Thursday News & Notes: The Violin Edition

by Nestor on Nov 8, 2007 4:37 AM PST in Football

Well it looks like Brian Dohn is going to serve as the excuse vehicle for the Doofus and all his pimps and minions for rest of the season.

Once again Typhoid Terry is out there playing the violin for his doofus protégé. This time he is rolling out the injury excuse:

It is Dorrell's most disappointing of his five seasons at the helm, and, by far, the most frustrating aspect is the inordinate number of injuries to key players.

The Bruins will use their fourth quarterback Saturday against No. 9 Arizona State at the Rose Bowl. Also, their top five running backs have missed time with injuries, two of their leading receivers are likely out for the season and four of their top eight defensive linemen missed significant time, all due to injuries.

"I think (the injuries) have had a huge affect on the team's ability to function, and to win," former UCLA coach Terry Donahue said. "You cannot absorb the injuries that UCLA has had to absorb and expect to maintain your team's consistency, or your team's ability level. No team is that deep.

"When you lose the quality of players that UCLA has lost, particularly in the positions UCLA has been hit hardest at, it's going to always have a very telling toll. And, certainly, it's happened to them."

Well, let’s take the first point Typhoid Terry makes. Interestingly Wayne Cook, Donahue’s former QB makes the key point later in the article making the whole injury excuse for not being able to function moot:

"Even before the injuries, they still weren't clicking," said Cook, who is the sideline reporter for UCLA's radio broadcasts. "The offense still hadn't found a rhythm. Then, it gets hard to get into one when you start having all the injuries."

Thanks Wayne. That’s pretty much it. Isn’t it? Under the Doofus and his Mini Doofus, this team’s offense was going nowhere even before the QBs started going down behind their joke offensive line (and I have linked about Bob Connelly enough at this point that I won’t bother any more).

Anyway, Typhoid Terry is a shameless joker. So he didn’t stop. He went on:

"I don't think there is any team in the country that can win (consistently) with their third and fourth quarterbacks," Donahue said. "There may be one, but I think it's very unlikely, unless you really misevaluated your talent at the quarterback position. If you have a third or fourth quarterback that can come in and take your team to wins, week in and week out, than that player shouldn't be third or fourth string."

Of course Terry didn’t mention exactly how the Bruins ended up with their 3rd and 4th QBs. Terry also didn’t mention how his little Doofus totally misevaluated the talent he had at QB, by not having OR prepared for the Notre Dame game, and instead trying to win it with a walkon caliber talent.

I am not going to waste any more time on Typhoid Terry. I will let Bruin Blue handle him later today. We have post from Bruin Blue on the Donahue Curse all cued up, which you don’t want to miss.

Moving on, there is a game this Saturday, which I really have no interested in. But since there are some notes on it, might as well mention it. Painter on how the D is gearing up to put pressure on Carpenter:

UCLA knows the pass rush has been successful against No. 9 Arizona State. After all, quarterback Rudy Carpenter (Westlake High) has been sacked 37 times.

"We definitely need to get to (Carpenter) if we're going to win this game," defensive end Bruce Davis said. "He's their leader. He is to their team what I am to my team. He's got heart. He's got fire. The key to winning is getting after him and putting him on the ground.

"He and I have been known to go back and forth at each other. We get into some serious trash talking. It's great because he's a competitor. He makes the game more fun for everybody on the football field.

"On our defense, we love the challenge and we're all competitors. He gives us the opportunity to compete against one of the best in the conference."

Also, from the same article, Chane Moline is going to get the start at tailback. Chane is a great talent, who every other team in the Pac-10 would love to have. The fact that a talent like Moline is 3rd in UCLA’s tailback depth chart and ready to step up, makes all the violin playing by Donahue look even more stupid.

Lastly, Foster from the LAT writes about Markey’s disappointing season to date, who had this to say on rest of the season:

"This is my senior year, I don't have another year to come back and fix things," Markey said. "I want to go out with a bang. We can still be Pac-10 champions. I can't ask for anything more."

Yeah, that would be a note for Markey and the Doofus to go out of Westwood. I hope Markey and all other violin players around Westwood know we want the Doofus gone even if he wins the Pac-10 championship. We are ready for a different tune no matter what happens rest of this season.

GO BRUINS.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Ironic -- The Howland Interview Below Says it All

All that weeing by TD and CTS about injuries.

Yes, Wayne Cook sees it like we've been seeing it from the first game -- we sucked before we had injuries.

Scroll down, and watch the Howland interview. He's lost 2 of his top 6 players, and Keefe is still healing. No whining from BH. He's ready and so is the team.

Some might say there is a difference between BH's team and CTS's -- BH has skilled back ups.

That's true -- but two things.

First, BH proved he could win and go to a final 4 with a less talented team on which all of the starters were injured at one time or another. He coached the talent he had and got the most of it.

Before he became the starting QB, many of us here were all over CTS to do something with OR, particularly at QB. He didn't. And, it is clear he is not creative enough to figure out how to use OR's skill set. (Actually, he never figured out how to use BO's either. He had a classic, drop back qb -- and forced him into the WCO -- woefull crappy offense.)

Second, this is CTS's most experienced team, his deepest, and it is players he recruited. If he can't find "replacements" on his bench. it's on him.

One thing is clear. BH is sufficiently creative to ADJUST to his injuries and play the game that most suits the talent on the floor.

Finally, take a look at BH's comments on bringing back the injured players. HE WILL NOT TAKE RISKS WITH THEIR PHYSICAL WELL BEING. No shot in Markey's foot? Probably not. Not put Cowan back in? Probably not. Not expose Bell to a more sever injury? Probably not.

Great coaches create systems that put their talent, whatever it is, in situations in which they can win. And, great coaches treat their college athletes like the treasures they are -- they protect them from career ending injuries; they see the long term not the short.

I'm surprised TD has joined Dohn to be the weep leaders for CTS. He should have simply stfu and let it all play out. He's jeapordizing whatever good will he has at UCLA.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 8, 2007 6:38 AM PST reply actions

Injury excuse

expect to hear a lot of this in Dorrell's final days. It's the only semi-legitimate argument that the morons have left in supporting him.

Fact is, in 3 out of the 4 losses, we were getting beat rather handily when we sustained key injuries, unlikely to change the ultimate outcome. One loss (Notre Dame), we were sputtering and clinging to a 6-3 lead when Olson went down. Despite losing Olson, there's no excuse losing to a pathetic Notre Dame team whose offense couldn't score on a Trojan cheerleader.

Despite injuries, we were still favored in every loss that we've sustained.

Good coaching can overcome injuries with adjustments, preparation, and depth-utilization (recruiting). Conversely, injuries will expose a poorly-coached team than can no longer be carried by far-superior talent alone.

Injuries should be Dorrell's alibi. Injuries have exposed him for what he is: a poor coach. Period.

"If I don't do my job, I will get fired" -Karl Dorrell

by godblesstyus95 on Nov 8, 2007 6:58 AM PST reply actions

It's always something else

Before the injuries, the alibi was the players not executing. That is, the coaching was fine, if only the players would listen, learn, and execute.

And now we have the injuries alibi.

It is always something, anything but the coaches.

This is a boatload of BS the KD cronies want us to swallow.

It is enough that the coaching staff grossly underperforms; but now they want to pile on the BS alibis. What an insult to our intelligence.

by bluegold on Nov 8, 2007 7:30 AM PST reply actions

Don't forget the "young" excuse

by bluestreet on Nov 8, 2007 7:42 AM PST up reply actions

Actually, let's focus on the injuries

But specifically, let's focus on why the injuries are happening. There are several reasons and they are ALL attributable to Toast & company.

Weak Offensive Line: there has been no continuity in this group, be it in the players or in the coaches. Bob Connelly is incompetent, as his resume from Alabama clearly demonstrated.

Undersized/Underconditioned players: if I remember correctly, some of the past players were commenting on the small size of our current crop of players. Add to that what I believe is a poor conditioning program, and the conditions are ripe for injuries. KD's strategy of recruiting "diamonds in the rough" is not working, as a lot of these kids are simply not physically ready for college football. It seems our conditioning is just not working either. On defense, our front line seems to be overmatched physically, they just look small compared to the beefy boys on opposing offensive lines. This is all on recruiting and conditioning.

