Scapegoat No. 3 Leaves Westwood: WR Coach to LSU (updated)

by bluestreet on Feb 21, 2007 7:38 AM PST Comment 17 comments

Dohn is reporting that WR coach D. J. McCarthy has run off to LSU:

Receivers coach D.J. McCarthy, who spent one season with the Bruins, became the third offensive assistant coach to leave UCLA after he accepted a job for the same position at LSU, sources said Tuesday.

McCarthy joins offensive line coach Jim Colletto and offensive coordinator Jim Svoboda as assistants to leave after last season.

Colletto took a job with the NFL's Detroit Lions. Svoboda was fired.

McCarthy came to Westwood after two seasons at Central Florida. He tutored a UCLA receiving group that struggled with consistency throughout a 7-6 season.

This is not a surprise. Dump Dorrell had already predicted McCarthy would probably be one of the assistants who would be coaching elsewhere after this past season.

Our WR corps were a mess this past year. Instead of having 4 of our best receivers (Breazell, Everett, Taylor, and Ketchum) in at the same time, we kept finding Plascheke's hero - Baumgartner - in there short arming one pass after one. It was a disaster. It looks like McCarthy may be getting saddled with lot of the blame as he is moving on somewhere else. But what a joke this situation is considering Dorrell's so called resume of being NFL WR coach, and a former receiver at NFL.

Who will be replacing McCarthy? From Dohn:

If Dorrell wants to look within the UCLA family for a replacement, a possibility is former Crenshaw High assistant coach Eric Scott. Scott was a part-time intern with the program last season, and is viewed as an up-and-coming assistant.

Scott also has UCLA ties. After originally attending Northwestern, the former receiver transferred to UCLA.

Scott sounds interesting. I just hope he doesn't turn out to be another scapegoat for Karl Dorrell.

UPDATE:: As others pointed out in the comment thread according to Dohn's post in the DN blog, McCarthy will be paid more by LSU. I still think this is really nothing more than lateral move given he is going to coach in the same capacity. Moreover, as Fox71 points out this still doesn't negate the revolving door situation concerning UCLA assistant coaches, whose employment situation looks just as stable as the employees at our local McDonalds.

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 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wait a second...

Wasn't McCarthy brought in last year as a receivers "guru"?
And why was McCarthy able to do more with Central Florida's receivers than UCLA's receivers?

This program has become a joke on so many levels...thanks KD!

by bornagainbruin on Feb 21, 2007 8:14 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not just receivers guru

I think he was brought in to be a "recruiting guru" too.

by bluestreet on Feb 21, 2007 8:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure what to think...

I saw that whenever Pat Cowan actually threw a decent pass our receivers would make the catch. I also saw that we didn't seem to really have a first string set of receivers throughout most of last season. Someone tell me whose decision it is to take out a receiver who just caught a 16 yard pass and replace him with one who hasn't caught a pass all season? How are you supposed to develop any consistency as a receiver and develop any rapport with your QB this way? Who's to blame here?

by txbruin on Feb 21, 2007 9:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Just a matter of symantics...

But I think it is unwise to classify this as strictly scapegoating. He was not publicly fired or forced to fall upon his sword and retire. He is leaving for a more prestigious gig. It's sad that this job doesn't have that kind of perceived clout, especially in the "all offense" Pac-10. But, to say that he is a scapegoat is a bit much. He is not being trotted around by KD as being a problem element, at least not yet. If we start hearing about him not being a "right fit" and those other euphemisms, then we can jump on this. But right now he is not in the same category as Axeman, Svoboda or Kerr. We wouldn't classify Bienemy as a scapegoat simply because he left.

The reason I am saying this has to do with the perceptions of those around us. If we jump on every sneeze KD makes, then we get labeled as unrealistic cranks. If our opinions on KD are going to hold any weight, we need to be willing to give credit where it is due, and not jump on every little thing as a sure fired sign that KD has to go. This coach leaving falls into the category of the revolving door of coaches, who move on rather than try and stay and make something with KD. Still a negative, but not quite in the realm of scapegoating.

