SB Nation User Blog: Class of 66

Gameday: sc's Offense Is the Best Money Can Buy

Class of 66 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:07:33 -0000

Anyone else see this? Were they finally seeing the truth? No. They were using a metaphor. (I'm see a lot of that today.) What they were saying: sc is getting a lot out of Barkely because they are taking the risk of calling plays that either succeed big or crash. sc is throwing all of their offensive currency out there -- nothing cautious, trying to make big plays. Sounds like a debate we've been having here BUT: In the next sentence they praised the sc O line, noted that sc could send out multiple receivers AND protect Barkley from a 6 man rush and blitzes. Barkley routinely gets 4 or more seconds to throw. And, they also pointed out that sc's receivers have been catching the ball. Point: To take the risks sc is taking with its freshman QB you need the ability to protect him and give him time to throw and receivers who catch the ball.

When we can do the same, we will throw more currency on the table.

sjh

But, hey, the headline about the "best money can buy" seems a clear case of using a double entendre

Who Plays? Meritocracy v. Demographic Selection Standards

Class of 66 — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:03:43 -0000

This follows on a FanPost I put up yesterday part of which talked about giving up some wins to develop younger talent. There is so much back seat coaching going on -- which is clearly a byproduct of frustration -- and has also been a part of other sports discussions, including basketball, that I'm having a hard time figuring out the factual or policy basis behind some of the posts on who should be playing and why. It seems to me there are two ways to go:

First, we can have a meritocracy. Be the best at your position and you play. The value of this system is that there is competition at all positions and "competition" and "survival of the fittest" are part of the great American way. Whenever our coaches have said, "We are going to compete at every position" there have been strong posts of support. We are very Darwinian. However, this system only works if we trust those who oversee the competition to judge it. They are there, every day in practice, know with a degree of certainty we lack, who is screwing up in games, and have the background to make the difficult choices as to who plays and who does not. I suppose one can support a meritocracy and yet not trust those who judge the talent. But, if not our coaching staff, who? People who watch UCLA football for 4 hours, either in person or on TV, or the coaches who are there all the time.

I opt with the coaches. I am not opposed to throwing out merit to use a demographic based selection process -- let's play the freshmen and sophomores to get them ready for next year and the year after. No matter, they are not as good, today, as some of their elders -- the theory is that they will only get better by playing -- not just practicing. The fact that we may lose games that might have been won is a cost of that decision. And, the fact that younger players may be more fragile of body and mind may have a negative impact on the desired long-term strategy.

Yesterday, I threw in a hybrid system. Compete for every position, but in a push, go younger. The upside is that we lose little on the field and gain experience. The downside is that such a system does not respect some intangible values that kept some of the older players here during some desperate times. Why do I bring this up again, this time in more depth? Because, no matter the system, be it meritocracy, demographic (with two young guys at a position), or hybrid -- someone needs to make the ultimate decision as to who plays. And, who better than the coaches?

I know that some use blogs to vent and rant. I just skip those posts. But, I think it incumbent on those who are seriously suggesting that we are playing the wrong people to step up and explain why, with more than "I just think so." Not that I don't trust you. But, until I am convinced otherwise, I will trust CRN and CNN more.

Random Thoughts on the Arizona Game and Where We Are

Class of 66 — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:09:55 -0000

We are where many of us thought we'd be. I do not like losing. There are no moral victories. But, I am not surprised by where we are today, 3-4 and at the bottom of the Pac 10. And, for that reason, I'll not make ultimatums or decide, today, that our season was a failure.

1. It's normal to make pre-season predictions and talk about expectations BUT they are but educated guesses (and to some extent wishes) as to how things will play out. We are pretty much on schedule except -- we beat a Tennessee team that many thought would beat us and we lost to an Arizona team some picked us to beat. I think Arizona is better than many pre-season people thought it would be and Tennessee might be a bit weaker (but, had they been able to win, yesterday, our victory would look bigger. We are in a strong conference. (Even UW looked good, in early games -- and probably because of Locker (we are learning that you cannot win the games you must win without great QB play). If you picked us to go 8-4 or 7-5, even 6-6, you picked us to beat some teams that are better than we are.)

Calling for 6 victories and a bowl game, before one snap, is built upon assumptions about how talented other teams are, how even the conference is AND which of our players will be injured.

I think the critical injuries -- that destroyed pre-season predictions and expectations -- were those to Hester and Prince. Prince is not the QB who played the Tenn. game. There is something different and noticeable. I think the injury took a lot out of him, emotionally, physically, and in "sharpness"; I question whether, under the pressure of "must win" games, he will get it back.

My point: I can't be disappointed in the players or the coaches for being what most of us thought they'd be -- a less talented, young team.

2. James Washington is right -- we are too young and lack the talent to do much more than we are doing now. (This is a negative way of interpreting his comments. He's much more positive about UCLA and every criticism has a tag line indicating that things are and will be better. I am amazed about his attitude, especially after he was passed over for a coaching position. He has every reason to be bitter or snide -- but he isn't. He is a Bruin.)

Washington continually pointed out that we are playing 33 freshmen and sophomores. And, channeling some of the comments here, on BN, he pointed out that we are not just talking about experience -- we are talking about body strength and size. Give these guys a couple of years in the weight room and watch out. (Where have we seen this before? On the hardwoods where we've seen some great transitions between the freshmen and sophomore years. Can we all say RW together?)

3. Washington was also on point on our QB position. We have inexperience surrounded by people who just aren't making the plays the QB's need them to make.

Let's not forget how inexperienced Prince is. He didn't even play his senior year in high school.

Kevin Craft is what Kevin Craft is. He gives us all he has but it's not enough. We should thank him for being the best he can be. A lot of his team mates haven't reached that point, yet.

Brehaut, in the best of all worlds, would have been redshirted. We couldn't do that because we are so weak at QB. It's no surprise to me, in his clean up minutes, he does not shine.

However, I'm sliding to the camp that would like to see him start a game.

How good are our seniors? We all seem to agree with the commentator who does not see an early round draft choice -- other than Price (a junior) -- on either side of the ball. Once more, Washington is channeling BN when he points the finger at CTS.

What few seniors are playing, with the exception of ATV and a courageous, playing hurt Carter, we are not getting a lot of leadership from our seniors. Logan Paulson has just never come into his own. Now, he's dropping passes and picking up stupid penalties.

As maddening as the young guy mistakes are, I really can't blame them too much. They should not be playing. They should be learning. Rosario will be an incredible receiver when he "grows up".

3. Randall Carroll's Tweet: I'm really torn about this. I resent it and there is a part of me that wants him sanctioned. Then, I realize that he is young and immature and that young and immature kids say stupid things. (Some of us Geezers do to.). I wish he had not done it, but I trust CRN and CNC to deal with it.

I really don't like Divos (male Divas). If this guy has a bad attitude, I trust they will get rid of him. He's already been sanctioned once.

But, I'm hoping he is just a young, disappointed kid with a big mouth, a kid who if taught correctly can channel that energy appropriately and help the team,

4. Finally, we are not "just like last year" or "worse than last year." There is one difference between this team, all of CTS's teams and last year. We are not rolling over and accepting defeat. We have been in all of these games and have never stopped playing hard.

That, to me, is the sign of growth.

I've said this before and it may be my mantra for the season: We are disappointed because we are losing games that we could be winning. Games that in the preseason we did not think we'd win. So we get close and lose and the disappointment is all the greater because -- with a few plays here or there, a few less penalties -- we'd win.

And, therein, I think, lies most of our frustration. I, for one, take this as a positive sign.

I am not surprised or disappointed about where we are now. We are where I expected us to be. And, in a few years, we will be where I expect us to be, back on top where all UCLA teams belong.

Someone Please Bail Me Out

Class of 66 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:09:00 -0000

The last 3 losses are on me.

I know, we can defer the blame on play calling, bad D, stupid penalties.

But, I know better. For the last three games, I've tainted my mojo and caused my team to lose.

My rituals? I put a picture of my Dad in a comfy seat beside me. I tune in the game, and join the thread. I wear Bruin gear. I have a key chain that plays the fight song which I play at great moments to fire the team up. I move the keychain around either in my hands or, if we need momentum changes, I move it somewhere near me. I make my adjustments just like the coaches do.

For the last three weeks, Jen's HS games have conflicted with our games and I've abandoned my alma mater for my daughter -- the right choice but with terrible consequences for my Bruins.

I've not run rituals or been on the game day thread.

And, today, I will do the same thing. Jen's game starts at 6:00 CDT.

So, I am calling on all of my Bruin brothers and sisters to kick up their mojo to cover for the disappearance of mine.

If you bake, bake. If you drink, down one for me. If you spin in circles, can you do a circle for me?

Maybe a group ritual would work. Maybe we should share some here so we can expand the energy.

We will need mojo, today. I'll try to figure out a way to make a "location" contribution.

But, I need the rest of you to bail me out and to make up for my absence.

sjh

PS. Part of my ritual is to NOT look at the score before I watch the game on DVR. I don't want to mess up all the good work you are doing. I'll join in, after watching the DVR and then reading the threads.

The Wheels Are Not Falling Off the Bus

Class of 66 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:12:35 -0000

Bumped. Despite the reflections from this past weekend I agree with everything 66 laid out below. GO BRUINS. -N

In fact, when this crew took over the bus it was abandoned, at the side of the road, and had no wheels on it.

I think it is healthy to question authority. I grew up wearing a button that said so.

So, I appreciate the constructive dialogue about the coaching staff though I disagree with much that has been said. In the context of what we have and where we are, I think the coaches are doing a good job of using the talent on this team.

What I don't think is fair are the unsubstantiated attacks, particularly on CNC, that he is "too old" (Uh, maybe that one hits a bit close to home for me) or that his prime has past.

Now, two days after a disappointing loss, I think it is time, once more, to reinforce many of the posts of the weekend by reminding all of us, including me, where we were just a few years ago.

Our program was a complete disaster -- abandoned by the side of the road, no wheels on the bus, no replacement parts in the garage, and no mechanics qualified to fix it.

CTS and his crew destroyed this program. We had no offensive scheme for our players to learn. We recruited poorly and foolishly did not make sure we were bringing in players to fill all of our needs. The so called "skill players" found themselves without those who make them look skilled.

In came the new crew, CRN and CNC -- both of whom had very successful records and, as coaches, solid reputations. (As one who explored the "charges" against CRN, I will not concede that he had stains on his record.)

At the time, they were jumping in to rescue a program that was in disaster. It takes courage and commitment to do so.

They could have gone to fully functioning programs that gave them the resources to succeed from the get go -- sort of like buying a fully functioning well maintained bus. Doing so would have obviated the need to do all the hard work that makes rescue projects so much more than maintenance or improvement projects.

Rescue projects are tough. Rescue projects take time. But, rescue projects are rewarding. It takes special people to take on the challenge and CRN and CNC are special people.

I think we all agree that they want to win. And, are passionate about both UCLA and bringing us back to our rightful place in the universe.

Where we disagree is that I am a lot more hesitant to question their qualifications to do so or some of the decisions they have been making.

No one predicted a winning season. Most of us thought we would be 5/7 or maybe 6/6. We will be.

We thought we might lose a game we should win, and if we played better than expected, win a game we should have lost.

We are right on that projection.

Our first two games were games we projected we'd win. And, we did. Tenn was a game which, in all fairness, we projected we'd lose. We won it. We are one up.

Then, on the road, and without our starting QB, we played a Stanford team that was probably a pre-season push, but until last weekend looked good -- and lost.

I don't think anyone projected an Oregon win. It is simply too good a team. I have no idea why they stunk up Boise, and I watched the whole game, but they rebounded strong and are a genuine top 10 team.

That, after these games, we think we could have/should have won each should inspire us to support our coaches. They got us where we had to be -- playing with mostly untested parts that have not really worked together enough to create a strong working whole.

There are all these rumblings that we should give up some chance of winning to develop our younger talent.

We are playing our younger talent -- not in an effort to create a development year -- but because we have no choice.

On O, with very few exceptions, we are playing first year people. The only area where we are not is at receiver and I think the concerns expressed by many here are valid. But, because we may not be pleased with the play of a couple of seniors does not render the coaches subject to criticism for not giving young guys, across the board, a chance to play.

We are shaky at QB because had everything worked out for us, we would have had a senior QB.

KC was never projected as a starter. The fact that he is our most experienced QB does not mean he has the skill level to succeed in this league. But, he has the heart and plays to his full potential. I think he is a warrior and will always be on his side. In fact, in some ways, I think we have the best chance of winning when he plays. I choose experience over RAW talent. But, the coaches disagree and I respect them.

So, what are they doing? They are going young at QB. Just what people are demanding. And, when you go young at QB, you run the risk that an offense won't work -- not because the OC can't make it work, but because a young QB can't make it work. Holding the ball too long. Throwing to the wrong guy -- into coverage -- inexperience.

You cannot blame the coaches -- especially those of you who want us to play young -- for trying to put those young players into positions where they can succeed by dumbing down the playbook.

And, as much as I appreciate the rousing debate on which young QB should play, frankly we've not seen enough of either to second guess the coaches. (Those on BN who have attended practices seem to be supporting the coaches' choices.)

The D, has more experience, but still has some young guys starting or playing a lot of minutes. Losing Hester was huge for a young, inexperienced team. I am not a big fan of this D -- it was DW's D, but I must concede it played better against Oregon and I was really pleased to see it do so. Yes, we still have tackling issues. But, we did cut down on destructive penalties.

We are a little less than half way into our season. We are in a competitive conference. We have not rolled over in any of our games and that is a sign of growth. Even in losing, we are getting better. I still believe we will win 6 games (including a win over sc) and a bowl game.

The coaches are stocking the garage with parts and rebuilding the Bus as best they can. Unfortunately, they can't keep it in the garage until it is perfect. They have to take it on the road, every week. They have to make it run as best they can until they have everything they need to make it run well.

When it is restored, when it looks like the classic Bus that was once UCLA football, if we maintain it, it will run forever.

And, we will be singing the praises of CRN and CNC in the same voice we do with CBH. We gave CBH time to get his wreck back on the road. And, we must do the same for CRN and CNC.

Some Random Thoughts About the KSU Game

Class of 66 — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:11:47 -0000

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

1. We still do not know how good this team is. We have beaten three teams, but none is a touchstone we can use to compare ourselves to other teams.

It is still to early in the season and comparative schedules are yet to be meaningful. I did not see Tenn. play, but it sounds like their D played well -- that may tell us a little bit about or O.

But, or D may not have had a meaningful test yet. KSU came into last night's game rated having thrown for 363 yards in its two prior games (28/57/2/3). Against us, it threw for 199 yards (better than previous games) 21/35/2/0. They came in with an average of 4.48 yards per rushing attempt and we held them to 1.9. However, their previous two games were against La-Lafayette and Massachusetts. Their passing game was better against us than against those two teams.

2. I am more concerned about our D than I am about our O. Don't get me wrong. I love our team and our D. I love these kids. But, I fear many of us are drinking the Kool Aid. I write this section in response to a post in the game day thread, last night. Someone referred to "Kevin Crap" and then went on to say that at least we had a "top 10 D". I wrote a long response but could not post it because the thread had changed. I will write about Craft, in a moment. This is about the D. Before last night's game, our D was rated 30th against unranked teams. I don't think we will move up much after last night.

Here are some opinions and some numbers. I write this section, not to criticize the D, but rather because I am tired of the criticism of Kevin Craft and the praise for the D. Neither are soundly rooted in fact.

I see the ugly remnants of the CTS/Walker D this season. Inconsistent from the get go. Why must we start every game by giving up a long drive? Why do we wait until late in the game to dominate? Why can't we stop a spread? Even a spread by teams that have not been or will not be highly ranked?

At times last night, our tackling was atrocious. Shades of the past.

And the penalties. Don't get me started. Yes, some were SPTR penalties, but when you have people in a hole, giving first downs or improved field position by penalty is not the way to win games.

I'm so sick of the complaints that the O forces the D to be mediocre. For the last few years, this has been a D that cannot get itself off the field. This year, the added wrinkle: Our D is starting with better field position than it has in the past. Thank you Locke.

In the first quarter, fresh off the bench, the D was on the field for 9 and 8 play drives. In the second quarter, one 3 and out and 6 and 7 play drives. The D, on it's first time on the field after the half, gave up a 14 play drive that resulted in a touchdown. The following: 3,6,3,11 and 4.

The O Drives: First quarter --11 (touchdown), 4 (field goal), Second Quarter -- 6(interception), 8 (field goal) 2 (end of half -- we had time but ran out the clock), Third -- 5, 4, 4 [this was our very bad 3rd quarter. Fortunately, Nestor turned the momentum by changing the game day thread]. Fourth -- 10 (Field Goal), 4 (Touchdown) 5, 2 (fumble) 1(end of game).

I've always thought Time of Possession was a meaningless statistic -- often misinterpreted. In the past our Defense Apologists have used TOP to blame our O for the D's failings. When you look at the drive charts, you see another story.

3. Get Off Kevin Craft's Back: Yes he had shaky moments last night and a tough 3rd quarter, but he delivered a win. For those of you who think Kevin Prince is so much better, look at the numbers. It's a bit hard to compare because although both are listed as having played 2 games, in reality, Craft has played but one. Craft has a higher efficiency rating 124/105, but they are quite even elsewhere. Completion percent? Craft 54.2 Prince 55.8. Each is averaging 1 TD and 1 Interception per game. Craft is averaging 4.5 yards per carry and Prince -10. And, BTW -- the longest pass play this season? Craft's 51 yard TD, yesterday. (And, he had a TD called back by an "interesting" penalty call.)

Would I rather see Craft start? No. But, we don't jump down Prince's throat if he has a bad series or makes a mistake. Let's give Craft the same allegiance.

Kevin Craft is a Bruin Warrior worthy of the same support and adulation we give our other warriors. His commitment and effort cannot be challenged. And, he delivered a win last night.

4. The best part of the team? Other than the MVP (Kai Forbath) the O line. It is playing way better than anyone expected. Opening holes and protecting our QB's. From what I hear, the Tenn. D is for real. So, I think it safe to say the O line has had a real test this year and we have reason to believe it is much improved. It certainly is in attitude. The looks on the O line players faces are so different from the looks in prior years. They are clearly on a mission to prove themselves and they are doing it.

So, where does that leave me? Thrilled. We are so clearly on our way back that I can see the glory days on the horizon.

But, I have tempered expectations. We have yet to play a team that is great. I think Cal is great. During the first weak of the season, after watching UW play LSU, I posted that I am now officially worried about that game.

At the beginning of the year, many of us said that we thought we will win the games we are expected to win and will steal a win or two of those we are expected to lose. I think that will hold up. We have one "unexpected" victory over a Tenn team that is probably not going to fall like last year's team. I think we will beat sc (I always think we will beat sc, but this year I think that even more.)

We are a young team starting to master CRN and CNC's systems and I think we will "overachieve" this year.

sjh

PS. The suspended players: We missed Viney last night -- but for the most part Sheldon Price played a good "first game". The two big losers in the group of 4? Carrol and Presley. How are you going to keep Rosario out of the line up?

Shame On LA Times: Newspaper Posts Racially Charged "Line Up" Photos Of UCLA Football Players

Class of 66 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:45:24 -0000

Bumped. Simply despicable on the part of the ~~Los Angeles~~ Trojan Times. GO BRUINS. -N

Those of us who write for a living know a very simple truth: The pictures we choose to illustrate our words are far more powerful than our prose. They set the tone, convey the emotion, and shape the reader/viewer's reaction.

When we are reporters rather than fiction writers, when there is a reality that we are purporting to present, minimum standards of intellectual honesty demand that we select images that truly represent the facts -- images that don't create a wrong or false impression, images that don't create a false reality. Images that don't create a false sense of the people about whom we are writing.

Images that don't border on inciting racial blowback.

That is why I was so upset to see the images used to illustrate Chris Foster's LA Slimes piece on the suspension of our four players.

Simply stated, Foster presented something we've never seen in the reporting about those who get in trouble at our cross -town rival, he presented a "line up array" of pictures calculated to make our kids look "bad":

Think I'm nuts? Let's look at the picture he used of Morrell Presley:

And, now the official UCLA picture:

Difference in tone? You bet.

Honestly, deep in your heart, and taking race out of the picture, which looks more threatening and menacing?

The only pictures they could get?

Uh, no. The official UCLA website has pictures of all of these players:

You think they didn't know about these pictures? They did, They used Viney's official picture BUT they cropped it in a way that is less than flattering? Knox official picture has a faint smile; not the line up picture. And, for Carroll, they chose a picture, like Presley's.

As a matter of pure presentation, one could have cropped the official pictures to present a more true image of the player without taking up more room on the page. Rant begins after the flip.

Three paragraphs back, I asked you to take "race" out of you interpretation of the pictures.

Unfortunately, in our society we have not reached a point where we are, in fact, race neutral.

Instead of moving us farther down the egalitarian path, the election of our first Black President has made more visible some of the latent racial hatred that we have yet to eliminate.

I do not play the race card lightly. Read my body of work here. And, know my life. I have never used race or difference as a way of justifying disparate treatment.

But, at the same time, I have to question why the Slimes chose to present these four Black athletes in this "line-up" manner when they have NEVER done it before with the white athletes at sc.Or here. Or anywhere. Do you recall a similar picture gallery of the sc players who posted and maintained that hateful website?

They chose to give the pictures an interpretation that does not fit the story.

How can I say that?

Because, no one knows what the story is. No one accept CRN, the coaches, the team and the AD. The alleged offenses have never been made public. What little we know is that there are no public reports of criminal activity. That CRN acted quickly and decisively. And, that those of the four who have spoken out have taken responsibility for what they did.

At a time when we are thin in our defensive backfield, and when our first string running back is out, CRN stepped up and suspended these players, all of whom would have seen game action.

THAT IS THE STORY. That UCLA has high standards of conduct. That we enforce them, to our detriment. And, that our players take responsibility for their actions.

This should have been a positive story. Instead, it was a vapid story with sensational photographs.

One last thing. I cannot wait to see what Kurt Streeter has to say about this -- Streeter who has seen racial implications in stories before (even when many others could not). Certainly, the man who defended Karl Dorrell and claimed he was the victim of racial prejudice will do the same for these four Bruin athletes. I can't wait.

sjh

PS. No, I don't read the fishwrap. It is not a part of my life. I only saw this article because a good friend called me, upset and asking for a "reality check". Unfortunately, we both saw the images the same way. I felt moved to write about my feelings.

Nestor Deserves a Lot of Credit

Class of 66 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:12:42 -0000

This has been, perhaps, my favorite week on BN.

From the pregame articles, to the game day thread, to the incredible follow up stories -- I have never been more excited by a body of work in any online community. Hector and 11's posts, and the threads that followed, were works of art -- good writing, good reporting, good humor -- unique contributions.

It seems like we have evolved to a level where our common understanding of what being a citizen here means. I was particularly pleased by a game day thread with many new contributors and almost no personal attacks on our players and coaches. This was a great game day thread. And, the story telling that is showing up in the FanPosts is unique amongst the blogs I visit. Finally, add in the amazing visual contributions -- photo's, video's -- where else can you find stuff like this?

And, for this, Nestor deserves a lot of credit.

Nestor has built a community that demands excellence in content and behavior. And, during this week, the standards have been constantly met or exceeded. It is no small task to draw the line between honest criticism and personal attacks -- but that line has been carefully drawn here to the benefit of us all. And, by his personal example, with all that he posts every day, Nestor makes clear that content is King here. This isn't a place to come and spew crap.

Every once in a while, I visit another site, just to check it out. I'm stunned at what passes for dialogue and content. Some of it is shallow, some mean, much of it snarky drive by posts.

It's the kind of stuff that would not be tolerated here.

I think we can all agree that nothing less than excellence would flow from a base that has either graduated from or become aligned with UCLA.

But, to create a place where so many diverse people come to contribute in such a deep and positive way amazes me.

Perhaps, I am more impressed, today, than I have been for the years I've been here because I'm trying to build a community of my own on a blog I started a couple of months ago. It is really hard work. Much harder than I expected.

Every so often, someone comes here, steps over the line, and then attacks Nestor when he asks that they step back and play nice. Sometimes, the attacks on Nestor are more aggressive or spill beyond our pages. No matter how strong one is, that stings a bit; and no one wants that negative energy in his or her life.

There was a thread last week where that happened. I was going to write a letter of support and appreciation to Nestor and the front pagers but never got around to it.

But, I do think, every so often, we have to say "Thank you" lest you think we take all of this for granted.

We don't. We appreciate this place. And, we appreciate you.

Random Thoughts on the SDSU Game

Class of 66 — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:44:51 -0000

Bumped. I will not be able to chime in with extended thoughts until later this evening. 66 seems to have captured a good portion of my notes. So bumping this up to get the morning/afternoon convo going. Of course you have extended thoughts, fire them up in the fanposts. GO BRUINS. -N

I'm not sure that there are any big "take aways" from this game -- obviously SDSU is regrouping and rebuilding and not a touchstone for where we stand, today. But, I do think this game helps us see where we will be, soon. To me, the future looks very bright.

For me, the biggest take away is that I now see what a UCLA Norm Chow offense can look like. And, I really like it. Throwing the ball down field, throwing to a lot of receivers, keeping the D off balance. Balanced attack -- 38 runs and 31 passes. A running game. And, a running game that gains yards up the middle. With an O line and the right kids at the skill positions, we will move the ball. Bless NC for his patience last year. I think he saw the potential at UCLA and was willing to go through the rebuilding process. We are still in it. Think about what we will be when we have a team full of CRN/NC recruits.
We are a young team and will make young team mistakes. Not hard to see and we all seem to agree that we will have our young moments (which correspond, in many ways to the gray moments some of us Geezers have). But, to me the key is not to look at the mistakes but rather to see what we do after making them, and I think we pulled things together and responded well.
Our young kids played very well. Very well indeed. It's been documented, no need to focus on it, but several kids getting their first playing time looked good. I love our depth at the skill positions -- our running backs and receivers have great potential. It looks like we will be running deeper rotations at those positions. If the coaches can get the players to buy into "fewer touches" for the greater good and egos don't get in the way, we will give the staff a lot of combinations to throw against the other team. We have speed, finesse and power on our bench -- just pick the right tool for the right job and get it done. More after the jump.

The O line looked much better. How much better is yet to be seen. Tenn will be a good test. But, there seemed to be a real difference in attitude. They seemed "tougher".

We are bigger and stronger. Everyone has been saying that -- and it shows on the field. And, I think it shows in attitude.

Wonder why we are playing Brehaut and Thigpen instead of giving them a Red Shirt year? I think it is because CRN and his staff are so confident in our recruiting ability that they are not worrying about treating these kids as precious rare assets to be adored but not used. This isn't the china you got when you got married -- the stuff that sits in the closet. This is the everyday stuff you use and enjoy. There's more out there should you need it.

I would love to see the D come out, the first time it is on the field, and dominate. For all that is said about how it is one of the best units in the country, it is not sufficiently consistent to hold that label, right now. There is so much there that I really cannot understand the slow starts. That said, during 9 out of 15 possessions SDSU did not get a first down.

In the second half, we were able to play field position football -- much of the game was played, on both sides of the ball, inside SDSU's 50 yard line, and at that point we started to dominate.

This will be an interesting year. We look better. But so do other Pac 10 schools. Cal was expected to be strong and looked very strong. Washington looked good -- Locker is the real deal.
Was it only two years ago I went into every fall Saturday with my eyes half shut -- wanting to see the game but not really wanting to see it? Now I can't wait. Thank you CRN, coaches and players. You are bringing us back to where we belong.

Field Position Football

Class of 66 — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:11:36 -0000

Bumped. Welcome back 66. GO BRUINS. -N

Austin receiving a punt. Photo Credit: dabruins07 (flickr)

To me, the key for this year will be whether we can force the other team to start each of its offensive series deep in its own territory. Said another way, we will need to play "field position football".

It's something we did not do, last year -- and we paid for it, dearly.

For the last couple of years, often to disprove the fallacy that the offense was on the field so little time that the defense got tired, I looked very carefully at the drive charts of each game. As some of my prior posts, and those of Fox, show -- the D often came out and gave up yards from the very first time it was on the field. I don't want to revisit that debate.

But, the one thing that was clear from those drive charts was that the D rarely came on the field with the opposition pinned back in its own territory. Quite to the contrary. The D was often faced with an opponent starting out somewhere between its own 30 and 40 yard line, or because of turnovers, somewhere in our territory. With great field position, our opponents could open up their offenses in ways they would not were they starting out inside their own 20 yard lines.

I think the most disappointing cause for this was our absolute inability to kick off into the end zone. With kicks fielded on the 10 or 15, our opponents often got returns between the 30 and 40. It wasn't bad coverage -- a ball kicked to the one and returned 15 or 20 yards would be just fine with me. More after the jump.

So, step one on our path to a better season needs to be using our kicks as weapons not invitations to meet us somewhere near mid-field.

Enough has been said about our inability to move the ball consistently last year -- and our inability to keep it. We will be much better this year and this, too, will be a key to our season.

I really don't expect an explosive, high scoring offense. I expect an adequate offense.

But, if our offense and special teams can give our D decent starting field position, I think we will be in most games.

And, if we are in them, I expect to win some that the outsiders predict we will lose.

sjh

PS. Sorry, I've just not had the time to go back and do the empirical research to support this post -- so it is a commentary rather than a report. I would have preferred to come with numbers, which is the BN way, but I've been way too busy to do my research. And, I wanted to warm up my fingers. It's been a while since I've posted and I have to get the hang of doing it, again. Summer is over. It's time to rock.