Kubiak (Broncos former OC who is now the Texan?s HC). In other words Dorrell's role in the Bronco?s coaching tree was just about as prominent as Lavin's in Harrick's 1995 staff. Not impressive by any means.

Now CFR as mentioned does a good job of pointing out the huge holes in KD's resume, but they failed to recognize a key point while attempting to analyze Dorrel's season-by-season (mediocre) records in Westwood. Here is CFR:

Numbers aside, UCLA is a team that has improved from year-to-year under Karl Dorrell. Some have argued last year's record was inflated by a friendly schedule, but in my eyes they were also a better team than the 2003 and 2004 squads. That's a surprising revelation when one factors in the lackluster recruiting efforts turned in by Dorrell. Dorrell coached a handful of quality, veteran, high-profile Bob Toledo recruits his first season, then went out and recruited some lowly regarded classes on his own. Things are looking better for UCLA's recruiting this year, but the previous modest recruiting hauls should have dragged his 2005 team down. The opposite has happened, however.

Well that is not quiet right. It is clear Dorrell clearly underachieved in his first two seasons totally failing to take advantage of NFL talents Toledo left him on the defensive side of the ball and basically putting together a product that was utterly inept offensively in his first season. Now during his third season he won 10 games - largely due to the heroics of Drew Olson and Marcedes Lewis. I will give him credit for MJD but no one here will question how instrumental Drew Olson (a Toledo recruit) was in those miraculous come from behind wins against the mediocre teams. Without the DO UCLA would probably be a 7-5 team last season. Also it was Page, Havner, and London kind of holding the defense together (what was left of it) last season. We are going to see how Dorrell truly does this season. This is his team, his players, and this is the season he is going to have to come up with 9 wins and a win over USC. After all one of the main reasons Toledo was fired because he was getting blown out and embarrassed by USC towards the end of his tenure in Westwood. And as you can see things haven't improved one bit since he left notwithstanding that one "moral victory" we came up with two years ago:

Photo - AP

CFR goes on to provide a lengthy discussion on all the coaching changes in Dorrel's three seasons in Westwood to come up with the incorrect conclusion that Dorrell is a good coach. Dorrell has had some good moments during his three years in Westwood. But so did Lavin. But even after some of the fleeting brilliant moments from last season, one thing is still painfully apparent to those who follow this Bruin program. A basic foundation is still missing from this football program. Again kind of reminds us of those Lavin coached basketball teams that came up with those great wins at Round 2 of the NCAA and the miraculous wins at Maples, only to crash and burn at very end. Even the outside observers who tried to take a closer look at Lavin's program would often erroneously conclude that Lavin was a good coach. They always missed the big picture. Unfortunately for CFR, despite their hard work on taking a closer look at Dorrell missed the big picture as well. Dorrell hasn't showed anything tangible yet that he is a good coach and that he is the answer to reinstalling UCLA as one of the elite football powers from West Coast.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

CFR=SuC apologists ...

It's a good blog but they are basically bunch of apologists for SuC, parrotting every BS coming out of the ManPundit.

I admire their long post but as you said they missed the big picture.

Hearing from their mouths that Dorrell is a good coach is almost like hearing those faux praises of Steve Lavin from Arizona and other Pac-10 fans during those dark days.

Dorrell = Black Lavin.

by bluestreet on Apr 11, 2006 6:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh stop

I doubt HP would agree with my assessment in this post (or many of my posts).

I know HP so sometimes the topics we discuss are similar, that's bound to happen.

My conclusion was only that he was a good coach. I didn't define it that well but he looks to me like a guy that's gotten the team at least incrementally better, has been able to tread water---he hasn't entered "reject" territory in my new coach theory.

I didn't qualify how good he was or whatever, and it's obvious even from my post that he's really bumbled along much of his tenure---to me that paints a big picture about him for people to draw their own conclusions. I was more interested in the minutae of the coaching decisions of his and his spotty resume more than the actual conclusion drawn.

by CollegeFootballResource on Apr 11, 2006 9:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well ...

I am not going to get into whether or not you follow HP.

But I will disagree on your conclusion that Dorrell is a good coach. There is really no defnitive evidence pointing to that fact.

It's been three years - and KD has shown us absolutely nothing.

Well he may not have turned into a total miserable failure quiet yet, but that alone is not sufficient to conclude that he is a good coach.

A good coach would not be rebuilding after having three years to build a program.

Nice effort anyways. You put a lot of research into it and lot of it is valuable in terms of keeping track of the coaching changes and all the holes in Dorrell's resume.

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Previous Years

I am going into my 26th year as a season ticket holder for football. Watched Donahues teams do good & bad, Toledo's team's win 20 straight but couldnt play a lick of defense. But I always supported them on the field. Now we have the KD era and although we need to hold KD to a high standard this year(at least 9 wins, & a mandatory beating of the scumbags & ND), it usually takes 3 to 4 years for a coach to get his people in all the key positions,especially with redshirting. The Toledo era didn't leave the cupboard full of gems with the defense and his teams were also a disaster on that side of the ball (remember the Miami Fiasco?). His offense continually bailed him out.

I'm not giving a bailout to KD either, he should have at least beat Arizona and shown up for the Scumbag game and give them a hard fought, down to the wire game. I hold him accountable for those lapses.
I think we should hold off on continually bashing him again until we see what happens this season. We have a great (but tough) schedule and I do like the changes made to the coaching staff. If he doesn't cut it this year, he should be gone. I'm just going to wait until we see what happens this season before making that decision.

As great a job as Howland did this year, there were people second guessing his decisons on who should guard who after the Florida game.

Okay I'm done, now back to your regularly scheduled programs.

by artybruin on Apr 11, 2006 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Supporting the team ...

We live in a different time now.

I will always support my school and our players. But doesn't mean I am going to give our coaches an unconditional pass if they continue to put forth mediocre product.

If this blog was around during the later Donahue years - it would not be a pleasent place to be either - because you can recall Donahue left UCLA in very mediocre shape. In fact Donahue left UCLA in worse shape than Toledo in 2002.

Toledo did not leave the cupboard bare. KD had enough talent on both sides of the ball to win 8-9 games in each of his first two seasons. Of course he screwed it up both on and off the field.

Toledo specifically left enough defensive talent when Dorrell took over - KD just failed to replenish the talent at key defensive positions (DL) when Ball brothers, Leislie et al. were getting ready to leave Westwood.

I realize saying negative things about KD continually is not pleasent. But if we are going to continue to discuss UCLA football, it will not be pleasent, considering we have a mediocre football program - and that is just the reality. Sorry Arty.

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Reality

Don't misunderstand me, KD needs to do a lot better than he has shown and he needs to do it this year. No excuses for him if he doesn't. He has replaced coaches he thought needed to be replaced and his recruits will actually be playing in large numbers. Eventually it all will boil down to him. I want a UCLA football team that is at least equal to the BB team in it's intensity and play.

Donahue was mediocre at best, continually played "not to lose" and proceeded to lose a lot of winnable games because of that attitude. Toledo wouldn't know defense if it walked up and introduced itself.

If the defensive side of the ball would have improved as much as the Offensive side in each of the 3 years this would be a much different conversation, but is hasn't and he is accountable.

Like I said, if his team doesn't play up to expectaions he should be gone and I will be the first person demanding a quality replacement.

I guess I'm just an optimist, always expecting it to be better.

On a more positive note this is a great site, keep up the good work.

by artybruin on Apr 11, 2006 12:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed ...

Agree just about everything you wrote. I will try to heed your advice and try not to sound down on the football program. But as you can tell it is very hard for me to erase the memories of Arizona and SuC games and generally what went on during the first two years of Dorrell.

If he beats SC and wins 9 games this season - I will be more than happy to sing Dorrell's praises.

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Equal in intensity as the bball team

now that's a lofty goal and an extremely high standard. I would accept playing with 80% of the intensity of the bball team, but that's still a long ways away (I think they're at about 20-25% of the intensity now)

by shaq on Apr 12, 2006 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed...

There were several games last year that I turned the TV off and chose not to watch (including AZ & the scumbags games) due to financial reasons. As bad as we were playing I would have needed a new TV every week if I would have continued to watch.

But somehow we won most of the games.

I like to think that we can build on the success of 10-2 (even if it is deceiving) and move forward (the optimist in me).

It's officially his program & his players and 3 years ago he asked us to have patience. Well that part of it is pretty much worn out and he needs to take this program to a higher level this year, or get out of the way and let someone else do it.

by artybruin on Apr 11, 2006 12:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Dorrell's bubble year

Talking about Dorrell takes me back to 1988, when I overheard this part of some big debate:

DORRELL: "I have as much experience in the Coaching as Ben Howland did when he sought the head coaching job. I will be prepared to deal with the people in the AD administration, if that unfortunate event would ever occur."

WOODRUFF: "Coach Jones."

JONES: "Coach, I served with Ben Howland, I knew Ben Howland, Ben Howland was a friend of mine. Coach, you are no Ben Howland. (Prolonged shouts and applause)...."

That much is clear. The question is, what is Karl Dorrell? I think the CFR guys are right that Dorrell was in over his head when he started. He may still be now, though I think he's at least progressed enough to be able to jump off the bottom often enough to break the surface and steal a gulp of air.

I also think Dorrell has improved, though I'm not sure how much, and I think he started from a low enough point that, wherever he is now, he's still not the coach we'd all hope to have at the end of the road.

My question is whether to throw in the towel, and accede to the part of me that says "fuck this guy." Or, should I give him another year and see if he can continue to develop. I don't know the best way to think about things like this. But, if you could somehow wave a magic wand and just erase Dorrell's first two years at UCLA from history, I'd be pretty happy where things stood. If this was Dorrell's second year, or even third year, I would be more patient. But it's not.

Nevertheless, that mental exercise is useful to the extent that it suggests to me that Dorrell isn't a total waste of oxygen. He's just a nine year old who spent the last two summers in the big boy's pool kicking his legs vigorously to try to stay afloat. Maybe he's just learned freestyle, and any great speed is still a ways off, be he's progressing. Lavin wasn't. Toledo wasn't; at least not on defense.

So, in the end, I'll give him another year and see what happens. Unfortunately, we have no guarantee that the next guy will do better, and I, for one, want to see how this plays out. But, I do agree that this year is it for me. Either he performs well, or he should be shown the door.

Now that I've said all that, kindly don't jump down my throat by saying all the usual things about how Dorrell has underperformed, lost to SC, etc. I know all that, and don't feel like qualifying my remarks to the extent that would otherwise insulate me from such comments.

by Cocoman25 on Apr 11, 2006 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

lol

No jumping on your threat.

I think we are practical enough to know Dorrell cannot be gone now.

And you know the reality is he may not be gone even after this year after he fails to win 9 games.

But what we can do is set the tone - and set the basis of reality for UCLA fans and undercut any the conventional wisdom among the traditional media that UCLA fans will be happy with just another 7-8 win season without a win against USC.

That is why it is so important to get the message out here from BN - we are simply not going to tolerate mediocrity any more. We had enough of Donahue. Enough of Toledo. We didn't have refined ways to get our frustrations out except for some desperate, incoherent call into silly radio shows.

This is a way to get our message out. This year is it. 9 wins and beat SC or hit the road. It is not pleasent. But we got to get the word out on behalf of BN.

And this kind of great dialogue in our thread certainly helps.

GO BRUINS.

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I agree. The dialogue, organization and expectation setting are all important.

And, on a less serious note, when you said:

And you know the reality is he may not be gone even after this year after he fails to win 9 games.

I wouldn't have included an "if" either. If UCLA does win 9 games and beats SC, I'll probably be one happy camper, especially given what that means for 2007. But I sure don't think it's likely.

by Cocoman25 on Apr 11, 2006 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he wins 9 games and beats SC ...

I will not lay off him here on BN for at least 2 years. That's a promise.

by Nestor on Apr 11, 2006 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

If he wins 9 and beats SC, you won't lay off him? Not sure I understand.

In any case, I just want it to be clear cut either way. Of course, I'd prefer to have Dorrell (or anyone really) emerge as a star and win 9+ and beat SC. But, if they don't do that, I'd prefer to go 2 and 10 and get a new coach.

Of course, the pessimist in me says we are destined to either go 9-3, with a bad loss to SC, or 8-4/7-5 with a win. What a depressing thought....

by Cocoman25 on Apr 11, 2006 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs