That "moral victory" stench again

by bluegold on Dec 23, 2007 8:21 AM PST Comment 13 comments

Maybe it is a hopeless cause, the hope being that the firing of Dorrell now gives UCLA the chance to move up to a higher plane of football to be among the elites. We cannot move up. The loser's mentality is too pervasive.

What I saw last night was a loss. Yes, many UCLA players played their guts out, but it was a loss. The final score told me it was a loss. A loss to a MWC conference team in a nothing bowl. A loss that stamped UCLA as a team with a losing record.

But if you read the myriad of gloating posts at other UCLA football sites, you might think that UCLA had just won the BCS title game. This is the mentality that will continue to keep UCLA from being anything but a middle-of-the-pack Pac!0 team.

It was bad enough to celebrate a loss against SC a couple of years ago -- at least SC was an elite team that year. But this time, the celebration is over a LOSS to BYU. Earlier in the season, a ho-hum, sloppy win over BYU was used as a positive measuring stick as to how great Dorrell was as HC. And now a LOSS to BYU is being used as a projection as to how great Walker would be as HC.

Since when has BYU become a measuring stick of UCLA football?

Yet, Bruin fans are celebrating this moral victory, building a case to promote Walker to HC. All this excitement over a LOSS to BYU -- I just want to raise my arms in surrender.

6-7, after a LOSS to BYU in some nothing bowl, and Bruins are dancing in the streets hailing Walker as some coaching genius. Against this backdrop, UCLA wants to move up among the elites? It's not going to happen. Those of us with higher aspirations for UCLA football are fighting a losing battle. The loser's mentality out there has too much inertia to overcome.

Just 3 words. I GIVE UP.

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.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

the question is

Does Dan Guerrero agree with these idiots? Because if he does, then yes, it is a losing battle.

However, if that game was not exactly Dorrellian (I would say it is, though), it was definitely Lavinesque. And he fired Lavin. So I would say it is not a losing battle.

I agree there are lots of people out there happy with a mediocre football team but from all indications they are not the guys in control anymore. We'll find out for sure though.

by njbruin on Dec 23, 2007 8:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

We can't expect much

from our 3rd and 4th string QB. MBT played about as well as we could expect. The injuries to Olson an Cowan made it impossible to compete on offense this year. We probably would have won 3-4 more games if we had our starter.

by joeb on Dec 23, 2007 9:08 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

One Word

Utah

sjh

by Class of 66 on Dec 23, 2007 9:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks 66

by Nestor on Dec 23, 2007 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A 10 win team?

Have you seen us play offense? How about how our defense is overrated and when push comes to shove, we still get scored on? It truly doesn't matter who is under center with this team. 3-4 more wins? Lawl.

by Tydides on Dec 23, 2007 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Does anyone really think we would have done better with Olson or Cowan in yesterday? I think not.

Class of 2010. GO BRUINS!

by Yoyo on Dec 23, 2007 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Joe

I hope and pray that someday I will work for you, or have a class that you teach. You are the most forgiving, excuse-accepting person I have ever encountered. I tried really hard to land the plane, but we crashed, and that's OK with you. I busted a gut doing the operation, but the patient died, and that's the patient's fault, not mine. I don't actually know any of those concepts you've been teaching, but I have neat penmanship, so you give me an A.

The fact of the matter is that each of our players has a skill set. Each of the QB's was a star in high school, or he wouldn't have made our team. None of our guys were given the opportunity to succeed. The plays don't work and have never worked, but our coaches are too arrogant to accept the concept that the WCO has not worked in any of the last five years.

There is nothing that suggests this stupid coaching staff would have won more games with Tom Brady or Peyton Manning as QB. But take any of our QB's and give them to Leach, and each would have flourished. The evidence for that is apparent - Leach has taken QB's that no one else wanted and made them into stars (Harrell being the latest example.)

This season is on the coaches, not on the players and not on injuries. It's on the coaches. And if any coach from this team is on next year's staff, there should be a full-scale congressional investigation.

by Fox 71 on Dec 23, 2007 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So you dont agree

That if we had Ben Olson in the whole season, we wouldn't have won more games.

by joeb on Dec 24, 2007 1:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

There's a lot of "nots" in there

but I think your point is that if Ben O had not been injured do I think we would have won more than 6 games. Short answer is no. Ben's greatest skill as far as I could see is the long ball. For some reason, the great coaching staff (and I suppose DyNoMite is exempt from this criticism) elected to require him to throw anything but the long pass. After the Stanford game, and before he got hurt, I don't think he threw any.

But the question is meaningless. It's like the great question, "If God can do anything, can He create a weight that is so heavy He can't pick it up." We will never know what Ben can do over a whole season, because the coaching scheme doomed our QB's. Ben was an agile guy or a guy that could scramble. But the O line was not trained to protect that sort of guy. For an O that requires lots of three step drops, it seemed remarkable to me that Ben was met at the three step drop place by several D line guys. To me, the bottom line is that the offensive scheme was not designed to let a guy with Ben's skills be a success.

Could Ben have lead a team to more than 6 wins? I think so. Could Ben have lead this Bruin team to more than six wins? With a different coaching staff and philosophy, probably yes, as could have any of our other QB's. With this coaching staff, no way. Of course, it's all speculative: Could God have designed a offense that an defense He designed could stop? We'll never know the answer to either question.

We do know that this offensive scheme created by the coaches currently in place managed to generated just a tad over 13 points a game over the last six games. In only one of those games did any of our four QB's complete more than 50% of his passes, and they were a total of 69 for 164 (42%). The fact that we played four quarterbacks over those past six games shows in my opinion that the coaching staff generated game plans that got our guys hurt. Ben had two healthy knees when he came to UCLA. Now he doesn't. I hope he's enjoying his educational experience, because he can't be enjoying his football experience.

by Fox 71 on Dec 24, 2007 5:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of "nots" I left one out

Should be "Ben was not an agile guy."

by Fox 71 on Dec 24, 2007 5:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's look at the games....

I'll start with your premise that IF Olson was healthy we would have won more games.
So, let's look at our losses.

Utah - Olsen played, so that's still a loss.
Notre Game - We should never have thrown the ball, so the QB shouldn't have mattered. Even when we did throw the ball, the QB was pounded right away. Since Ben has not shown to play well under pressure, I doubt he would have turned the game into a victory. However, for kicks, let's assume this would have been a win. Revised: 7-6.
WSU - Pat Cowan played the whole game, and he's played just as well (if not better) than Olson the last two years, so this is still a loss.
Arizona - OR played well, but didn't relieve Cowan until we were already losing 34-14. I wouldn't give us a win here, either.
ASU - Close game, so let's give us a victory if Ben was healthy. Revised: 8-5.
SUC - Still a loss with Ben.
BYU #2 - Let's say Ben wins the game. Revised: 9-4.

So, let's GENEROUSLY say we could have gone 9-4 if Ben had been healthy. However, IF we are going to live in fantasy land and assume Ben was healthy, then let's be fair and also assume the other teams were healthy.

BYU #1 - This game was closer than the score appeared, and they had a few impactful injuries, while we were healthy. We could have easily lost this game, and since I was generous in giving you the Notre Dame win, I'll give this game to a healthy BYU. Revised: 8-5.
Cal - Longshore was actually less healthy in the UCLA game than Olson was for BYU #2. So if we are going to take a victory for BYU #2, let's give this one back, too. Revised: 7-6.
Oregon - We would have been smoked by a healthy Dixon. Revised: 6-7.

by bornagainbruin on Dec 24, 2007 10:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs