Karl Dorrell's Mediocre God Father

by Nestor on Jul 6, 2007 4:36 AM PDT in Football Comment 33 comments

Given the discussion in yesterday’s comment thread, this is going to be a timely post. John Wilner from the San Jose Mercury News has post up at College Hotline, listing the best Pac-10 coaches of the past 20 years.

Obviously it’s not a shock to anyone from BN that the worst UCLA coach since WW2 didn’t make that list. But guess who else is missing from that list: Karl Dorrell’s mediocre Godfather:

Who didn’t make the list? The biggest name was Terry Donahue, whose last nine years at UCLA fell into the timeframe I looked at.

In my mind, Donahue underachieved in Westwood from 1987-95. He had all those players within two hours of campus, a terrific academic institution to recruit to and a mediocre crosstown rival.

And yet, during that span, Donahue finished first or second only three times — and two of those came when he had Troy Aikman

Yeap, I don’t blame Wilner at all for leaving out Typhoid Terry (as dubbed by Ray Ratto from the SF Chronicle for being the most incompetent GM in the history of Forty Niners) of that list.

I went to UCLA during Doanhue’s later years. And despite his wins against Southern Cal and the title in Pac-10, I never thought much of him.

As I have mentioned before Donahue was a mediocre football coach at best who never got the best out of blue chip talents the UCLA football program stockpiled during the 80s. He was able to stick around Westwood for so long back in the 80s and 90s, because back then we Bruin fans did not have avenues to express the latent frustrations they were experiencing from constant chokes and let downs of the Donahue coached football program. Sure he took the Bruins to the Rose Bowl in 94, and ended with a 5 game winning streaking against the TrOJies, people still seem to forget he was responsible for the incredible letdown of hugely favored Bruin football team experience against the Badgers at our home turn back in 94.

Not only that, Donahue was an insecure head coach who was never confident in his abilities. So much so he did not have the balls to promote Neuhisel from wide-receivers coach to OC, when Homer Smith left the OC position for the second time in 1994, right after the Rose Bowl. Instead of promoting Neuhisel, Donahue decided to hire Bob Toledo, a loser OC from R.C. Slocum's Texas A&M program, who was never going to be a threat to TD, unlike Neuhisel.

Donahue was a joke, and is still a joke.. I am sure the Niners fans are so appreciative of what Donahue did to the dynasty Montana, Rice and Young built. Of course now we are stuck with Dorrell, a Donahue legacy who has turned out to be the worst coach in the history of UCLA football since WW2.

Thankfully times are different. We have a way to get our voice out, which was not available to overwhelming majority in the Bruin Nation who were sick and tired of Donahue's mediocrity during the 80s and 90s, but just didn't have a way to express it. Dorrell is not going to be able to cruise through mediocrity like his Godfather. If he doesn’t deliver this coming season, I am optimistic that voices for change generated from this community and other places will reverberate around UCLA community will put enough pressure on Morgan Center to spur DG (who thankfully is more in tune with UCLA fans unlike his incompetent predecessor "Pete the Stooge" Dalis) into action.

GO BRUINS.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Poor Motivator

I spoke with a guy a few years ago that played under Donahue in the mid '80s as a reserve running back. I asked him what it was like playing under Donahue, and he talked about before an SC game, the team was fired up, whooping and hollering, then Donahue came in. His demeanor was so dry and low-key (sound familiar?) that after his speech he could just feel the air being sucked out of the whole team, and they went out and played like crap.

So much of coaching is motivation; I wonder just how well KD is able to inspire his kids on game day.

by godblesstyus95 on Jul 6, 2007 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

That's just it. I think some, or perhaps many, college kids definitely benefit from the fiery coaches.

I have no problem with laid back people, but KD is so laid back, he's almost asleep.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 6, 2007 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And what's strange

is that Donahue was an over-achieving player. He was a 196 lb defensive tackle. He had to play fired up or he would have been murdered. And Mr. Dorrell was a player, too.

What changes so much when you stick a clipboard in your shorts?

by Fox 71 on Jul 6, 2007 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is that a clipboard

in your shorts or are you just happy we beat SuC?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 6, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent and very creative!!!

You guys are the best....

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 6, 2007 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks, Bill

by Barnes2JJ on Jul 7, 2007 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Donahue

coasted after getting to Rose Bowls early in his career. It bought him lots of time basically giving him a tenure status to be a mediocre coach for his last decade at UCLA.

It is just mindboggling to think how he wasted talent at UCLA.

by bluestreet on Jul 6, 2007 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

re: mindboggling to think how he wasted talent

A selection from the 1987 team roster:
Gaston Green, Ken Norton, Flipper Anderson, Dennis Price, James Washington, Mel Farr, Troy Aikman, Darryl Henley, Carnell Lake, Eric Ball, Jim Wahler, Marvcus Patton, Mike Lodish, Charles Arbuckle, Frank Cornish, Eric Turner and Roman Phifer.... Every single one of them went to the NFL and a majority of them were All-Americans.

And Donahue couldn't get that team to the Rose Bowl

by McCloskey on Jul 6, 2007 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

I just read on some Trojan blog about the Wilner post (it was clear the tool found the Wilner post after N posted it here).

The doucebag was saying that UCLA bloggers will go after Wilner for not including Donahue in that top-10 list. Probably trying to push the perception that UCLA fans love mediocrity. But kind of clear from all the comments here many alums were not happy with Donahue. They just never had a platform like this to express their reservations using facts just like you did.

by bluestreet on Jul 6, 2007 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

TD reign

My friends used to get tired of my observation that players, before coming to UCLA, were All-Americans 'ala Aikman, and after they left, became NFL regular player and some All-Pros. In the 4-5 years at UCLA, mediocre results for the teams. It was frustrating... kind of like now.

BTW, in basketball, the same argument could be made about various eras but certainly the Lavin years.

Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 6, 2007 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I posted a comment several diaries ago that KD basically follows in TD's footsteps. It's who he was taught by. Why would we expect anything more.

by artybruin on Jul 6, 2007 1:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Korrell Dorrell the worst since WWII

KD may not be the coach we need - and Donahue might not have been the most successful coach, considering the talent he brought to the school. But consider these two words...

Billy Barnes

...suddenly KD doesn't seem so bad.

UCLA - the finest public university in the world

by SecondGenBruin on Jul 6, 2007 3:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Bill Barnes gives me hope

He was the bottom of the barrel and the only way was up.

Which brings us to KD. Nothing more needs be said.

by bluegold on Jul 6, 2007 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

worst Ucla coach since ww2

IIRC record wise KD fits that description.

by Nestor on Jul 6, 2007 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Billy Barnes

Hold on!!! Barnes won the league and went to the Rose Bowl where UCLA lost to UM. Granted after that year the team starting really stinking things up, until Prothro came in and showed the school what a real football coach looked like. Has KD won the gone to the Rose Bowl?
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 6, 2007 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And not only that

I was in line at the Safeway in Westwood Village right behind Coach Barnes. So there. That's got to be worth something. Mr. Dorrell was never in that Safeway.

by Fox 71 on Jul 6, 2007 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting Fox

Just curious, where in Westwood Village was that Safeway? Of course, there is now a Ralph's at the location of the former Macy's department store, but there aren't too many other spaces large enough for a grocery store.

by WoodenLegend on Jul 7, 2007 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Going WAAAAY back into the memory banks

I think it was just south of Weyburn (parking lot was off Weyburn) and between Gayley and Westwood Blvd somewhere.

And to you younger gentlemen, that was the A-1 prime location to become acquainted with coeds. It was as if you were the last guy on earth, for some reason. No lines were needed. Just a look of bewilderment in the produce department.

by Fox 71 on Jul 7, 2007 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its a Whole Foods now

Opened during my Junior year (around winter 2003). Can't speak to whether it has the same effect regarding the fairer sex as the old Safeway had, having been a poor student and all.

by bruinhoo on Jul 7, 2007 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Safeway

It was also the place to shop with the stars. I stood in line with Ed Asner and other "celebrities" over the years at the Safeway. Most were left alone, or chatted innocently with the local student shoppers about local goings on in the area.

Off topic, when I went into the army and reported to Ft. Benning, GA for Infantry Officer Basic Course training, at literally the same week, John Wayne, Aldo Ray, and the rest showed up staying in my duplex complex just off post to film "The Green Berets". They ate at resturants in downtown and it was in the local paper. The town was agog, but of course, my wife and I figured this was "old hat" since we had seen some of the cast down at the Safeway in Westwood Village for years.
Bill

BillSouthBay

by Mensgym on Jul 7, 2007 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Worst Ucla coach

Boy, Nestor, that's hard to believe, but I'll take your word for it. I can tell you, as a kid, I learned more curse words from fellow Bruin fans - as they serenaded Barnes - then I did in the army.

BTW, since you mentioned Neuheisel above, what would be your reaction if DG recruited him (assuming we ever replace the inestimable KD)? Or is RN the pariah in LA that he is in Seattle?

UCLA - the finest public university in the world

by SecondGenBruin on Jul 6, 2007 4:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Re Neuheisel

There are two schools of thought on him, at least. (This is coaching, not recruiting, not whether he can stay within the rules, not any of that off-the-field stuff.) I have heard lots of good things about him and lots of bad things. (And I've heard them all here on the BN, so someone will dig out the facts I'm sure.) One thing that I like about him is that he seems just a trifle more dynamic than our current head coach. (In fact, there's a loaf of bread in my kitchen that is more dynamic than Mr. Dorrell, but I digress.)

My take on Coach Neuheisel - I think he would be a good coach for us. I'm not just saying he would be a better coach than Mr. Dorrell (see loaf of bread analogy above), but that he would actually be a good coach.

Is he the best replacement out there? I don't know who Mr. Guerrero will be talking to. But would I include him on the list? Sure.

Now, the guys with the numbers will explain why I'm nuts, and I'm sure I'll agree when I read something with facts in it.

by Fox 71 on Jul 6, 2007 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neu Talks

I have written about Coach Neuhisel before (here and here). My sentiments are along Fox's lines.

I think Coach Neu would be a good coach at UCLA. But the problem is if he comes here there will be lot of folks against him.

So once again we will be stuck with a coach who will be a divisive figure in UCLA football (unless he delivers immediately upon his arrival at westwood).

So I am looking for someone with a fresh start. Not sure if Neu is the guy although I personally think he would be a good coach.

by Nestor on Jul 7, 2007 6:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

1976 Season

I agree with the majority here that TD seemed to underachieve from 1989-1995 with the exception of the 1993 season (which could have been even better except for that stomach-wrenching game with ASU - THANKS A LOT Rob Walker). But I do wonder from time to time if things might have been a little different for TD (and the program in general)if we had beaten USC and gone to back-to-back Rose Bowls or AT LEAST gone to another January 1 Bowl game; perhaps the Orange Bowl instead of getting stuck with that ridiculous Liberty Bowl in freezing weather (no wonder 'Bama kicked our butt that night 36-6). As it was, it took Terry five seasons before he finally beat SC and another two seasons after that before he finally got to the Rose Bowl.

by Minnesota Bruinfan on Jul 6, 2007 7:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Make Ed Kezirian the coach!

Why not? He's undefeated.

by gilbert on Jul 6, 2007 9:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

No argument from me on that

I can name lots of others who should have the clipboard and the headphones and are undefeated. Me, for example. Nestor. DumpDorrell. SJH Class of '66. Barnes. Southbay Bill (not to be confused with Sideshow Bob.) Many others.

by Fox 71 on Jul 6, 2007 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Terry's first 15 years were great

the last 5 were torture. He should have hung it up in 1988. If he had, his legacy would be very different.

"when you've seen how big the world is, how can you make due with this?"

by silverlakebruin on Jul 8, 2007 7:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Almost agree with you

I think from 88 to 95 in general (the streak against Southern Cal and the Rose Bowl apperance nowithstanding) was very mediocre, and it cemented his legacy (at least from my vantage point) as a very average coach.

He also came across as very insecure leader in the way he handled Neuhisel.

Also it just goes to show even with mediocre coaches UCLA can go and win to Rose Bowls, which makes Dorrell's non accomplishments last four years even more pathetic.

by Nestor on Jul 8, 2007 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Donahue mediocre?

I'm just not getting the criteria being used here to measure success.

Donahue is by far the winningest coach in school history and was the winningest coach in Pac-10 history when he retired. Even though his teams struggled in the latter part of his coaching career, he still won twice as many games as he lost (151-74-8, for a .665 %, which is 3rd in UCLA history behind Prothro's .685 and Red Sanders' ridiculous .773). He won twice as bowl games as every other head coach in UCLA history combined, including most importantly 4 of the 6 Rose Bowls that our school has won, posting a an 8-4-1 overall record in bowls with all other UCLA coaches combined managing only a 4-9 overall record. During his prime coaching years, he posted bowl wins in 7 straight seasons, with 5 of those wins coming in major bowls (3 Rose, 1 Fiesta, & 1 Cotton). He won at least a piece of five Pac-10 championships and posted five 10-win seasons in his 20 years.

The only way that the above record could be considered mediocre would be in the context of the history of one of the nation's elite programs (in my book, these are Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Penn State, Tennessee, Texas, and USC- may they rot in hell). The bottom line is that UCLA has never, with the exception of a few years in the early 50s, had one of the elite football programs in the country. We've been good to very good for the bulk of our history, but we've only very rarely been national championship caliber. Donahue is a perfect example of this, putting out a lot of good to very good teams but stopping a couple of notches short of the college football pinnacle. In my book, this means he was not a great coach but was still pretty darn successful and certainly was one of the best coaches that UCLA football has ever had. If you'd say otherwise, I'd say that you're confusing UCLA with that other Los Angeles school.

by Sean P. on Jul 9, 2007 4:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the point is

that Coach Donahue had the players in many of those seasons to take us out of the "good to very good" category and put us in the "elite" category. When you think of the horses that he sent to the NFL, you have to wonder why we never had an undefeated season, and why we never were knocking on the NC door in our last game. The consensus that I've seen is that he was hugely conservative and in many respects quite unimaginative.

Contrast what you saw from Coach Donahue to the way Boise State ended its season. Coach Donahue's body of work suggests that he would have gone for one point (playing not to lose) instead of going for two points (playing to win.)

I can't and don't speak for the rest of the denizens of the BN, but that is my explanation of why Coach Donahue's record has to be viewed as mediocre. And I am one of Coach Donahue's strongest supporters in the BN.

The question really has to be why is it that the same school that can grind NC after NC in basketball can't even come close in football. Why could Coach Wooden get the athletes necessary to win all those championships (and Coach Skates, and all the other NCAA championship coaches), but the football program always seemed to falter? I think if Coach Wooden had elected to lead the football team, we might not be having this debate.

by Fox 71 on Jul 9, 2007 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Poppycock

Sorry, your argument is not working for me.

Sure, Donahue coached a lot of good players (he wouldn't have won jack without good players). He just didn't coach a lot of great ones. In his 20 years, Donahue had 13 players drafted in the 1st round of the NFL draft (never more than 2 in any 1 draft). Compare that to a real powerhouse like USC, who had 28 1st round picks in the same era, and the difference is clear.

As far as being conservative, Donahue ran a passing offense in an era when the wishbone was still being run with regularity. Why do you think Troy Aikman transferred here from OU in the first place?

Finally, I am not sure what you trying to prove using Coach Wooden as an example. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't win multiple championships is mediocre? If so, all I can say is that we have different understanding of the word's meaning (with my understanding being the correct one).

For the record, I tend to think in a division with 100+ teams, anyone who is ranked in the top 20-25 is probably pretty good, with anyone in the top 10-15 being very good, and teams in the top 5 being excellent. I reserve the term great for the champions and some of the special teams who come close (like that ridiculous '83 Huskers teams that led the nation in both offense and defense but got upset in the national championship game- which ironically happened because they went for a 2 point conversion and failed- if they had just kicked the extra point and tied the game, they would have won the national championship- so much for "playing to win"). Likewise, I rate coaches by the same scale. That is, if they annually guide their teams into the top 20-25, they're good, and so on...

Since Donahue accomplished a bit more than just keeping UCLA in the top 25 (i.e., 3 Rose Bowl wins and 5 conference championships), I don't why he should be considered as anything less than a good coach especially when he did so for a school that only had one run better in its history (i.e., the early 50s) than Donahue's mid-80s run.

by Sean P. on Jul 10, 2007 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs