Guerrero Grades: Oregon State
Bumped from the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N
cross-posted from DumpDorrell.com
As DD reader Jake Merrifield put it, we escaped with a 24 point victory over Oregon State at Corvalis last night. For more than 3 quarters we were looking at the end of the Dorrell era. Oregon state gave Dorrell his reprieve in the 4th quarter by giving us the game over and over again, providing us a reminder of Dorrell's frustrating ability to survive the hot seat. This was not a convincing win by any measure, regardless of what the Dorrell cultists, out in full force, are saying on the boards. The one positive is that Ben Olson faced the fire and never gave up, gaining more confidence as the game wore on despite Training Jay and Dorrell's horrendous play-calling.
So we are left to assess Karl Dorrell's performance according to what his boss, Dan Guerrero, said is important to achieve this season. Below are this week's Guerrero Grades. For those who are new to DD or are coming back after a hiatus, we have been using Dan Guerrero's own words to assess Dorrell's performance during the season. Here is what Guerrero said he expects this season:
"The important thing this year," Guerrero said, "is that we don't beat ourselves, that we play with consistency, that we're an excellent second half team and that we improve as the year progresses."
As we will continue to do throughout the season, here is our assessment of Karl Dorrell's performance yesterday against Oregon State with Guerrero's clear points of analysis in mind:
- We don't beat ourselves. Grade: C-. 3 Turnovers, 2 fumbles - 1 returned for a TD, 8 penalties that mostly stalled UCLA drives. Poor play offensive play-calling that ruined drives, many of which started with decent field position. We had barely 100 yards offense in the first half! The defense got lucky that OSU blew a penalty on their first drive and missed a FG or it could have been worse going into halftime. Would have been a worse grade here but we did convert in the 4th quarter when OSU gifted us so many easy drives.
- Play with consistency. Grade C-. This offense played poorly for 3 entire quarters. Again, it was the play-calling mostly, and offensive line problems and penalties. The first 6 drives of the first half consumed the following number of plays: 1-1-3-3-3-3. Ridiculous. Then in the 4th quarter we saw a different team. Obviously, getting the ball at OSU's 20 yard line a few times boosts morale and play. The defense had a horrible first quarter but did finally put it together for the rest of the game, the first time they played well all year. However, the consistency is still a problem on defense, and is obviously a problem still on offense. Being that the defense did show up we can't give a worse grade here.
- Excellent 2nd half team. Grade D+. Karl Dorrell and Training Jay did nothing different out of the half. The offensive side of the ball looked just as bad as the first half. Out of 4 drives in the 3rd, we had 2 punts, 1 INT and of course the TD due to Canfield's fumble that had us starting at the OSU 5 yard line. Clearly, though, we needed the big turnovers to win in the 4th. No one can say that Dorrell had anything to do with OSU's collapse. So he gets no credit for that. But we can't give him a worse grade here because the team did pull it out.
- Improve as year progresses. Grade C-. Well we won, so that is a plus. And we did it on the road. How it happened obviously goes into our calculation of a grade here. OSU is obviously not a Pac-10 powerhouse and had clear problems at QB and on special teams. How their kicking game became the worst ever in the history of the sport requires professional analysis. Dorrell benefited greatly from OSU's problems. No coaching there. Did the team improve? On defense, yes, on offense No. Overall, No. Did the team regress? No. But the team is supposed to be getting better as the year progresses. We are playing the easy part of our schedule and so far we are giving the tougher teams a ton of ways to beat us. We escaped with a 24 point victory and a somewhat revived defense. So, we will give C-.
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 |
11 comments
Comments
Sorry BC
Yes, we won. The first three quarters were embarrassing and painful to watch. Dorrell and Norvell takes all the fun out of UCLA football.
I even found myself, against my better instincts, agreeing with Petros' comments.
The Hackett/Dorrell comparison is dead-on accurate.
by Barnes2JJ on Sep 30, 2007 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
On second thought
by BruinCore on Sep 30, 2007 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
After next week
by Nestor on Sep 30, 2007 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
great idea
by BruinCore on Sep 30, 2007 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Embarrassing game
Bill
by Mensgym on Sep 30, 2007 5:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Wasting a Play
Running up the gut for a no-gainer, especially on first down, when everyone is expecting a run, is f*cking wasting one of your three plays. We do this game after game after game. Everyone in the da*n stands is sick to death of this.
This is like giving yourself a handicap. Everyone else gets 3 plays to get those ten yards for a 1st down, but we're supposed to do it in 2 plays because the run up the gut gets nothing. It is a wasted play. You might as well just chuck the ball out of bounds. I swear, I think either Norvell or Dorrell must have uncontrollable OCD because it's almost like they cannot bring themselves to run any other play than this on 1st down.
It's really maddening. I expcet people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be just a little more creative than this. Petros picked up on all the runs straight up the middle during the broadcast, too. I honestly never thought I'd be touting a Trojie, but so be it.
I guess I don't understand Football 101.
by Barnes2JJ on Sep 30, 2007 7:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
cautiously optimistic
But I have to say Ben O came through when he could have folded up like a tent. They were going down to defeat and he throws the INT in the red zone and yet he still kept at it. Will this be a "tipping point" in his confidence and decision making? Hope so!
The defense has been swiss cheese at times but they have made some big plays in the BYU game and against OSU. OSU seemed more hapless than BYU so maybe we can't give too much credit to the defense. ND will be dangerous. They are going to play like a team with nothing to lose. And of course the Cal game after that will be huge.
One of my friends thinks UCLA's upper management isn't committed to football. I think I heard on one of the sports talk shows that the salaries of the UCLA coaches are in the bottom part of the Pac10. If so, then they will have a hard time attracting and keeping any good coaches. A caller on post-game Bruintalk said, should UCLA's football program be on the job training for a head coach? Dunno.... if the upper management thinks so that that is what it is?
It might be a case of the old adage, you get what you pay for?
by a4theroad on Oct 1, 2007 7:14 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Uhhh...
by tasser10 on Oct 1, 2007 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
indeed new
Am fairly new to this site.... a search led me to this post over at "dump dorrell" ...
http://dumpdorrell.com/2006/10/19/you-get-what-you-pay-for/
the item is from 2006 so maybe its outdated but if indeed UCLA is paying its staff #6 out of 8 of the public institutions in the pac10 ... then we may indeed be getting what we pay for??
I guess hard data is harder to get from private schools like USC and Stanford...
I'm pretty sure USC is paying its people pretty well!
by a4theroad on Oct 1, 2007 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Use the search function on BN
by Nestor on Oct 2, 2007 5:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Notre Dame won't be tough
by SuperBruinMan on Oct 1, 2007 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by BruinCore on 


