Bad play calling: this is oftentimes overlooked. If the opposing defense knows what plays you will be running, they can come at you much harder and commit to punishing hits. Furthermore, the indecision on the part of the QBs is very much due to these lame play calls, as receivers cannot get open. Any football player will tell you that there is no room for confusion and hesitation on the field. Lack of confidence and lack of focus will lead to playing scared and opening yourself up for big hits. As for the RBs, I mean, come on! When you run right up the middle every time and have a bunch of 300lbs dudes falling on you, how can you not get hurt?

Anyway, I am no expert on football, these are just my thoughts. Our team looks shrimpy, unprepared and hesitant.

Bad recruiting + bad training + bad playcalling = injuries

No excuses.

by tasser10 on Nov 8, 2007 7:49 AM PST reply actions

Trainers

Does the football team use the same trainers as the BB team?

Howlands guys get bigger and stronger.

Just curious.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Nov 8, 2007 7:54 AM PST up reply actions

Training Staff

I don't know what the training program for basketball is, but I can say in football, that at least one of last year's injuries came from a horrendous training program. From what I have heard (second hand, but the source is good), the strength coach was making a certain UCLA player use a certain lifting technique, after that player had been injured. Though the player objected, the coach insisted. Sure enough, the player knew his own body, and knew that that technique was bogus.... he reagrravated the injury and was out for a few weeks.

Just an anecdote, but just because this is Pac=10 Football doesn't necessarily mean that the training is legit.

by Dante on Nov 8, 2007 8:49 AM PST up reply actions

In theory they should...

But apparently Howland didn't like the guy Dorrell brought in, so he hired another trainer for the basketball team.

by SuperBruinMan on Nov 9, 2007 5:10 PM PST up reply actions

Nice post

I would like to see more commentary on our offensive line and also on the size of our players.

Yes, it is tough (or tougher) to win games when you are using your 3rd and 4th string QBs. I think we all would accept this fact. But we are down to our 3rd and 4th string QBs because of our "matador-style" blocking on the O-Line. Protect the QB and they won't get injured and you will win more games. Bingo.

And yes, geez, don't our guys generally look smaller than those on the other side? Or is it just me?

by Barnes2JJ on Nov 8, 2007 10:21 AM PST up reply actions

Big +1

I'm no reporter, but I know that the fundamentals of writing a news article are to answer who, what, when, where, how, and why. Tasser here fills in the "why" portion pretty well. I'd like to add a few little thoughts to his excellent response.

First, that being on the field for an inordinate amount of time due to an offense that can't sustain drives must be a factor for the DL injuries.

And second, it's clear that KD (actually someone has coined "Toast", I like that better) - Toast puts emphasis on trying to get his starters lots of reps at the expense of those lower on the depth chart. Maybe it's because his "system" is overly complex but whatever the rationale this leads to Toast, perhaps rightly, having relatively little confidence in the backups. Therefore, when a starter gets bumped around to some extent (Bell's shoulder, Bell's knee, Markey's foot, Cowans's leg, Taylor's melon, Everett's ankle, etc.) they tend to aggrevate or re-injure themseves from being rushed back into the game since the backups have not been fully prepared to step in.

The situation is compounded (in a positive feedback sense) since the poorly-prepared backups are undersized/underconditioned moreso than the starters, plus it leads to even more simplified play calling - Toast himself has told us he expects less from his backups.

The absense of addressing "why" in the article leaves the casual reader believing that our injury situation stems only from misfortune; while there is undoubtedly some randomness to the liklihood of injuries hitting a team, there are a lot of factors which contribute to the rash of injuries that can be laid right at the feet of Toast.

by haywood nighttrain on Nov 8, 2007 10:59 AM PST up reply actions

Terrific. So anytime our QB gets injured...

... we should give the HC a free pass?

In that case, keeping Bob Connelly on staff is akin to Bush Sr. keeping Quayle on as VP.

If this approach to retaining a HC held up, Connelly would be the single greatest employment insurance policy CTS could ever have.

Then again, UCLA QBs would then need extra disability insurance at the same time.

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Nov 8, 2007 7:55 AM PST reply actions

Donahue

is just thankful we weren't around during his mediocre years.

by bluestreet on Nov 8, 2007 8:19 AM PST up reply actions

Yeah, he wouldn't have lasted his first 5 years

getting slammed 49-14 ending a 5-6 season in '79 might have seen the end of him if we'd been around then.

by bruinhawk on Nov 8, 2007 1:01 PM PST up reply actions

getting slammed 49-14 by 'SC that is.

by bruinhawk on Nov 8, 2007 1:02 PM PST up reply actions

Injuries and BB

We all know that BH takes personal responsiblity for his team and if there is a training or weight lifting program, his nose in right in the middle of it directing the training staff. So when there are issues, he takes the hit (he hasn't but I guarantee you he would), while KD just has a talk with the training staff, let's them loose, and away we go, "self-directed". Then when there are issues, he is truly not at fault because he doesn't know what the hxxx is going on.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Nov 8, 2007 9:37 AM PST reply actions

Recruiting and injuries

Maybe not such a bad thing to lose a couple of recruits as we probably have at least 3 players coming back which we hadn't counted on before.

By my count we are looking at Everett, Harwell & Petre as very possible and I'm sure I must be missing some as well.

In other words, if we lose some recruits because of a head coaching change, it is certainly not the end of the world as we don't have space for them all.

by Free the 16 on Nov 8, 2007 11:22 AM PST reply actions

Excuse does not work

I agree with Meriones. Injuries or not, this "excuse" really jsut skirts the issue. Let me look at this logically. We, as fans, demand a coach that consistently wins and reject a coach that consistently loses. KD consistnetly loses. Therefore, we reject KD. The reason for a loss does not take away a loss. In other words, KD's record speaks for itself, no need to look further.

by loydmilligan on Nov 8, 2007 11:31 AM PST reply actions

No kidding

Toast's fans point to 10-2 and say that is the mark of a good coach. Yet, when we are 6-6, they refuse to look at the record and just make excuses.

Blind hypocricy is a prerequisite to being a Toast fan.

by bornagainbruin on Nov 8, 2007 12:31 PM PST up reply actions

Donahue's "Facts" are misleading

To date, we have started only our 1st or 2nd string QB (and really, these two are pretty much interchangeable in that neither is all-everything or completely terrible; they're both slightly below average QBs--at least based on their performance in CTS's alleged system). So, we've gone 5-4 despite not playing any teams currently in the rankings and despite starting one of our top 2 QBs in every game.

At running back, we have had our top RB for all but the last 6 quarters. We have had our 3rd and 4th string RBs for the entire year. In any event, Donahue must have forgotten that he "led" UCLA to the Rose Bowl in 1993 without at least our top two RBs (Skip Hicks and the RB f/k/a Sharmon Shah were injured for much of the year), including the clincher against USC. You can still get it done if you have a good o-line (and the '93 line was outstanding, anchored by Ogden and with a few other future NFL players). This year's line has no future NFL players and no locks to play in the NFL at any other offensive position.

by BruinsRule on Nov 8, 2007 11:42 AM PST reply actions

Did Terry forget . . .

about JOHN BARNES . . . yep, what, the year before the SC game that he threw 18 touchdowns to J.J., wasn't he in the stands of the game???

No way in hell he was a 2nd stringer or better. Come on Terry, don't give us this BS.

by TheStick on Nov 8, 2007 12:47 PM PST reply actions

Invoking the image of John Barnes trumps

all arguments. I don't remember the names now, but Barnes was fifth string, if you count Maddox who went to the NFL. And Donahue can't claim a recruiting coup with Barnes, who was a walk-on.

by Fox 71 on Nov 8, 2007 12:59 PM PST up reply actions

He's also forgetting that...

The only reason we've used four quarter backs is that Dorrell chose to use Bethel-Thompson instead of Rasshan against Notre Dame. It's clear now that that decision cost the team the game.

by SuperBruinMan on Nov 9, 2007 5:12 PM PST reply actions