NFL Draft

by McCloskey on May 1, 2006 10:22 AM PDT

From the diaries. Here is McCloskey representing the reality based Bruins Nation. -N

KD has been the coach for 3 years, and there have now been 3 NFL drafts of his teams.
Let's see if the KD defenders ("he had no talent to work with") were right.
Here's how many players were drafted from each of the PAC-10 schools in those 3 drafts. (2004-2006)

USC - 20 players
Stanford - 13 players (fired coach for underachievement)
UCLA - 11 players
Cal - 10 players
Oregon - 10 players
Oregon St. - 9 players
ASU - 7 players
Washington - 7 players
WSU - 6 players
Arizona - 1 player

So much for the "talent" excuse.

I guess there's a different reason that after 3 seasons, his best showing is one third place finish.

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.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Statistics

It's interesting to see how that compares to win/losses records over the same 3 year period:

USC: 20 / 37-2
Stanford: 13 / 13-20
UCLA: 11 / 22-15
Cal: 10 / 26-12
Oregon: 10 / 23-13
Oregon St.: 9 / 20-16
ASU: 7 / 21-5
Washington: 7 / 9-26
WSU: 6 / 19-16
Arizona: 1 / 8-26

Seems to be a somewhat strong correlation between this measure of "talent" and winning. On this basis alone, it looks like Stanford significantly underacheived; UCLA slightly underacheived; and ASU and WSU slightly overacheived.

by Cocoman25 on May 1, 2006 10:34 AM PDT reply actions

I like this idea

Because the Out of Conference schedules vary drastically (Portland State, UC Davis, Oklahoma, Notre Dame) here are the conference records of those teams

USC: 20 / 23-1
Stanford: 13 / 8-16
UCLA: 11 / 14-10
Cal: 10 / 16-8
Oregon: 10 / 16-8
Oregon St.: 9 / 12-12
ASU: 7 / 11-13
Washington: 7 / 5-19
WSU: 6 / 10-14
Arizona: 1 / 5-19

Stanford and Washington really stand out to me. No surprise that both prorams fired their head coaches.

by McCloskey on May 1, 2006 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions

I Need any edit function

here are the cumulative conference finishes.

USC - #1, #1, #1

Cal - #2, #3
Oregon - #2, #3

WSU - #2

UCLA - #3
ASU - #3

by McCloskey on May 1, 2006 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions

I think it would be interesting ...

if we can also do up Pac-10 standings based on number of 3-5 star recruits all of these programs accumulated during that same time period.

by Nestor on May 1, 2006 10:37 AM PDT reply actions

Amazing

I'm probably going to get ripped for this but we seem to be beating the same old dead horse.

I believe it was established a while back that Dorrell has underachieved and none of us are happy about it, but how many angles are we going to look at to keep coming to the same conclusion.

I think we are in agreement about at least 9 wins and a victory over the scumbags for this upcoming season before we consider that the program is moving forward. Until then, I am going to be the optimist and let it play out.

Go Bruins

by artybruin on May 1, 2006 12:02 PM PDT reply actions

Arty ...

Understand your frustrations but do keep in mind every time a news event take places implicatng UCLA football, Dorrell angle becomes germane.

I wish we had a Howland like coach in football so that these discussions are not contentious.

But it is not our fault KD has underachieved last three seasons. So your frustration should be really directed towards him for creating an uncomfortable/uneasy atmosphere whenever UCLA football comes up.

by Nestor on May 1, 2006 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions

That's a tad intellectually dishonest...

This past season, Dorrell graduated a significant portion of his offensive talent (3 linemen, his senior QB, star running back, and leading receiver in both yards and TD catches), and I think we can all agree that the defense's talent was almost entirely Havner, London, and Page. The Bruins had 3 players drafted. USC had 11 of them.

That's an ENTIRE SQUAD. And 7 of them were drafted in the first 3 rounds, so it's not like there have been a bunch of late-rounders collected at the end of the draft.

Furthermore, UCLA had 11 players drafted in the 3 years since Dorrell arrived, but those players went mostly in the later rounds. In 2004 4 Bruins were drafted, but went in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 5th rounds. Last year, 4 Bruins again were drafted, this time in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 6th round. This season saw 3, going in the 1st, 2nd, and 7th rounds. In other words, the average Bruin draftee was picked up close to halfway through the 4th round.

In comparison, out of USC's 20 players drafted, they had 5 1st round players, 7 2nd round players, 2 3rd round players, 2 4th round players, 1 5th round player, 1 6th round player, and 2 7th round players. Their average player was picked late in the 2nd round... and they had 20 of them (in other words, over the last 3 seasons, USC has had drafted basically enough players to field a full game of football between them, not even including those who ended up signed as free agents).

That's something that always gets to me in terms of the "talent" argument. It's a non sequitur! It's clear that teams that are not as 'talented' can beat teams that have 'more' talent. Just ask USC what they think of Fresno State. Coaching and scheme and attitude can make up for talent deficiencies - that is the proper response. What is NOT the proper response is to attempt to claim that UCLA has had as much talent as USC has had over the past few seasons, which is really absurd. IT SHOULDN'T MATTER. IT'S USC-UCLA!

Look. In the past 3 seasons, UCLA has had maybe, MAYBE 4 or 5 players (out of the 30-odd that have started all told) that would start for the Trojans. Dave Ball might have gotten some playing time in '03, but it would have been sparing at best. Havner probably would have gotten time this season, as LB was probably the Trojan defense's biggest weakness this year. Same with Ware and CB in '03. Merc Lewis would have started, but he's about the only guaranteed player - Bragg might have gotten time as a flanker as well. And possibly one of the OLine somewhere. That's really about it.

That's a combination of things - weaker recruiting. Weaker teaching by the coaches. Weaker ability to play within a college-level scheme. Whatever. At the end of the day, USC has been so far above and beyond UCLA in terms of talent it isn't even funny. But. It. Shouldn't. Matter.

Look at the 2002 Fiesta Bowl. Miami (FL) had 5 players drafted in the 1st round (and the 'Cane drafted in the 2nd round ended up better than all of them, a young fellow named Clinton Portis), and dominated all season. Ohio State was led by a short but fast running back, a single excellent playmaker in the receiving corps, and a physically-limited but intangible-laden senior QB, plus a stifling defense (oh... wait, umm... maybe not so much that last one, but you get the point). Anyway, we all know what happened.

Sorry for the long post, this argument just gets under my skin. It shouldn't be dignified with a response, as time and again it's been proven that talent at the collegiate football level is significantly less important than it would be in certain other sports (say, college basketball, where Coach Howland insists that great teams begin with great players).

by Underbruin on May 1, 2006 2:23 PM PDT reply actions

No one is arguing ..

that UCLA had as much talent as USC did during last four years. What we have argued that lack of talent excuse doesn't stick because KD had enough talent (note "not as much talent as USC") to field a competitive team that should have averaged 8-9 win seasons, and that should have beaten at least once in last 3 years, and not get humiliated by them. What also gets under my skin when I see asinine posts saying UCLA did not have enough talent to field competitive teams against USC and did not have enough talents to win the Pac-10. Moreover, exactly why did the talent gap increase during last 3 years under Dorrell? UCLA hired him because he billed himself as a prolific recruiter. And except for a top-20 class this season, Dorrell failed to land top-25 recruiting classes in his first three attempts. So he was proven to be a mediocre recruiter along with a mediocre coach. Excuses and excuses. They just keep popping up all over the place for this mediocre head coach.

by Nestor on May 1, 2006 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions

And I quote from my post...

"Sorry for the long post, this argument [the "talent excuse"] just gets under my skin. It shouldn't be dignified with a response..."

I would say, though, that I've seen claims made that there is almost no talent gap between UCLA and USC, which is false. Yes, UCLA has enough talent to beat USC once every three years - because a good 30-40 teams do... It's actually DOING it that's the trick.

Though I would be careful about one claim... "Moreover, exactly why did the talent gap increase during last 3 years under Dorrell?" This is one of the few things I wouldn't entirely pin on Dorrell. I'd say this is first and foremost a Toledo failing - his top recruiting classes following the 20-win streak were basically all gone following the close of the 2002 season (UCLA's best draft in at least a decade), and he had not brought in "top-flight" talent. That's not to say that the team lacked talent... Only that it was not to the level of what USC had begun to bring in following the hire of Petey (which preceeded Dorrell by 2 years).

I would say KD is moving in the right direction, and as has been the discourse on the site for a while now, the most important thing is to build on what positives one can take from last year - keep winning games, keep pulling in recruits, try to get over that hump against the Mustard-and-Catsup.

by Underbruin on May 1, 2006 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Not sure ...

Where are you getting this?:

I'd say this is first and foremost a Toledo failing - his top recruiting classes following the 20-win streak were basically all gone following the close of the 2002 season (UCLA's best draft in at least a decade), and he had not brought in "top-flight" talent.

Toledo was bringing in top-15/20 talent every year taking advantage of that 20 win season. In fact his last full recruiting class (2002) was ranked nationally in the top-10 (7 or 9 depending on which publication you are going by). And I believe his 2001 recruiting class was pretty highly rated too. So KD by no means inherited an empty cup board. The cupboard was full enough for UCLA to come up with 8-9 win seasons. And what is worse KD failed to bring in a top-20 class up until this past season, striking out in his first four attempts. And I am not sure how you are concluding that Dorrell "is moving in the right direction." He had one lucky "10 win season," built on the talents of mostly Toledo's upperclassmen, and some fluke wins. That 10 win season was just about as significant as Lavin's Elite-8 run. We haven't seen anything definitive that can lead us to conclude that the program is moving in the right direction under Dorrell. Sure Dorrell has taken care off the off field shenanigans which became a problem under Toledo, but he was also brought in a to build a program that would "fire out" every game and contend for the title. In that case so far he has not provided any defnitive signs of this program moving in the right direction. We are stuck in mediocre land. Nothing has improved on the field. And we will find out whether he can deliver the goods this season if he can win 9 games and beat SC.

by Nestor on May 1, 2006 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions

Link:

http://www.members.cox.net/borchers1/recruit2003.html

A Notre Dame fan breaks down the connections between talent and on-field success (tenuous at best, and usually connected with other factors such as coaching) - he also uses recruiting rankings to assign a "recruiting points" value to each team. The team's recruiting ranking for a particular year in two major services (SuperPrep and Lemmings) is adjusted for age of the students, so that seniors who were highly-ranked recruits are worth more than highly-ranked freshmen.

UCLA's scores:
2000 - 65 points (9th best in the country... FSU was #1 with 148 pts).
2001 - 105 points (good for 7th-highest... Michigan finished at the top, with 149).
2002 - 86 points (8th-best, Texas leads with 145).
2003 - UCLA falls out of the 'top 10' in recruiting points for the first time since 2000, with only 44... And this is also the same season that USC passes the Bruins.

So UCLA trends downwards for the last two years of Toledo's campaign (keep in mind, I believe that Toledo's last season of coaching was arguably his best, which continues to support my belief that people put too much importance on talent; also a point the Domer fan's article supports). I am of the opinion that the team bottomed-out in 2003/2004 (one of the reasons I was staunchly against Dorrell's hiring - he was learning on the job). However, I don't believe that the can't learn, and I also don't believe that he isn't learning.

Also, note that I didn't claim that Dorrell had no talent - I didn't claim he had weak talent. I simply claim he lacked the absolute top-flight players that the "elite" teams were collecting year-in year-out (see: Miami, University of, etc...). I think he should have done much better than he did. But I don't believe that the players he assembled in his first two seasons, coupled with Toledo's remaining players, could match USC's talent. College football is too much a game of momentum, both on AND off the field. Success comes in waves, as do struggles.

One last point, though - I take issue with the claim that Dorrell's 10-win season is analgous to Lavin's Elite 8 run. That run was made immediately after Lavin took over the program, and discounts any positive influence Dorrell might have had over the players that did impact the season significantly, most notably Drew Olson. You tell me that we go back in time one year and I offer you a hundred to one odds that Drew Olson throws 34 TDs to 6 INTs, breaks record after record for both UCLA and the Pac-10, and leads the team to multiple 4th-quarter victories... You tell me you'd have taken those odds, I'll call you a liar (because I know I sure as hell wouldn't have taken them either).

I simply use Olson as an object lesson here - Olson made unbelievable strides in his 4th season here at UCLA... Is it so impossible to believe Dorrell might do the same? (Though I wouldn't bet on it, you get the point =P)

by Underbruin on May 1, 2006 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Again ...

I am not disputing UCLA was trending downwards during last two years of Toledo. I applauded UCLA decision to fire Toledo who was clearly underachieving on the field (with the talent he was bringing into the program) and was not doing a good job controlling the program off the field.

What I am taking issue with simple point that Dorrell did not have enough talent to put ona legit run to the Pac-10 title in his three years and produce at least 1 win against USC (in his first three years). He had enough talent to make that happen. But he didn't come close.

His 10 win seasons last year was nice ... but given how the events transpired against Zona and USC, it was clear that it was a fluke. It is great DO had a lot of success in his fourth season. However, him having a good season was not a big surprise to a lot of us who were aware that he was in fact a blue chip Elite-11 recruit, who was highly recruited by UCLA along with BO, Trent Edwards, and Matt Moore form his class. So it was not exactly an "unbelievable" season.

None on us expected Dorrell to win a NC or have "Miami" caliber seasons in his first three seasons. We did however expect them to produce teams better than those embarrassing performances against Fresno State, Wyoming in ridiculous bowls, and an uninspiring against Northwestern in some hair care product bowl.

And I don't have any problems comparing this past 10 win season to that elite eight run ... which was accomplished on the backs of mostly Toledo upper classmen, and also one of the easiest schedule of last 30 years (kind of like Lavo getting to Elite Eight beating Xavier and Iowa St.).

Lastly, if you think Dorrell has made "unbelievable" strides in his fourth season, then perhaps you were not watching that game against USC this past December. Then again .... if I recall correctly you didn't watch that game. So you probably do not feel the sting what it is like to get ass raped by Trojans and that is why you seem to be willing to be charitable to a coach who has proven to be nothing but mediocre, poor man's version Terry Donahue.

by Nestor on May 1, 2006 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmm...

"He had enough talent to make that happen. But he didn't come close."

I agree. I think he may have been a little closer than you give him credit for (I still feel that game in Arizona was just a massive 50-man brain fart or something), but he was never competitive in either the UofA game or the USC game. That's not acceptable, and he should have been better-positioned at one point or another during the past three years.

"However, him having a good season was not a big surprise to a lot of us who were aware that he was in fact a blue chip Elite-11 recruit, who was highly recruited by UCLA along with BO, Trent Edwards, and Matt Moore form his class."

And Cory Paus was "SuperPrep All-America (No. 11 QB)." Just because a QB is highly ranked doesn't mean he'll always pan out - and we all know that's exactly what the common opinion of Drew Olson was going into his senior season. Cory Paus version 2.0. Except Cory never threw for 34 TDs. Drew Olson looked like he'd never approach his supposed 'potential' - then his senior season happened. After a knee surgery. Perhaps the surgery gave him magic karma powers. Or, just possibly, one could attribute his willingness to beat himself back into playing shape faster than anybody had expected, in time to start, in time to play light years better than he ever had, to lead the team to a 7-0 start, and a 10-win season... Maybe a teeeeensy bit of that actually should be given in kudos to Dorrell. Just maybe. You know, throw the ol' dog a bone. Or something. Or not. Up to you.

"None on us expected Dorrell to win a NC or have "Miami" caliber seasons in his first three seasons. We did however expect them to produce teams better than those embarrassing performances against Fresno State, Wyoming in ridiculous bowls, and an uninspiring against Northwestern in some hair care product bowl."

Also true. I'm not saying people expected him to do as much. But by the same token, going back to the -original- argument, UCLA did not, and does not, have that type of talent (which is where USC is currently positioned). Does that mean UCLA can't beat them? That's a preposterous notion to hold. However, plenty of times the claim has been made here and elsewhere in one form or another, that the talent levels of the two teams were much closer than even a cursory knowledge of the actual players would support.

"Lastly, if you think Dorrell has made "unbelievable" strides in his fourth season, then perhaps you were not watching that game against USC this past December. Then again .... if I recall correctly you didn't watch that game."