I don't mean to jump on what you are saying, but we need to be fair and temper our hostility so that when the time comes, we are seen as the smart, passionate, and reasonable fanbase that we are. In other words don't give the Lavin types fodder to dismiss us.

by isodore on Feb 21, 2007 9:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Things to consider

I think if you look at this on surface then it doesn't come across as scapegoating. But look at it more closely. If this program was healthy and if it was a slam dunk that Dorrell in his fifth year with Ben Olson at QB would lead the Bruins to at least a Rose Bowl, then why would any offensive coach in their right mind want to leave Westwood? McCarthy if he was really interested in a career boost would have then probably preferred to stick around for at least one more year and land himself a better gig.

This is not jumping on every KD's sneeze. We saw this coming. WR unit was one of the biggest problem from last season's team. And I don't think its a coincidence that much hyped WR coach who came in just a year ago is leaving for a humid hellhole in Baton Rouge.

I am not really all that concerned about what Lavin type Dorrell lovers think about us. I think as long as we make observations based on the totality of cicumstances then we will be all right. The fact that this is the 3rd coach from last year's offensive unit tells me something isn't quiet right with KD's program. And that's worth taking note of.

by bluestreet on Feb 21, 2007 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

This is part of my point....

Yes it is a bad sign worth noting, but if we take it too far, and speak about it as something it isn't, then people will miss the main point. Like I said in the title this is about semantics. We need to frame our arguments carefully because even if we don't care about the Lavin defenders and their ilk, they will have an impact on the athletic department when they argue. Like it or not we still have to convince a lot of people that Dec. 2, 2006 along with 10-2 in 2005 are not the prevailing trends in the football program. And, in order to do that, we cannot get too far ahead of ourselves. If this was scapegoating then it would have happened differently. Like I said twice already this is NOT a good sign, but we need to argue it correctly.

by isodore on Feb 21, 2007 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I would disagree

you make a valid point, but i disagree with it. we all agree that it's bad that 3 coaches on offense, and 0 on defense, are gone - especially since we are returning so many starters on offense and have a favorable schedule next year. calling it scapegoating IS fair.

in today's hyper branded and scripted world, no one should take anything a public official or institution, or any public figure, says at face value. they have an image and brand to protect. it is entirely reasonable to make the assumption that 3 coaches gone on the offensive side of the ball, when the offense sucked last year, was a systematic purge. who would it benefit to say it was so?? our competitors. who would it hurt? our football program (or those who benefit from the status quo - i.e. Dorrell), the coaches who were ousted, and our institution (who those in charge think it would hurt).

the incentives for Colletto, McCarthy, Dorrell, Morgan Center, and the powers that be who want to maintain the status quo are fully aligned towards saying both Colletto and McCarthy left for "beter opportunities." it's a fine line they are straddling, one they couldn't toe with Svoboda. if they had said Svoboda was leaving for better opportunities even their newsletter, the Daily Bruin, would have to call them on such a lie. not so much with Colletto and McCarthy.

but the evidence is obvious. the only 3 coaches gone were part of the big problem Dorrell was criticized for this past season, the offense. Colletto had been back and forth in the NFL many times, and Detroit is no step up for him - it is retread. a potential national championship at UCLA would be far more glorious. McCarthy interviewed with expensive-Seattle-based Washington before he interview with LSU, so the cheaper city excuse doesn't jive. Plus, Washington doesn't pay SEC money. Plus, why again would he leave a potential national champion after just 1 year?

scapegoating is an obvious conclusion that is supported by the evidence.

by DumpDorrell on Feb 21, 2007 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if it's not scapegoating,

it's still part of the revolving door policy. Any recruiter talking to a kid who is thinking about UCLA only has to show the numbers regarding coaching turnover. "Son, the guy who promised that you would play as a freshman may be gone by next week. None of the assistants at UCLA last more than one season."

My guess is that the turnover of UCLA assistants is roughly the same as at the local McDonalds. That is bad for any program, and the blame for that has to be put on Coach Dorrell.

This isn't jumping on every sneeze, it's a simple recognition of a fact. Just like his won-loss record, and all the other numbers DD has listed for us over and over again. It's just one more symptom of a program that is in disarray, and spiraling down the drain. Coach Dorrell is having a far more harmful effect on the football program than Lavin had on the basketball program.

by Fox 71 on Feb 21, 2007 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

To read Dohn's take on this

It sounds like it was a move for more money. While the receivers didn't have a great year, it's not as if LSU is a horrible gig. More money in a place with a lower cost of living and currently a better program, this doesn't sound like the Svo or Colletto moves.

by Free the 16 on Feb 21, 2007 11:50 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

From Dohn's blog...

http://www.insidesocal.com/ucla/

by Free the 16 on Feb 21, 2007 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Got it

Thanks.

by bluestreet on Feb 21, 2007 11:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm

are you referring to another Dohn article? Because I am not seeing where he says DJ is getting more $$. It just says he is taking the "same position."

by bluestreet on Feb 21, 2007 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

try this link

http://www.insidesocal.com/ucla/2007/02/mccarthy_update.html

by bruinhoo on Feb 21, 2007 12:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I have a different take on this

sure McCarthy took the LSU job for more money, but he LOOKED for a new job before LSU gave him one. Remember, he also interviewed with Washington, who doesn't pay SEC money and is located in Seattle which isn't exactly cheap either. Also, who would leave a job on a team returning so many starters, most of whom are seniors, and with a favorable schedule? 1 more year at UCLA and he would have a great record on his resume AND one that shows improvement. He could definitely trade up after that, rather than laterally to a team that will do the same his first season as last season. Finally, it is no coincidence that all the coaches "leaving" are on the offensive side of the ball. Why aren't the defensive coaches leaving?? They face the exact same situation.

Sure, McCarthy made have taken the LSU job for the reasons he states, but did he really LOOK for a job with the criteria he mentioned because he was unhappy with the money or drive at UCLA, or was he pushed to look for any job? That question remains unanswered in Dohn's report. And what assistant is going to bad mouth a former coach and hurt his prospects of future employment going forward??

by DumpDorrell on Feb 21, 2007 4:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly DD

He was LOOKING for another job, so either KD told him to (scapegoat) or he just wanted out (smart.)

Receiving was a huge problem for the bruins in '06, but it wasn't the receiver coach that was the problem. It was the offensive scheme (thanks KD) and the low level of the players athletic ability.

And the LSU job is far from a lateral move, it is a HUGE move up. LSU is one of the best teams in not just the SEC, but the country. They are competing for National Championships and having impact on the national stage. They even play in bowl games after mid-December! (where they destroy teams that KD counts as "moral victory losses.") Plus they get GREAT players. The kind that UCLA doesn't get / won't let it. All of this is BIG for coaches.

The sad irony is the WR coaching job at LSU is the job DORRELL SHOULD HAVE. In fact, if UCLA wasn't so dumb as to have him as their head coach, KD would be LUCKY to get the WR job at LSU.

by greatgymnasticsschool on Feb 21, 2007 9:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

KD

Even SDSU didn't think he had the credentials to be their head coach. Yet Donahue tools like Bob Field brought him in.

by bluestreet on Feb 22, 2007 7:37 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Bottom Line

It is a revolving door on the offensive side of the ball regardless of reason for leaving, and that is a bad sign for anyone to want to hire in. You don't get the best, they don't want to take a chance with their career. You wind up with the wannabees, washed ups or people who need a temporary stop before leaving for elsewhere.

At this time, it's amazing that we have gotten lucky on the defensive side of the ball.

by artybruin on Feb 22, 2007 8:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs