It seems like two things have defined our season this year. The first is injuries. It seems like every player is injured, coming back from injury, or otherwise banged up. I can't remember a year where we had such a rash of guys not available. The other thing is penalties. Silly, crazy, mind-numbing penalties. Penalties that I would call offensive. Not because the offense committed them, but because I'm offended that they keep occurring week-in and week-out.
I recently just generated statistics for all the PAC-10 teams up to last weekend (Sorry, I've been delinquent in keeping those up to date). One interesting section of the stats is the number and type of penalty that each team commits. After looking at those numbers, it confirmed what I've been seeing all season long from this team... tons of procedural penalties. By procedural penalties, I mean stuff that occurs before the play is even executed. False starts, delay of game, illegal motion/shift and my all time favorite: illegal substitution. These are penalties that are 100% avoidable, yet they are occurring with frightening regularity this year.
When you look at our 2007 statistics, the first number that jumps out at you is the number of false starts. By my count, UCLA has committed 16 false starts in our six games. Just to give you a means of comparison, they committed 14 false starts all of last season! In 2005, they had 20 false starts for the entire year! We're only half way through the season and we're already passing up season totals from prior years. Absolutely unbelievable considering that we returned pretty much every offensive starter from last season.
We had two substitution infractions in the 2005 and 2006 seasons combined. We have had three so far this season. Substitution infraction!? That means we had a guy go into the huddle, who wasn't supposed to be there, and he didn't get off the field before the huddle broke. Three times that has occurred. Three times! We can't even get the right personnel on the field? No wonder we're struggling to move the ball.
Last year we had five delay of game penalties, but the coaches worked on fixing that his year. Or so we thought. My stats say two for the year, but I think there might have been more (my numbers aren't always perfect). In either case, we're basically on pace to repeat that number this season even though the clock rules were changed to give you more times between snaps.
When you total up all these dead-ball penalties, you have 25 for the season. That is an average of over 4 such penalties a game. Sadly enough, these penalties occur at some of the most inopportune times. Six times this year we have had a procedural penalty on 3rd and short (by short I mean less than 5 yards). Each of those drives ended in either a field goal (x2), punt (x2), interception, or we lost the ball on downs. We even had a first and goal situation where we had a delay of game. The result of that drive? Field goal. These drive-killing penalties are keeping us out of the end zone.
So, no, it is not just your imagination. UCLA has been suffering both a rash of injuries and a rash of bone-headed penalties. With this bye week, I sure hope the coaches are trying to address both of these issues. They are 100% fixable. The penalties that is, not always the injuries.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Why I don't want Dorrell Fired
OK now, hold your horses. Before you send me an angry e-mail or leave a nasty comment calling me an idiot... let me explain.
It is painfully obvious that Karl Dorrell is not the right man for the head coaching job at UCLA. The details are out there for everyone to see, no need to rehash them here. However, if you think Karl Dorrell is the problem, you are wrong. No, he is merely a symptom of a much larger problem that has plagued UCLA football for decades. I would contend that if the underlying problem is not fixed that firing Karl Dorrell will actually make our current situation worse, not better.
So what the heck am I talking about? Well, let me break it down for you.
UCLA football was mired in mediocrity long before Karl Dorrell showed up in Westwood. People tend to forget that. With all the vitriol and hatred spewed at Dorrell over the last few years, I think everyone has erased from their memories the fact that the Bruins were a middle-of-the-pack team under Toledo as well. Here's the records if you have forgotten:
Toldeo
You can go back to the end of the Donahue years as well. They were slightly better but not by much. The highlight was a conference co-championship in 1993 with a defeat to Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. No, you have to go all the way back to 1986 to find a Rose Bowl victory. That's two decades and counting of meandering, listless, life-less football... only speckled with a hand full of good seasons. This Bruin football program hasn't been consistently relevant since the 80's and that's a very long time to be stuck in neutral.
The problem, my dear Bruin fans, is not the coaches. They are mere pawns in a much bigger chess game. No, the problem is with the Athletic Department, the donors, and ultimately... us fans. You see, UCLA football is not that important to everyone listed above. Yup, there it is, I went and said it. Everyone knows that basketball is king at UCLA and football plays second, or maybe even third, fiddle in that symphony. Sure there are some of us that eat, sleep, and breath Bruin football. But we are the small minority. Everyone else demands a great basketball program and, if it isn't too much of an inconvenience, a good football team as well. Not a great football program, mind you, but a good one, a respectable one... a program they can basically ignore while they wait for the start of basketball season.
You want proof of this? Take a look at the salaries paid to UCLA football coaches. How much does Dorrell make? Somewhere around $1 million. Pete Carroll gets paid 3 times that salary, and maybe even more with incentives. Before you complain that SC is a private school, Cal (a fellow UC System school) pays Jeff Tedford over $2 million a year. Just recently our assistant coaches were given pay raises to make their salaries competitive with other PAC-10 schools. Let that sink in for a second. It took years for our assistants to get paid what all the other schools have been paying all along. No wonder, we have an assistant coaching carousel. Why stay at UCLA when you can make more at the same job some place else? Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.
Why aren't donors giving more money to pay for a better coach? Why aren't fans demanding higher salaries to attract more qualified and (*gasp*) experienced coaches? The money is there for the basketball team. Ben Howland was recently given a contract that will pay him $2 million a year next season with increases for years to come. The Pauley Pavilion reconstruction project is taking in money now. Where is the fund for the UCLA football reconstruction project?
This is the underlying problem. UCLA football needs to be put back at the top of the priority list for Dan Guerrero and the Athletic Department. Money needs to be made available to attract and hire an experienced and proven head coach and coordinators. If that doesn't happen then UCLA will hire another coach with a bellow average salary. The only coach who wants to take that job is somebody "up and coming" who wants to use UCLA football as a spring board to greater success. If he succeeds then he's gone in a few years and we're back to square one. If he fails then we're stuck with another mediocre coach learning on the job racking up mediocre records. And before you counter with, "But we got Ben Howland with a low salary", remember that coaching at UCLA was his dream job. There aren't too many football coaches out there thinking the same thing.
Firing Karl Dorrell is just half of the equation. If we can't replace him with a qualified, experienced head coach then what did we accomplish? We got rid of a Karl Dorrell just to replace him with another Karl Dorrell. The worst part is that this new Karl Dorrell will have to be given 4+ years to prove his worth. That's another 4 years of mediocrity followed by another firing and another rebuilding project. At least our current Karl Dorrell can be fired at any time.
No, I say don't fire Dorrell. At least not until we demand better for this football program. Only when I know that the football program will be put on par with the basketball program will I get fired up about firing Karl. The last thing I want is another coach we'll have to fire come 2011.
It is painfully obvious that Karl Dorrell is not the right man for the head coaching job at UCLA. The details are out there for everyone to see, no need to rehash them here. However, if you think Karl Dorrell is the problem, you are wrong. No, he is merely a symptom of a much larger problem that has plagued UCLA football for decades. I would contend that if the underlying problem is not fixed that firing Karl Dorrell will actually make our current situation worse, not better.
So what the heck am I talking about? Well, let me break it down for you.
UCLA football was mired in mediocrity long before Karl Dorrell showed up in Westwood. People tend to forget that. With all the vitriol and hatred spewed at Dorrell over the last few years, I think everyone has erased from their memories the fact that the Bruins were a middle-of-the-pack team under Toledo as well. Here's the records if you have forgotten:
Toldeo
- 1996: 5-6 regular season. No bowl.
- 1997: 9-2 regular season. Cotton Bowl victory.
- 1998: 10-1 regular season. Rose Bowl defeat.
- 1999: 4-7 regular season. No bowl.
- 2000: 6-5 regular season. Sun Bowl defeat.
- 2001: 7-4 regular season. No bowl (self imposed penalty).
- 2002: 7-5 regular season. Las Vegas Bowl victory.
- 2003: 6-6 regular season. Silicon Valley Bowl defeat.
- 2004: 6-5 regular season. Las Vegas Bowl defeat.
- 2005: 9-2 regular season. Sun Bowl victory.
- 2006: 6-6 regular season. Emerald Bowl defeat.
You can go back to the end of the Donahue years as well. They were slightly better but not by much. The highlight was a conference co-championship in 1993 with a defeat to Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. No, you have to go all the way back to 1986 to find a Rose Bowl victory. That's two decades and counting of meandering, listless, life-less football... only speckled with a hand full of good seasons. This Bruin football program hasn't been consistently relevant since the 80's and that's a very long time to be stuck in neutral.
The problem, my dear Bruin fans, is not the coaches. They are mere pawns in a much bigger chess game. No, the problem is with the Athletic Department, the donors, and ultimately... us fans. You see, UCLA football is not that important to everyone listed above. Yup, there it is, I went and said it. Everyone knows that basketball is king at UCLA and football plays second, or maybe even third, fiddle in that symphony. Sure there are some of us that eat, sleep, and breath Bruin football. But we are the small minority. Everyone else demands a great basketball program and, if it isn't too much of an inconvenience, a good football team as well. Not a great football program, mind you, but a good one, a respectable one... a program they can basically ignore while they wait for the start of basketball season.
You want proof of this? Take a look at the salaries paid to UCLA football coaches. How much does Dorrell make? Somewhere around $1 million. Pete Carroll gets paid 3 times that salary, and maybe even more with incentives. Before you complain that SC is a private school, Cal (a fellow UC System school) pays Jeff Tedford over $2 million a year. Just recently our assistant coaches were given pay raises to make their salaries competitive with other PAC-10 schools. Let that sink in for a second. It took years for our assistants to get paid what all the other schools have been paying all along. No wonder, we have an assistant coaching carousel. Why stay at UCLA when you can make more at the same job some place else? Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.
Why aren't donors giving more money to pay for a better coach? Why aren't fans demanding higher salaries to attract more qualified and (*gasp*) experienced coaches? The money is there for the basketball team. Ben Howland was recently given a contract that will pay him $2 million a year next season with increases for years to come. The Pauley Pavilion reconstruction project is taking in money now. Where is the fund for the UCLA football reconstruction project?
This is the underlying problem. UCLA football needs to be put back at the top of the priority list for Dan Guerrero and the Athletic Department. Money needs to be made available to attract and hire an experienced and proven head coach and coordinators. If that doesn't happen then UCLA will hire another coach with a bellow average salary. The only coach who wants to take that job is somebody "up and coming" who wants to use UCLA football as a spring board to greater success. If he succeeds then he's gone in a few years and we're back to square one. If he fails then we're stuck with another mediocre coach learning on the job racking up mediocre records. And before you counter with, "But we got Ben Howland with a low salary", remember that coaching at UCLA was his dream job. There aren't too many football coaches out there thinking the same thing.
Firing Karl Dorrell is just half of the equation. If we can't replace him with a qualified, experienced head coach then what did we accomplish? We got rid of a Karl Dorrell just to replace him with another Karl Dorrell. The worst part is that this new Karl Dorrell will have to be given 4+ years to prove his worth. That's another 4 years of mediocrity followed by another firing and another rebuilding project. At least our current Karl Dorrell can be fired at any time.
No, I say don't fire Dorrell. At least not until we demand better for this football program. Only when I know that the football program will be put on par with the basketball program will I get fired up about firing Karl. The last thing I want is another coach we'll have to fire come 2011.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
The Fall of Troy?
Tough week for the Trojans. Their 35 game home winning streak came to an end against lowly Stanford. Then they get news that Heisman-hopeful quarterback John David Booty broke a finger on his throwing hand. He could miss their next game against Arizona and maybe more.
But all of that is small potatoes to the biggest news of the week. After months of nothing, it looks like there might finally be a crack in the Reggie Bush case. Yes, that toothless, gutless, paper-tiger of an organization, the NCAA, might finally have someone willing to testify against Bush. The LA Times is reporting that Loyd Lake has agreed to meet with NCAA investigators and provide documentation of financial transactions between himself and Bush. Lake is a sports marketer who was supposed to represent Bush when he turned pro.
Until now the case was stuck in limbo because nobody would testify against Reggie. The NCAA is so inept they couldn't take any action without somebody going on record. This despite the fact that Yahoo! dug up a mountain of evidence on the former Trojan running back. The PAC-10 also has its own investigation but I haven't seen anything stating that Lake would meet with them as well. I'm pretty sure they could use his testimony with the NCAA in their investigation and levy their own penalties.
If either investigation finds that Bush received improper benefits while playing for the Trojans then USC could be forced to forfeit some games. The program could also face sanctions if investigators determine that coaches knew or should have known about the illegal benefits.
But all of that is small potatoes to the biggest news of the week. After months of nothing, it looks like there might finally be a crack in the Reggie Bush case. Yes, that toothless, gutless, paper-tiger of an organization, the NCAA, might finally have someone willing to testify against Bush. The LA Times is reporting that Loyd Lake has agreed to meet with NCAA investigators and provide documentation of financial transactions between himself and Bush. Lake is a sports marketer who was supposed to represent Bush when he turned pro.
Until now the case was stuck in limbo because nobody would testify against Reggie. The NCAA is so inept they couldn't take any action without somebody going on record. This despite the fact that Yahoo! dug up a mountain of evidence on the former Trojan running back. The PAC-10 also has its own investigation but I haven't seen anything stating that Lake would meet with them as well. I'm pretty sure they could use his testimony with the NCAA in their investigation and levy their own penalties.
If either investigation finds that Bush received improper benefits while playing for the Trojans then USC could be forced to forfeit some games. The program could also face sanctions if investigators determine that coaches knew or should have known about the illegal benefits.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Is Anyone the Answer?
last month, I asked if Ben was the right man for the job at quarterback. Things haven't exactly been peaches-and-creme with the big southpaw. When he was replaced by Pat for the Washington game, I asked if Cowan could be the answer. Now that both are banged up, I'm wondering if anyone can fill the breach? With two weeks to prepare for a huge game against #2 California, coaches Dorrell and Norvell will have to see if they can get someone ready to take control of this offense.
McLeod Bethel-Thompson
Mac has been our backup quarterback the entire season. He was behind Olson for the first two games, then behind Pat for the Washington game, and finally back behind Ben for Oregon State and Notre Dame. However, against the Irish, he sure didn't look like a kid the coaches had been preparing to take the reigns for 6 weeks. I'm sure Mac is a better quarterback than what he showed last Saturday. He was obviously, and understandably, nervous and his confidence must have sunk after the first few turnovers. The coaches didn't exactly put him in a good situation either, placing the burden of moving the team on his shoulders.
Of all the backups, Mac is the most experienced. He got thrown in the deep end of the pool, and almost drowned, but you got to figure he'll only getter better from here. He had a pair of decent drives against the Irish and with a better call on that 4th-and-one (like maybe using our short-yardage back Moline!), he could have at least kept the chains moving on a third.
That being said, I don't think this kid has the skills, at this point, to be a real offensive weapon. He made some poor decisions last week as well, so we'll have to see if he can keep his cool under pressure. He can probably manage a game but I wouldn't expect much more.
Osaar Rasshan
Rasshan has been an intriguing figure for the Bruins at quarterback for years now. There always seems to be a small faction of fans on UCLA message boards who think Osaar should be the starting quarterback. That group of fans might finally have their moment in the sun. Rasshan hasn't taken a snap at quarterback for a few months now but Dorrell has said that he'll move Osaar back to quarterback this week. He's been at receiver this season.
Rasshan is an athletic and talented player. His senior season in high school, he had 1,716 yards passing and 860 yards rushing. That was three years ago, but you have to think that Osaar is a much bigger duel-threat quarterback than what we've seen so far this year. The offense hasn't exactly been playing well with Pat and Ben, so putting in a running quarterback sounds like a great alternative. Maybe the coaches can install a simple package that allows Osaar a chance to maximize his athletic strength.
Before you get too excited about Rasshan, let's remember that he was beaten out this summer for the 3rd quarterback slot by Mac. That's right, the guy who threw 4 interceptions and gave up a fumble on Saturday has looked better in practice than Rasshan. It might be the system, but the Bruins will have a hard time switching to a spread-option offense for Osaar. He'll have to find a way to work with the WCO.
Chris Forcier
C-Force is another intriguing option at quarterback. He is a lot like Rasshan, in that he is a multi-dimensional offensive weapon who is athletic and fast running the ball. He is expected to red-shirt this season, so he would really need to show something special in practice for the coaches to put him in at quarterback for Cal.
Chris racked up 2,382 yards and threw 31 touchdown passes as a Senior in high school last year. He is quick on the ground and put in a 4.4 forty time in one combine. He hasn't looked that good passing the ball, however, in practices this summer. He has some problems with the mechanics of his throw and it would be ideal for him to work those things out before getting thrown into a D-1 college football game.
What to Do?
I guess we'll see if Ben is able to play after his MRI today. If he is a no-go then maybe Pat could be ready. He'll be in limited workouts this week and I have a feeling that he won't be available against the Bears. I think the coaches are going to have to seriously consider which of the players above will be given the nod in two weeks.
Maybe the coaches could go with a two quarterback system against Cal? Florida used Tim Tebow at times last season, and he was very effective with his running ability. If the Bruins mix in Rasshan with a simplified spread-like package then that could cause the California defense some problems. They would have no footage on that offense and the element of surprise could give the Bruin offense a fighting chance in this game. Mac could be used to help manage the game and we rely on Markey, Bell, and Moline to really carry the offense. The emphasis on running the ball could even give Mac some easy opportunities to mix in a few passes in safe situations.
I can't say I'm all too excited about any of the above players taking the starting spot. There is very little experience in this group and even a best-case scenario may not be enough to beat a high-flying Bear offense. Our defense has played very well lately, but it will take a herculean effort against California to keep the Bruins in that game. I guess we'll have our answer soon enough.
McLeod Bethel-Thompson
Mac has been our backup quarterback the entire season. He was behind Olson for the first two games, then behind Pat for the Washington game, and finally back behind Ben for Oregon State and Notre Dame. However, against the Irish, he sure didn't look like a kid the coaches had been preparing to take the reigns for 6 weeks. I'm sure Mac is a better quarterback than what he showed last Saturday. He was obviously, and understandably, nervous and his confidence must have sunk after the first few turnovers. The coaches didn't exactly put him in a good situation either, placing the burden of moving the team on his shoulders.
Of all the backups, Mac is the most experienced. He got thrown in the deep end of the pool, and almost drowned, but you got to figure he'll only getter better from here. He had a pair of decent drives against the Irish and with a better call on that 4th-and-one (like maybe using our short-yardage back Moline!), he could have at least kept the chains moving on a third.
That being said, I don't think this kid has the skills, at this point, to be a real offensive weapon. He made some poor decisions last week as well, so we'll have to see if he can keep his cool under pressure. He can probably manage a game but I wouldn't expect much more.
Osaar Rasshan
Rasshan has been an intriguing figure for the Bruins at quarterback for years now. There always seems to be a small faction of fans on UCLA message boards who think Osaar should be the starting quarterback. That group of fans might finally have their moment in the sun. Rasshan hasn't taken a snap at quarterback for a few months now but Dorrell has said that he'll move Osaar back to quarterback this week. He's been at receiver this season.
Rasshan is an athletic and talented player. His senior season in high school, he had 1,716 yards passing and 860 yards rushing. That was three years ago, but you have to think that Osaar is a much bigger duel-threat quarterback than what we've seen so far this year. The offense hasn't exactly been playing well with Pat and Ben, so putting in a running quarterback sounds like a great alternative. Maybe the coaches can install a simple package that allows Osaar a chance to maximize his athletic strength.
Before you get too excited about Rasshan, let's remember that he was beaten out this summer for the 3rd quarterback slot by Mac. That's right, the guy who threw 4 interceptions and gave up a fumble on Saturday has looked better in practice than Rasshan. It might be the system, but the Bruins will have a hard time switching to a spread-option offense for Osaar. He'll have to find a way to work with the WCO.
Chris Forcier
C-Force is another intriguing option at quarterback. He is a lot like Rasshan, in that he is a multi-dimensional offensive weapon who is athletic and fast running the ball. He is expected to red-shirt this season, so he would really need to show something special in practice for the coaches to put him in at quarterback for Cal.
Chris racked up 2,382 yards and threw 31 touchdown passes as a Senior in high school last year. He is quick on the ground and put in a 4.4 forty time in one combine. He hasn't looked that good passing the ball, however, in practices this summer. He has some problems with the mechanics of his throw and it would be ideal for him to work those things out before getting thrown into a D-1 college football game.
What to Do?
I guess we'll see if Ben is able to play after his MRI today. If he is a no-go then maybe Pat could be ready. He'll be in limited workouts this week and I have a feeling that he won't be available against the Bears. I think the coaches are going to have to seriously consider which of the players above will be given the nod in two weeks.
Maybe the coaches could go with a two quarterback system against Cal? Florida used Tim Tebow at times last season, and he was very effective with his running ability. If the Bruins mix in Rasshan with a simplified spread-like package then that could cause the California defense some problems. They would have no footage on that offense and the element of surprise could give the Bruin offense a fighting chance in this game. Mac could be used to help manage the game and we rely on Markey, Bell, and Moline to really carry the offense. The emphasis on running the ball could even give Mac some easy opportunities to mix in a few passes in safe situations.
I can't say I'm all too excited about any of the above players taking the starting spot. There is very little experience in this group and even a best-case scenario may not be enough to beat a high-flying Bear offense. Our defense has played very well lately, but it will take a herculean effort against California to keep the Bruins in that game. I guess we'll have our answer soon enough.
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Worse Case Scenario
Since Training camp, the depth in our backfield has been paper thin. Markey got hurt last week against OSU and we only had Kalil Bell and a banged-up Chane Moline at running back. Cowan was hurt, then came back, and then was hurt again. So, of course, the worst case scenario happens on Saturday and Olson gets hurt. We end up with a third-string walk-on playing at the most important position on our offense. That's UCLA football! Just when you think things can't get any worse.
I don't blame Mac Beth for what happened tonight. I mean, common, the kid doesn't even have a scholarship. This is his second game at the collegiate level. It was a horror show, but what do you expect? He played his heart out and at least he had the balls to put on the pads and try out for the team. He even looked good on a couple of drives but a few unlucky tipped/deflected passes got intercepted. It was that kind of night for the kid. His only touchdown pass and big play to Joe Cowan gets called back on a hold. That stunk too because it didn't look like a hold to me and that play could have given Mac some confidence. As it turned out the next play was intercepted.
Anyways, we lost. We gave yet another winless team their first victory of the season. You're welcome Notre Dame fans... see you in another 40 years. The sad part isn't that we were defeated. It wasn't sad that we had 6 turnovers, or 11 penalties for 93 yards, or that we couldn't get revenge for last year's soul-crushing defeat. No, actually, the sad part is that I'm not surprised. I'm not even really that upset. I've come to accept that UCLA just can't win games like this. At least not in the Karl Dorrell era. It is sad that this is what I've become as a Bruin fan. I just shrug my shoulders and say, "eh, that's about what I expected".
I could blame Dorrell and the coaching staff for tonight, but I'm tired of that. No, I'm moving past blame. I'm moving on to acceptance. With all the injuries, the poor coaching, and the lack of play makers, we're going to see a lot more of these types of games. Our season was ruined when we lost to Utah and I think Bruin fans everywhere saw the writing on the wall after that fateful afternoon in Salt Lake City. It is time to lower your expectations and hunker down for another mediocre season. We might get some upset victories and win more than we lose, but a great season? No. Good season? Doubt it.
Well, at least our spanking by Notre Dame wasn't the worse loss of the night. Hell, it wasn't even the worse loss in the city. The #2 ranked Trojans go down to one-win Stanford... who was playing their backup QB. Of course ,we did loose to a winless team but nobody thinks we're any good. The Trojans were supposed to be one of the greatest team ever. Booty was supposed to be a Heisman candidate and he threw as many picks as our 3rd-string walk-on. I love that it was against Harbaugh and the Cardinal no less. Trojan fans were licking their chops talking about how Carroll was going to run up the score because of the comments Harbaugh made this fall. Ouch.
I guess that is my silver lining tonight: our defeat won't be the lead story on Sports Center. Yes, that is sad and pathetic, but I don't care. It is about the only thing I have left as a fan at this point. If the Bruins aren't going to win, well dammit, the Trojans better lose. So thank you Stanford, you at least made tonight somewhat tolerable. Now, I'm going to go finish the rest of my beers and dream of regime change in the off season.
I don't blame Mac Beth for what happened tonight. I mean, common, the kid doesn't even have a scholarship. This is his second game at the collegiate level. It was a horror show, but what do you expect? He played his heart out and at least he had the balls to put on the pads and try out for the team. He even looked good on a couple of drives but a few unlucky tipped/deflected passes got intercepted. It was that kind of night for the kid. His only touchdown pass and big play to Joe Cowan gets called back on a hold. That stunk too because it didn't look like a hold to me and that play could have given Mac some confidence. As it turned out the next play was intercepted.
Anyways, we lost. We gave yet another winless team their first victory of the season. You're welcome Notre Dame fans... see you in another 40 years. The sad part isn't that we were defeated. It wasn't sad that we had 6 turnovers, or 11 penalties for 93 yards, or that we couldn't get revenge for last year's soul-crushing defeat. No, actually, the sad part is that I'm not surprised. I'm not even really that upset. I've come to accept that UCLA just can't win games like this. At least not in the Karl Dorrell era. It is sad that this is what I've become as a Bruin fan. I just shrug my shoulders and say, "eh, that's about what I expected".
I could blame Dorrell and the coaching staff for tonight, but I'm tired of that. No, I'm moving past blame. I'm moving on to acceptance. With all the injuries, the poor coaching, and the lack of play makers, we're going to see a lot more of these types of games. Our season was ruined when we lost to Utah and I think Bruin fans everywhere saw the writing on the wall after that fateful afternoon in Salt Lake City. It is time to lower your expectations and hunker down for another mediocre season. We might get some upset victories and win more than we lose, but a great season? No. Good season? Doubt it.
Well, at least our spanking by Notre Dame wasn't the worse loss of the night. Hell, it wasn't even the worse loss in the city. The #2 ranked Trojans go down to one-win Stanford... who was playing their backup QB. Of course ,we did loose to a winless team but nobody thinks we're any good. The Trojans were supposed to be one of the greatest team ever. Booty was supposed to be a Heisman candidate and he threw as many picks as our 3rd-string walk-on. I love that it was against Harbaugh and the Cardinal no less. Trojan fans were licking their chops talking about how Carroll was going to run up the score because of the comments Harbaugh made this fall. Ouch.
I guess that is my silver lining tonight: our defeat won't be the lead story on Sports Center. Yes, that is sad and pathetic, but I don't care. It is about the only thing I have left as a fan at this point. If the Bruins aren't going to win, well dammit, the Trojans better lose. So thank you Stanford, you at least made tonight somewhat tolerable. Now, I'm going to go finish the rest of my beers and dream of regime change in the off season.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Betting on the Bruins: Notre Dame
Another week and another victory by the Bruins! Good for my soul but bad for my gambling instincts. I thought the Beavers would win that game and they looked poised to do so entering the 4th quarter. It seemed like both teams were trying hard to lose that game and the Beavers finally succeeded. I can't recall a team that had such a sudden and complete collapse at the end of a game. Those players should be ashamed for the way they just quit. Especially on that blocked punt where Bosworth went completely unblocked. I guess the good news about that scoring spree is that it at least pushed the over/under to a push.
Right now the gambling gurus say UCLA -20.5 points. Call me a cynic but I'm not feeling a huge blowout victory by the Bruins. A solid victory, yes, but 20 points is a lot to give up. Especially with Notre Dame improving each week. Since UCLA has won it's last two games with me picking against them, I'm going to keep that trend alive and take the Irish plus the points. The over/under is 48. The Bruin defense stood up last week and did a fantastic job in holding the Beaver offense to only 1 touchdown. Will they repeat again? I think they can and will. With our offense struggling, I'm going with the under. I've been burned by the under this year, but lets see if that will pay off this time.
History
I am not actually gambling on these games. This is entirely for fun. I know nothing about gambling and have no insider information. If you actually bet on these games using my predictions you are crazy and will likely lose all of your money
Right now the gambling gurus say UCLA -20.5 points. Call me a cynic but I'm not feeling a huge blowout victory by the Bruins. A solid victory, yes, but 20 points is a lot to give up. Especially with Notre Dame improving each week. Since UCLA has won it's last two games with me picking against them, I'm going to keep that trend alive and take the Irish plus the points. The over/under is 48. The Bruin defense stood up last week and did a fantastic job in holding the Beaver offense to only 1 touchdown. Will they repeat again? I think they can and will. With our offense struggling, I'm going with the under. I've been burned by the under this year, but lets see if that will pay off this time.
History
- Org St. O/U: 54. My pick: Over. Actual: 54. Push.
- Org St. UCLA +2.5. My pick: Org St minus points. Actual: UCLA + 26. -$100.
- UW. O/U: 47. My pick: Under. Actual: 75. -$100.
- UW. UCLA -6.5. My pick: Washington plus points. Actual: UCLA + 13. -$100.
- Utah. O/U: 43.4. My pick: Over. Actual: 50. +$100.
- Utah. UCLA -14. My pick UCLA minus points. Actual: Utah +38. -$100.
- BYU. O/U: 46. My pick: Under. Actual: 44. +$100.
- BYU. ULCA -7.5. My pick: UCLA minus points. Actual: UCLA +10. +$100.
- Stanford. O/U: 46..5 My pick: Under. Actual: 62 . -$100.
- Stanford. UCLA -17. My pick: UCLA minus points. Actual: UCLA +28 =: +$100.
I am not actually gambling on these games. This is entirely for fun. I know nothing about gambling and have no insider information. If you actually bet on these games using my predictions you are crazy and will likely lose all of your money
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Notre Dame farks
The Irish are up next on our farkive hit list.
Lots of good fun to be had with the Domers, but we didn't go overboard, kicking them while they're down. Ahhh, who am I kididng, we love kicking teams while they're down, especially a NBC-hogging, non-Bowl-wining, lucky-as-hell-to-win-last-year team like Notre Dame. We're not bitter. Uhuumm . . . Hit it maestro!
Jeer, jeer for Old Notre Dame . . .
Hear the alumni cry out in shame . . .
0 and 8 they soon shall be . . .
can old Charlie stop this misery . . .
. . . not this week! Go BRUINS!
Lots of good fun to be had with the Domers, but we didn't go overboard, kicking them while they're down. Ahhh, who am I kididng, we love kicking teams while they're down, especially a NBC-hogging, non-Bowl-wining, lucky-as-hell-to-win-last-year team like Notre Dame. We're not bitter. Uhuumm . . . Hit it maestro!
Jeer, jeer for Old Notre Dame . . .
Hear the alumni cry out in shame . . .
0 and 8 they soon shall be . . .
can old Charlie stop this misery . . .
. . . not this week! Go BRUINS!
Talk Notre Dame this Wedensday
On the Bruin Show this week, we will have two very special guests from the Notre Dame blogosphere:
- CW from rakesofmallow.com
- Frank Vitovitch from uhnd.com
Head over to the Bruin Show website at 9pm Eastern / 6pm Pacific on Wednesday Oct 3. You can then call in and talk about this highly anticipated game at the Rose Bowl. There will also be live chat where you can face-off with Irish and Bruin fans from across the country!
Call in and participate:
- Dial one of the local phone numbers
- Press 2 to enter a show ID
- Dial our show ID: 234801
- Press 1 to go live
The Luck of the Irish
Unless you've lived under a rock for the last month, you've heard about the implosion that is Notre Dame football. They have lost their starting five games; the first time that has ever happened in school history. In fact, you have to go back 47 years to 1960, when Joseph Kuharich was coach, to find a longer losing streak (Notre Dame lost 8 consecutive games and finished 2-8 that season). This week they head into Pasadena to visit a revenge minded UCLA squad, in what should be another beat-down and loss number six. Or will it? Before you chalk this one up in the win column, let's consider a few things that could give the Irish a fighting chance to pull the upset on Saturday.There is no doubt that Notre Dame's rushing attack has struggled this year. They were anemic (and that's being nice) for their first 3 games. They actually had a total of -14 rushing yards after playing Georgia Tech, Michigan, and Penn State. Things have changed a bit in the last two games. The Irish put up 166 yards on the ground against Michigan State and Purdue and while that isn't much to write home about, it shows that this team is improving from week to week. The Bruin run defense has been solid all season long (89 yards/game), so it will take a season-best effort for Notre Dame to move the ball.
The real trouble that UCLA's defense might face will come through the air. Notre Dame has struggled mightily with their inexperience quarterbacks, but things started clicking against Perdue. Behind a strong 4th quarter effort by reserver quarterback Evan Sharpley, the Irish almost doubled their passing yards for the year and actually gained more yards than an opponent for the first time this season. His final numbers for the game, 16-24, 203 yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, compared very favorably to what Ben Olson put up against Oregon State. The Bruin's secondary has been caught with it's pants down a few times this year and some timely passes by the Irish could cause trouble. The real question this week for Charley Weis and company is if Jimmy Clausen (who missed the second half against Purdue with an injury) will be behind center or Sharpley. The Irish responded well to Sharpley and he could be a spark for their struggling squad.
The Bruins offense goes up against an Irish defense that has to be begging for some help. They actually aren't all that bad of a squad, but when you get no breaks and no points from your counterparts on offense, it is almost impossible for any defense to look good. They have a total defense ranked 52nd in the country, which is right up there with UCLA (55th). The scoring defense has been poor, but what do you expect when your offense puts you in bad situations? If Weis can solve his offense woes then this defense has enough mustard to keep them in the game. Defensive lineman Trevor Laws has made some plays this year to help the Irish and they could use a big game from him this weekend.
When it comes to execution, the two teams leave a lot to be desired. Each have been assessed 39 penalties this season. That has killed drives for both offenses and it was maddening to watch UCLA sputter and stall the last two weeks against Oregon State and Washington. The Irish had a suffocating 11 penalties against Perdue and their fans can only wonder if that cost them their first win of the season. If either team can clean-up it's act then that can be a big boost toward winning this game.
Probably the best thing Notre Dame has going for it is their winless record. While that might seem counter intuitive, there is a certain degree of desperation and determination that seeps into a team when they keep losing. Like a caged animal, they might come out swinging and any early success could fill them with enough enthusiasm to finally prove their every-growing list of critics wrong. Of course, the opposite is also true and an early deficit could cause them to break and mail in the rest of the game. Let's not forget that this team is young, inexperienced and talented and the young and inexperienced parts are diminishing every week. If they can get a little wind behind their sails, anything is possible.
At the end of the day, UCLA should easily win this game. The Bruins have a statistically superior offense, defense, and special teams. They are playing at home in the Rose Bowl, where they have gone 14-1 over the last 2+ seasons. UCLA is also 4-1 taking on a winless team. All of that is true, yet if we have learned anything from watching UCLA football in the Karl Dorrell era, it is that UCLA plays to the level of its competition. No game is a gimme and, worse yet, the Bruins are prone to inexplicable collapses against vastly inferior competition. Have the Bruins really learned their lesson from the Utah debacle in week two? Let's hope so, because Notre Dame is bound to win a game one of these Saturdays. We'll have to see if the luck of the Irish is with them this Saturday.
(Photo Credit: AP)
The West Coast Offense
We're almost four and a half years into Karl Dorrell's tenure at UCLA. Lots of things have changed over that time, including 4 different offensive coordinators, entire classes of players, and more position coaches than you can shake a stick at. Yet the one thing that hasn't changed is Dorrell's dedication (some would say stubbornness) to utilizing the West Coast Offense (WCO). Even though it has taken on slightly different incarnations with his coordinators, at the heart it remains Dorrell's baby. While we've all read and heard about the WCO, I've never been entirely clear on the details of this offensive philosophy. Is it too hard for college level? Why are some teams more successful at using it than others? I decided to take a little time and give you the evidence of my findings and a little football 101 on the WCO.History
The first thing you need to know about the WCO is that it is an offensive philosophy, not a particular formation or set of plays. Unlike an option-offense, which uses the option at the core of it's workings, the WCO has no set packages or plays. It is more of a mind-set, a way of approaching the game that is predicated on passing the ball to setup the run. From that perspective, it has been around for decades and most teams have incorporated some aspects of the West Coast Offensive philosophy into their scheme. However, when we talk about the WCO, we tend to associate it with a more narrow definition. The WCO that UCLA runs finds it's roots in the NFL and the teachings of Bill Walsh.
While the WCO has taken on many different incarnations over the years, most would agree that the modern professional variations are based on the offense devised by Bill Walsh and the San Francisco 49ers. In Walsh's system, multiple receivers, running backs, and tight ends are available to catch passes. The focus is primarily on short, quick passes, where receivers run precisely timed routes. The offense tries to spread out the defense by throwing the ball more horizontally to receivers aligned across the field. Receivers are then expected to gain more yards after the catch to move the ball down field. Walsh had amazing success with his system and he won 3 Super Bowls up in San Francisco using it.
Obviously that type of success drew a lot of imitators and Walsh's former assistants went on to build great teams using this system. It was this new generation of Walsh disciples that took the WCO all over the country. In the NFL, George Seifert (San Francisco), Mike Holmgren (Green Bay), and Mike Shanahan (Denver) each put on Super Bowl rings while using variations of Walsh's original concepts. In particular, Mike Shanahan was a strong influence on Karl Dorrell who spent time as the receiving coach with the Broncos before coming to Westwood.
At the same time that Walsh was winning Super Bowls up in the bay, LaVell Edwards was having great success using a similar pass-first scheme at BYU. The Cougars went on to win a National Championship under Edwards in 1984 and set a number of passing records in the process. Edward's also sent a lot of players and assistants on to great success including Steve Young (San Francisco), Norm Chow (USC), Steve Sarkasian (USC), Mike Holmgren (Green Bay) , and Brian Billick (Baltimore).
The reason for the success in this college-version of the offense is that it cuts down on complexity. Norm Chow says his college offense has around 12 basic pass plays and 5 basic run plays (with screens). Those plays are run from many formations, with plays tagged for a little versatility. With this simplified version of the WCO, players know the offense by the second day of practice. The defense is kept guessing by the different formations and the offense can focus on learning a much smaller play book. Like I mentioned above, UCLA uses more of a pro-style WCO that has considerably more plays and complexity.
Strength
The core strength of the WCO is that it is difficult for defenses to stop. Why run the ball against a team stacking 7, 8, or even 9 guys in the box when you can throw the ball to a receiver facing man-on-man coverage. Since your quarterback doesn't have to throw many long passes, he doesn't have to be as physically gifted. A smart, accurate quarterback is prized over the guy with the big arm. The quick, 3 and 5-step drop passes mean the offense line doesn't have to give the QB a long time to throw, so there are fewer sacks.
Likewise, your receivers don't have to be as fast or talented in a WCO. Players run precise routes with little room to improvise, but a well timed delivery of the ball means they don't have to outrun the defender as often either. With a large number of players available to receive passes (including running backs and tight ends), the defense is forced to spread out it's coverage and the quarterback can deliver the ball to a receiver with the fewest defenders.
This pass-first strategy forces defenses out of the box and, thus, makes it easier to run the ball. Great WCO teams are great running teams as well since their pass-first scheme means the defense has to cover everyone on the field. Running backs become duel-threat weapons that should be equally good at catching a quick pass out in the flat as they are at taking a hand-off. Backs don't have to be big bruisers who can get 3 yards and a cloud of dust. A more versatile, athletic running back can have great success in the WCO.
Weakness
The quarterback is the most important part of any offense, but especially so in the WCO. With short, quickly timed passes, the quarterback has to make a split second decision on where to put the ball. The pass has to be quick and, most importantly, very accurate. The receiver usually don't have much separation from his defender, so the ball must be right on target for the play to succeed. If your quarterback can't make those "instant" reads and get the ball to the right spot at the right time then the whole scheme collapses.
The other weakness, especially at the college level, is the complexity of the offense. It often takes professional players years to fully adapt to the WCO and they get to practice and train year-round. The complexity isn't just in the size of the play book, but also in gaining a comfort level with the timing of the plays. The quarterback has to have a "feel" for the offense, so he can make an instinctive and immediate decision on where to throw the ball. That type of instinct doesn't develop overnight and for some quarterbacks, it never develops. When asked what is the WCO, Steve Young had this to say, "Timing and choreography, not plays, are what make the West Coast offense."
The WCO and UCLA
It is not too much of a stretch to say that the WCO hasn't been a success at UCLA. Most would classify it as a down right failure. Looking at the offensive ratings over the last 4+ years you get a picture of a team that struggles to move the football.
- 2003: UCLA ranked 110th in total, 100th in scoring. 9th total in conference.
- 2004: UCLA ranked 28th in total, 29th in scoring. 4th total in conference.
- 2005: UCLA ranked 23rd in total, 5th in scoring. 5th total in conference.
- 2006: UCLA ranked 71st in total, 64th in scoring. 7th total in conference.
- 2007: UCLA ranked 39th in total, 39th in scoring. 6th total in conference.
Now What?
Some fans, with an honest desire to see change, ask if we can just scrap the WCO and do something else. The answer, unfortunately, is no... at least not during the season. There is a reason why teams install offenses in the spring. It takes months for teams to learn and drill in an offense before they feel completely comfortable. The Bruins, unfortunately, can't just take a month off and retool the entire offense. In the off season it is possible, but Karl Dorrell is married to the WCO and he isn't likely to change to something else. For better or for worse, we're stuck with this system as long as Dorrell is the head coach.
What UCLA can do is try and simplify things. The hard part about that, is that you want to simplify without being simple. If a defense keys in on your small play book, well then you don't have anything else to pull out of your pocket. Really, what the Bruins need is to try and find ways they can maximize their talent. That means getting the ball to play makers like Chris Markey, Brandon Breazell, Joe Cowan, and Kalil Bell. Get the ball into their hands and let them make lemonade from this lemon of an offense.
(photo credit: AP)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