Ahh, the non sequitur argument rears its head in a different form. Please point to any spot in my statements where I've claimed Dorrell has made anything resembling "unbelievable" strides. Allow me to quote myself once again, to emphasize the point:

"Is it so impossible to believe Dorrell ***might*** do the same [in the upcoming season, his 4th year, which is why I used the example of Drew Olson's 4th season as a metaphor]?"

Immediately followed by: "Though I wouldn't bet on it..."

In other words - I have not condemned the man yet. I am not saying you have. I am saying that it would be foolish to actually do so before a down of football is played. Expecting something is one thing (I don't expect the team to even have the same success as last season, though I think they -should- be able to get close), but believing it will happen to the point of refusing to consider other points is something else entirely.

After all, he could be just another Cory Paus... But hey, maybe he'll end up being the next Drew Olson. Take your pick.

by Underbruin on May 1, 2006 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions

You are wrong ...

DO was always better than Paus.

Paus couldn't throw a screen pass.

Even from DO's first game signs were there that the kid was going to be a QB who was going to able to short and med. range passes setting up a ball cantrol offense.

Cory Paus could throw bombs but he couldn't hit shit when it came to connecting with TEs or completing short passes to his backs.

It was pretty obvious to me at least by his 3rd year DO was better than Paus. DO also had better mobility than Paus, not to mention he was also may more durable than Paus.

by Nestor on May 1, 2006 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions

"better than Paus", yes, but...

http://www.bruinsnation.com/story/2005/6/21/18643/2432

And I quote, in your own words from your post in July of 2005: "We have written before on how KD and co. are betting their cards on BO being their savior. And, what if BO doesn't work out? Gulp..."

And later, in the same post: "Well ... this is why I cannot wait for the start of the season. So right now KD and co have basically latched on to the hope that DO will magically become a first tier college QB..."

My point was not that Olson was exactly as bad as Paus. Simply that most, if not all, of the Bruin faithful had very little hope in Olson - and the comparisons to Paus flew fast and furious, especially after KD chose DO over Matt Moore and we all had flashbacks to the Paus over Ryan McCann/Scott McEwan decisions. Despite the fears that he would fail, Olson had an excellent 4th year. Just because something is unlikely, doesn't make it impossible. Just very improbable.

by Underbruin on May 1, 2006 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions

*June, not July - I'm an idiot

by Underbruin on May 1, 2006 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions

What is your point?

Just exactly where in that post I compared DO's playing style to that of Cory Paus. DO had a great season last year. No doubt. It was good to see Svoboda's coaching having a positive effect on him. But as A and O can vouch from my post on other boards back in the day, I have always been a DO fan, and always favored him over Moore ... and also lobbied for him to play over Paus (during CP's senior year). However that is consistent with my concerns at that time there was no QB depth on our roster. Paus was a joke of a QB. DO was much better and good enough to warrant an expectation of 9 win season and a win against USC. After all Spurrier accomplished much more at Florida with QBs like Brandeis, Johnson, Palmer etc, who were the same caliber QB of Drew Olson.

by Nestor on May 2, 2006 5:33 AM PDT up reply actions

I think my point was missed..............

Statistics can be played out in favor of whoever is giving the argument. The old half full/half empty routine.

I'm just saying we are beating on the same points (just different angles) we started out with several weeks ago to get to the same conclusion we had several weeks ago.

I don't think we need to convince anyone coming to this blog that the coach we have is not getting the job done He needs to demonstrate by way of team performance that he continues to deserve the job. If he doesn't get it done and we have more embarassing losses he needs to step down.

by artybruin on May 1, 2006 3:16 PM PDT reply actions

For the record

Lloyd Carr has only produced 10 draft picks in the past three drafts, so KD is better than at least one coach.

Can someone please hand me the matches? I'm soaking in kerosene and would like to now set myself on fire.

by straightbangin on May 2, 2006 2:07 PM PDT reply actions

Carr won the Big 10 Championship and took

his team to the Rose Bowl in 2003 & 2004.

Does anyone here seriously, soberly think KD will ever win the conference and take the team back to the Rose Bowl. (nevermind doing it in two consecutive seasons)

by McCloskey on May 2, 2006 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions