No Explanation Necessary

by Achilles on Jul 18, 2007 3:21 PM PDT in Football Comment 7 comments

These quotes are from Stewart Mandel's latest at CNNSI.

Furthermore, it's asking a lot of college quarterbacks to run a full-fledged, NFL-style version of the West Coast offense. It's just too complicated. At other programs that have attempted it, the typical QB has taken three years to fully grasp it. (UCLA's Drew Olson being a perfect example.) Callahan has been fortunate thus far to be able to land a juco transfer (Zac Taylor) who'd already been in the system and now a fifth-year senior transfer in Sam Keller. It won't always be that way. When the inevitable day comes that he needs to start a freshman or sophomore, it's going to be 2004-05 all over again.

Finally -- and this doesn't apply just to Callahan but to nearly all the NFL-bred coaches in the collegiate ranks today -- you do not win championships in college anymore by playing not to lose (as they often do in the pros). It's a huge pet peeve of mine and a common theme among the worst coaches nominees (see Dorrell, Karl; Gailey, Chan). The strange thing is, Callahan has shown he's more than willing to break out the flea flickers and other trick plays, but in last year's USC and Oklahoma games, and when the game was on the line against Auburn, he retreated to all-out, run-it-into-the-line-three-straight-times- and-play-defense mode. I can't emphasize this enough. I hate that.

Mandel is defending a column on college football's best and worst coaches and, in this case, specifically Bill Callahan of Nebraska. I don't think any explanation as to relevance is necessary (though I have to add, at least Callahan is willing to break out the flea flickers and trick plays).

(Here is the link to Mandel's original piece on the best and worst coaches.)

In case you forgot, UCLA offensive coordinator Jay Norvell coached under Callahan at Nebraska last season. Maybe he'll break out the flea flickers and trick plays.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Isn't college football puzzling?

While some myopic Bruin fans are having love fests over their hero KD, sportswriter are calling the same KD as a worst coach nominee.

There is something wrong with this picture.

by bluegold on Jul 18, 2007 3:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure some other fans might...

... wonfer if this is the tail wagging the dog.

If other fans think that sportswriters are only talking trash about KD's coaching performance because of us, they'll probably think we're causing the negativity... which may also burn them because this little blog is REALLY blowing up nationally, then.

MIM

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Jul 18, 2007 3:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Uh, that's "wonder"

Too many Cokes today.

WHY NOT US? WHY NOT NOW?

by Meriones on Jul 18, 2007 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nice to see

that another sportswriter is openly questioning the use of the WCO in college. Hopefully, the few who hold onto the idiotic notion that it works, when there is nothing but evidence to the contrary, will eventually be fired or leave the college ranks. Here we are again, UCLA football ... a training ground, where experiments with coaches and systems get a fair 5+ year shake while we lose all credibility. Torture.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 18, 2007 4:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It occurs to me now ...

that there is an interesting subtext to Mandel's story.

He notes that it takes some time for a quarterback to learn the system, then cites Drew Olson and some other examples of experienced qbs who have been successful, warning that eventually you'll have to start a freshman or someone less experienced.

UCLA will start a junior this season, a season in which the returning number of starters and the schedule make for a potentially successful season. The following year, UCLA will start a senior (as in experienced). It won't be until Chris Forcier or Nick Crissman take over in '09 that we as Bruins fans will have to endure an inexperienced starter.

Not sure if there is anything to that, but it is possible that in '07 and '08 we'll avoid some of the West Coast offense pitfalls due to the experience factor.

Go Bruins

by Achilles on Jul 18, 2007 4:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

not 08

we will experience the pitfalls with losing 17 starters. But this year it will be interesting. The problem is that Training Jay brings with him new terminology along with a new playbook. For some on this offense, it will be their 3rd playbook(!) in as many years. It was a problem for them in the Spring ... lets hope that it doesn't become a problem for the in the Fall. And calling plays will also be a new experience for Training Jay. If we lose, dont be surprised to hear the excuses come out that Training Jay needs a few games, a season, 5 years, to get his system in place.

by DumpDorrell on Jul 18, 2007 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dorrel is 'not bad' - and that's the problem!!!

Next time you encounter a Dorrell Booster, consider this: In his follow up article, defending his five worst coaches article, Mandel makes a statement something like: none of these coaches are bad or they'd be coaching JV.

That is right: Karl Dorrell isn't a bad coach, but none of the other ~120 coaches in Div 1A are bad either - they're good to excellent. We need someone better than 'not bad' if we're going to be competitive - 'Not bad' is not good enough. (Which could be a slogan for Dump Dorrell)

We don't expect UCLA to dominate football the way we dominated Bball in the Wooden years. That ain't likely to happen again. All we expect is for UCLA to keep Pac-10 football interesting: the Bruins should be contenders for the Pac-10 championship and sometimes even the NC. We need a coach who is better than 'not bad' to compete with Carrol & Tedford's teams. BTW: This is not a grandiose or unrealistic desire - if we field a football team we should make it competitive within our conference ... otherwise quit.

by UrsaMajor on Jul 18, 2007 7:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs