Wanted to highlight some comments in response to some points being raised in the comment thread. First, aboout getting a little political on all of you I am not going to make apologies for that. It is what it is. As Jason pointed out I don't think you have to be affiliated with any particular political party at this point of time to come to conclusion that the President is a bit of a tool. He has no credibility left and people do not "trust" given his track record. So its not unreasonable to use him as an example about why it is all right to question (and not automatically trust) our leaders when their track record tells us not to.
Moreover, Bruins Rule made these salient points concerning "Trust and 2* Recruits":
I have seen scant evidence that KD's past recruiting of relatively unknown players has ever uncovered a "diamond in the rough." Some 2 and 3-star players have become useful contributors, but show me how many have achieved star status (i.e. All Pac-10 honors or better)? In the 2004 class, only Justin Hickman, a 3* recruit, went from under 4 stars to All-something. From the 2005 class, no one has become a star, period (even the 4- and 5-star guys).
A few other Dorrell's "diamond discoveries" have become starters, but are any difference makers? If you limit your pool to 2* recruits, the evidence shows that even fewer have achieved even a modicum of success at UCLA (the 2005 class, with 7 2* players, none of whom has earned a starting role; in 2004, of 10 2* players, only Chris Joseph has earned a starting role going into their 4th year on the squad. The one class where Dorrell has had some success with so-called diamonds in the rough was 2003. Of 11 players with 2 stars or fewer (fathom that, a class with 11 2-star players--how pathetic), six--Whittington, Cowan, Pitre, Sutherland, Dragovic and Trey Brown--have started for the team at some point (though only Pitre and Brown have consistently held a starting spot). None has been all-Pac-10, but Trey Brown has a good chance to do so this year. Of course, Brown committed when Toledo was still the coach, but who's really paying attention to that?
It should also be pointed out that one of the reasons so many 2-star recruits are starting for UCLA is that Dorrell has recruited so few 4- and 5-star recruits and so many 2-star recruits. If you litter the team with lower-tier players, some of them will have to start.
Bottom line is that Dorrell has given us about as much reason to trust him with recruiting unknown players as GW Bush has given us with respect to the War in Iraq. If there is a word for what you're asking us to do, it would be to have "faith" aka "The apprehension ... of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof." [Oxford Dictionary.]
These Bruin "fans" who strike down anyone who criticizes as not being a true fan must be comfortable with their faith in Dorrell, but that's all it is--faith, blind belief in what they cannot prove. As for me, I cannot ignore past experience or logical proof when it comes to UCLA football. Especially when it comes with a 29-21 record that when broken down as DD has done so well is even more unimpressive.
And staying on recruiting. Some reaiders were having difficult time reconciling my back to back posts from yesterday trying to figure out how we can expect Dorrell to deliver at least a Pac-10 championship this season while at the same time opine that recruiting on offense is not living up to the standards of a school like UCLA. bluegold provided the answer:
A few other Dorrell's "diamond discoveries" have become starters, but are any difference makers? If you limit your pool to 2* recruits, the evidence shows that even fewer have achieved even a modicum of success at UCLA (the 2005 class, with 7 2* players, none of whom has earned a starting role; in 2004, of 10 2* players, only Chris Joseph has earned a starting role going into their 4th year on the squad. The one class where Dorrell has had some success with so-called diamonds in the rough was 2003. Of 11 players with 2 stars or fewer (fathom that, a class with 11 2-star players--how pathetic), six--Whittington, Cowan, Pitre, Sutherland, Dragovic and Trey Brown--have started for the team at some point (though only Pitre and Brown have consistently held a starting spot). None has been all-Pac-10, but Trey Brown has a good chance to do so this year. Of course, Brown committed when Toledo was still the coach, but who's really paying attention to that?
It should also be pointed out that one of the reasons so many 2-star recruits are starting for UCLA is that Dorrell has recruited so few 4- and 5-star recruits and so many 2-star recruits. If you litter the team with lower-tier players, some of them will have to start.
Bottom line is that Dorrell has given us about as much reason to trust him with recruiting unknown players as GW Bush has given us with respect to the War in Iraq. If there is a word for what you're asking us to do, it would be to have "faith" aka "The apprehension ... of realities beyond the reach of sensible experience or logical proof." [Oxford Dictionary.]
These Bruin "fans" who strike down anyone who criticizes as not being a true fan must be comfortable with their faith in Dorrell, but that's all it is--faith, blind belief in what they cannot prove. As for me, I cannot ignore past experience or logical proof when it comes to UCLA football. Especially when it comes with a 29-21 record that when broken down as DD has done so well is even more unimpressive.
Let's begin at the beginning, 5 years ago.
KD set a goal and made a promise: Beat SC and win the Pac10. OK, we are asking him to deliever his promise this year. Does he have the players to deliver? If we had more 5-star recruits then KD might have an easier time delivering on his promise, but he couldn't get any. That's where "his recruiting sucks" observation was formed. Does KD, nevertheless, have the players to deliver on his promise? We would like to think so. After all, he recruited them, he touted them, and many of them are now seniors under his leadership. I mean, four years of college football under KD's leadership should count for something, whether a player came in as a 2-star or 5-star recruit.
KD has to be a good recruiter and a good coach. By his inability to land 5-star recruits, he seems to be lacking in that department. But he and his supporters dismiss the importance of having 5-star recruits, and claim that UCLA can still win with "diamonds in the rough" kind of players that KD can develop. OK, KD has a bunch of seniors that he's developed over the years.
So, KD has to deliver on his promise. Or else, it would mean that he is a deficient recruiter and a deficient coach, and therefore has no business being at UCLA.
Precisely.KD set a goal and made a promise: Beat SC and win the Pac10. OK, we are asking him to deliever his promise this year. Does he have the players to deliver? If we had more 5-star recruits then KD might have an easier time delivering on his promise, but he couldn't get any. That's where "his recruiting sucks" observation was formed. Does KD, nevertheless, have the players to deliver on his promise? We would like to think so. After all, he recruited them, he touted them, and many of them are now seniors under his leadership. I mean, four years of college football under KD's leadership should count for something, whether a player came in as a 2-star or 5-star recruit.
KD has to be a good recruiter and a good coach. By his inability to land 5-star recruits, he seems to be lacking in that department. But he and his supporters dismiss the importance of having 5-star recruits, and claim that UCLA can still win with "diamonds in the rough" kind of players that KD can develop. OK, KD has a bunch of seniors that he's developed over the years.
So, KD has to deliver on his promise. Or else, it would mean that he is a deficient recruiter and a deficient coach, and therefore has no business being at UCLA.
Lastly, yes I am going to stick to calling DeWayne Walker a "servicable" defensive coach. I just cannot consider him as some kind of defensive wizard or a great coach given how our defensive performance was so inconsistent. As I have made the point over and over again I was impressed with the performance our D showed against Notre Dame and Southern Cal, teams that use pro-set offenses. At the same I was disgusted by Walker's inept scheming against teams like Oregon, Cal, Washington State, and Florida State. And there was blaming the player deal after the debacle loss against Washington. I know the standards have fallen so low during the Dorrell era that people are going to be eager to embrace any sign of movement towards positive direction (in this case statistical defensive improvement from the atrocious 05 season). However, I am not going to fall into that trap. Walker to me is still an unproven assistant head coach, who needs to show he can prepare his defense for every single college teams, not just the one that plays the pro style offense he coached against in the NFL. Winning the Pac-10 will certainly help his resume, otherwise he should hit the road just like his mediocre and below average head coach.
GO BRUINS.