SB Nation User Blog: uclahy

Is Rick Neuheisel Too Soft?

uclahy — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:26:47 -0000

Bumped. This is an uncomfortable question but we can't be afraid to discuss it. The "over the wall" episode puts Neuheisel's ability to lead our program in question. For better or worse Neuheisel did come into Westwood with a reputation of having mentally soft teams. The way the latest incident transpired doesn't make it look good. Neuheisel is doing everything he can to generate excitement around our program and he has injected incredible amount of energy in recruiting. However, if the Bruins choke against Temple on December 29th due to mental mistakes (we have seen this season), the over wall incident will turn out to be a huge strike against CRN, just like the Wyoming became one for Karl Dorrell. GO BRUINS. - N

Photo Credit: dabruins07 (flickr)

The prank of going over the wall and CRN's response to it may be symptomatic of a larger problem.

The coach sets the tone, the attitude, the standards, the mindset. It sounds like he's set a soft tone with this little prank. This is IIRC one of the complaints against him at his former college coaching gigs.

One might argue this is just one minor incident or that such pranks and foolishness are sometimes appropriate, understandable comic relief for team members blowing off steam.

But it does make one wonder. Can you imagine Coach JW or Red Sanders or Tommy Prothro or CBH allowing an entire team to miss an entire practice? And then saying it was okay? Maybe they did and I just don't know. I sincerely doubt it.

To me, CRN's comments just sound soft, not good IMO for our football program. Of course, if we were playing lights out on the field none of this would matter. Since we're barely surviving as a program, it makes you wonder where the priorities are when it comes to discipline, discipline, discipline and focus, focus, focus.

Is this why we have so many d**n penalties? Is this why some players had a deer in the headlights look for the SUC game? Is CRN developing warriors or something less? What's your opinion out there? Food for thought.

I'm Still Waiting for An Offense from CBH

uclahy — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:59:52 -0000

It took Wooden years to get it right. It may take CBH just as long. I know no one works harder than he does or bleeds Bruin Blue more than him, but even he is subject to criticism. And, frankly, I can't take it anymore. So here goes.

Let's face it, CBH's offense has pretty much stunk ever since he came to UCLA. Not only has it not been Woodenesque, it has normally been pretty ugly. But with the record of success that he has compiled who can rightly complain, even if his success has been despite his lousy offense?

Well, after tonight we can complain. Oh, I know his offense is normally very efficient. The stats prove it. But efficiency and effectiveness are two different things. Yes, when the score is in the low 60s he can keep up with a slow down, take the air out of the ball offense. He can win a lot of games with it, get to final fours with a tremendous defense, but he will never win the Big Enchilada when he goes up against really talented teams that actually play basketball at tournament time IMO.

I was reminded of this tonight in the Portland game. Not only was it one of the worst performances in the history of UCLA basketball, not only was it one of the worst coaching jobs by any coach I have ever seen at any level in any sport, it was very reminiscent of the way we have been punked in all of our final four appearances and even Villanova in the second round last year under CBH. Only this time it wasn't Memphis or Florida. It was just a well coached mid-Major team playing essentially Mike Montgomery Stanford Basketball from the 1990s. The loss, in fact, was so Lavinesque that for awhile I thought Steve had left the color booth and taken over CBH's body.

I think it is the understatement of the year to say that CBH has not adapted his coaching to his players yet. I'm very sure he sees that as well after the Portland disaster. My fear is that he will decide his team is so bad that he will follow Lavin's brilliant on air suggestion to play even "muckier" basketball, that is, to play an even uglier Big East style slowdown style.

I hope that's not true. I really think that's the wrong answer. As much as he might like the style, we do not have the makings of a Big East power basketball team with big guards, power forwards or a dominating big man. It doesn't have the personnel to shut people down on defense alone. For better or worse we're a generally athletic, but slight team with potentially good shooters and cutters. Kind of like Wooden's earlier champion teams but of course without a Goodrich or Hazard, duh. I would love to see a return to the Wooden staples of a high post offense and a zone press. It may not work, of course, but it's certainly worth a try. Some of our players might actually develop quite well if they were given a chance to fly. Could we be any worse? I don't think that's possible.

I'm left to wonder just how good the team with Kevin Love, Russell Westbrook, Darren Collison and Luc Richard, all excellent NBA players now, as well as Mata and Aboya and Shipp, could have been if CBH had let them spread their legs under his tutelage instead of putting the governor on their gas pedal every time they tried to speed things up. Can you believe a team with those NBA players got creamed in the final four by a team with really just one great player, Derrick Rose? Well they did, big time because IMO CBH does not let his players play on offense. He shackles them.

More than winning games this year I would like to see if CBH can actually run an offense that puts points on the board. They say he did that at Northern Arizona. Can't he do it here?

Did I witness the beginning of the turnaround or a flash in the pan?

uclahy — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:20:35 -0000

Bumped. Thanks to uclahy for taking the time to write up his road trips all this season. GO BRUINS. -N

Went to my last road game of the year at OSU. Just can't make it up to Washington State. So all that's left is SUC on the "road" for me.

Sat with my brothers who live up there, about the only group of Bruins in Blue that were there. There were some others, of course, but not many, understandable given our record:

via gallery.me.com

We suffered through the first three quarters, then were screaming with delight during the miraculous comeback. All the action was heading right for us. Rosario's catch and run was monstrous. All the scores by the Bruins were in our end zone.

We leapt out of our seats as Canfield threw the pick to Verner. The entire stadium groaned knowing AV was going to walk 15 yards into the house. Then he dropped it before he had it, the Rodgers brothers tore our defense up and Prince and company just barely ran out of clock before the last feeble pass fell to the ground with time running out.

The good news? For about 10 minutes we played offensive FOOTBALL. We moved like the Bruins in the days of, dare I say it, Cade McNown. Having finally thrown the ball to our wide receivers DOWNFIELD, the whole playing field was stretched and everything, I mean, everything clicked. Ten more seconds on the clock, I think we score and tie the game and in overtime, who knows?

The bad news? Why did we wait until then? Here's my thoughts.

The Bruins did open up the playbook to start the game. They actually ran around the ends. They had a good mix of plays in general. But, as usual, they did not run the ball in four down territory, for example, kicking a field goal down 16 instead of going for it on short yardage and they did not throw downfield to our wideouts despite their huge physical advantage over the OSU corners who were covering them one on one, especially Rosario.

They did throw to the wideouts a couple of times, but they were not downfield. They were short passes designed to get the first down, not stretch. A few times Rosario did go long and was wide open, but he was not the target. Usually, the primary intended receiver was a tight end over the short middle or the flat. Prince actually did a good job finding them, but he was let down by some people whose name I need not mention who dropped the ball. We and they know who they are.

The most disappointing thing to me was Coach Neuheisel's beyond belief conservatism, once again going for the field goal on 4th and short near their goal line, even after he wasted a time out which we sure could have used later. I understand there is a rational defense for what he did. We were down 16. The sure 3 puts us only two scores down. But did he really think OSU was not going to score anymore? Or not get at least one more touchdown?

I'm not saying to be reckless, but let's show the passion in the passion bucket on the field when we play in the red zone. Let's develop an attitude in the red zone. We're going to run the ball down your throat or throw it into the end zone. In other words, we're going to pressure you all the way to score a TD once we're in the red zone. At least whenever we only have to get 1 or 2 yards. Come on. I think our fourth quarter play shows we have the horses and the talent to get those measly yards, and I don't mean just by running it up the gut or off tackle.

I have to say something about the defense. In many ways they played well, despite giving up lots of yardage. But on OSU's first touchdown they were totally confused before the ball was hiked. They should have called a time out. Instead, it looks like a safety ran to cover an uncovered wide receiver and someone forgot to cover the tight end. Worse, why did our players look like they were unprepared for that play?

Then, in crunch time, after we tied it up and AV missed the interception, we let them go some 85 yards in about 90 seconds. The key play was a screen play we never seemed to be able to adjust for, but worse, it seemed the coaches were playing more bend but don't break instead of forcing the issue with aggressive play. [Gee, some guy named Allioto just killed USC with aggressive defense this weekend, but I seem to remember he got run out of here as a scapegoat for Bob Toledo years ago. Or is my memory wrong?]

THEN THE MIRACLE HAPPENED. And what was that miracle? Prince looked FIRST to Rosario and Embree when they were one on one DOWNFIELD. Amazing. And they caught the ball equally amazingly. After the fourth quarter performance of Prince and Rosario and Embree, you cannot say we do not have talent. We have talent on offense. Yes we do.

What triggered it? Did the coaches finally let it all loose? Or did Prince finally learn to make his reads? I don't know. I just know I have been screaming at every game I've gone to to just throw the D**N ball to the wideout being covered one on one and we just haven't done it, until the fourth quarter at OSU. And for that 10 minutes, until the final gun, our offense was IN RHYTHM AND UNSTOPPABLE.

Equally wonderful is this fact. OUR TEAM NEVER GAVE UP. IT PLAYED TO WIN. AND IT CAME WITHIN A WHISPER OF ONE OF THE GREATEST COMEBACK WINS IN UCLA HISTORY. And no, it is not a moral victory. We lost, but if AV does what he normally does, we win this game when we were left for dead.

When the game was over the OSU fans were shaking in their boots. They knew they had dodged a bullet, that they should have lost, but for ...

That's why I think the OSU game yesterday is the beginning of our turnaround. I really do. I think they proved to CRN et al. that they are ready to stretch the field and dictate to the other side. I think their performance should have filled CRN's passion bucket with the confidence in his players to let it all hang out for four quarters and not just the last one. And if they do, with our defense being off the field more, or at least with much less pressure to be perfect, that side of the ball should be better, too.

I really believe we should win our next three games and that for our last REGULAR SEASON game, we have the talent to score on them just like Oregon. And whatever bowl game they go to, I will be there. Hope you are, too.

Yes, 7-5 people or bust! Your heard it here first.

Let the players play, baby, and we will be fine.

GO BRUINS!

As one of the few Bruin fans lucky enough to go to Arizona

uclahy — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:09:26 -0000

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

I had a unique perspective of the game:

Palcic coaching them up

My seats were on the 35 yard line, about 10 rows up behind our bench. The bad news, I was one of only a handful of Bruin fans behind them on the sidelines. The good news was when the crowd was quiet I could take advantage and yell out "Go Blue" and "Go Bruins." I am sure some of the team heard me. At least I hope they did. They played their guts out and were, amazingly, in this game well into the 4th quarter despite the problems we are all much too familiar with by now.

I have a gallery of some pictures I took before, during and after the game if you're curious, here.

If you're interested in my observations, please read on.

From where I sat I had an excellent view of our bench and the players on the field. The whole group seemed extremely focused on the sidelines, especially the offensive line which normally sat together as a unit.

The secondary played a great game with all of their interceptions and even a score on a lateral. There were other great plays where they almost jumped routes and almost caused even more damage. In the beginning, though, it seemed they were confused on their assignments judged by the looks on their faces just before the snap. I think the problem centered on who had what responsibility on Arizona's first half end arounds, but I really have no way of knowing. We also seemed to get players, especially linebackers, in very late on plays throughout the game.

Both Palcic and Neuheisel coached up the offensive line during the game. Palcic used the whiteboard to try and explain who should do what on the Arizona blitzes. The players paid attention, especially the center Maieva(?), but obviously we had some problems there all game. I blame much of the problem on the play-calling, however. The disconcerting thing, of course, is that one would hope the coaches would have known Arizona's blitz packages before the game and coached on this the week of practice before. Of course, adjustments always have to be made in a game, but it was curious.

The team never gave up. That was very important to me. Our team has lost four in a row. Very tough to take, but the players are not mailing it in. They are busting their butts on every play. It might not seem that way on TV because of the distance and perspective and the bad results, but I'm telling you these kids care and are leaving it all on the field. They deserve our support.

Before I go on to talk about the coaching, I want to make clear that I support them. It is way too early to throw any of them under the bus IMO. I believe our program is moving forward under their helm. For what it's worth, I think the most animated coach, the one most into the game, was the DC, Coach Bullough, who many are rightfully questioning. But as I've said before, because I respect them, I hold them responsible and accountable, too. I believe they are holding themselves responsible, too, and that they are disappointed with themselves, too.

It is an axiom, of course, that the most "brilliant" coaches are always the ones with the most talented players. For whatever reason, talent, youth or experience, our players are not successful right now. We have failings on both sides of the ball. The question becomes, are the coaches getting the most possible out of the talent level we have right now? I have to say no.

Why do I say that? Because we have lost four in a row? Well, obviously that is a factor. But more importantly, our units on both sides of the ball have regressed IMO since the Tennessee game. Tennessee, paradoxically, while still having a poor overall record has improved significantly since their loss to us. They have pushed very good teams to the limit while we have been pushed around by the better teams.

I know we beat Tennessee largely because of Crompton's interceptions. But I was at that game. Our lines dominated both sides of the ball most of the game. And in this Arizona game we had more interceptions and a fumble and still lost badly, and were dominated on the lines. That's what bothers me the most. Our failure to improve, indeed, our poorer execution as the season wears on.

That's the major factor that leads me to the conclusion the coaches are more the problem than the players.

Are our coaches lousy? Of course not. They are outstanding coaches, period. They are resurrecting a deeply troubled program that I think was on life support until they arrived. I think, however, they have been overprotective which has led to unintended consequences.

I think the common denominator on both sides of the coaching ball is two fold. I think we are too passive and conservative on both sides of the ball. I think this is a natural inclination of coaches who are trying to protect young players. Keep it simple. Don't take risks. But it has the opposite effect as our foes wind up dictating to our team with its plain vanilla offensive and defensive strategies.

On defense Arizona blitzed us early and often. We rarely did. On offense Arizona ran wide and ran reverses early and often. We rarely did.

So on defense we actually stopped Arizona on many plays. But on way too many others they ran circles around our vanilla defense for big plays. And on offense we ran a little and passed a little but most of the time we ran predictably between the tackles or tried dink and dunk passes to our tight ends and occasional running back.

Admittedly, on offense, we had major execution problems. Prince, unfortunately, fumbled I think for the fourth game he's played in and kept short arming passes all day. I don't blame him completely. I would be terrified every time I was told to pass into the flat, too. Craft played crafty and with heart, but when Coleman was wide open on the key 4th down play he overshot him badly. Brehaut came in as the sacrificial lamb. And our receivers played as though they had lead weights on their hands. I don't know why. It's unfathomable, but I really think they are trying too hard, putting too much pressure on themselves.

Also, the passing game depends so much on rhythm. And so far, for whatever reason, neither Prince or Craft have found a rhythm IMO. I don't know why. I just know they don't have it yet. Prince, of course, is still recovering from a broken jaw and missed a few games and a lot of practice. Craft hardly even practices with the first team and then he's asked to save the game. Brehaut barely has his feet wet.

So who's got rhythm? I don't know. My suggestions are simple.

Blitz more. Force the other team to run or pass, but force something.

Play Brehaut and see what he can do; I think a lot.

Run the ball in four down territory. And run wide at least as much as you run up the middle.

And throw to a wide receiver when he's one on one, even if he's covered, please.

And maybe coach the kids who are busting their butts to relax and have fun and let the game come to them.

I'll be at OSU, my final road game, unfortunately. I love watching these kids play and develop. I believe they have big things coming in the future. I just hope it comes sooner than later.

GO BRUINS!

Offense Up, Defense Down. Let's go, Bruin fans!

uclahy — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:21:12 -0000

I woke up today more than a little disappointed by some posts on BN. One thing bothered me above all, besides, of course, the frustration of yesterday's game. People are throwing our players under the bus by calling them out on their ability [no talented playmakers] or questioning their effort [no heart, et cetera.]

I don't think either criticism is true. I"m not going to name names, but our team is filled with talent on both sides of the ball, some of it truly exceptional. And I refuse to believe that any of my Bruins dogged it out there in that 90 degree heat or didn't make their best efforts. I just don't see that, really.

Above all, I support this team and its coaches. I am disappointed, of course, terribly. I live and die Bruin football, and it's been a lot of dying in recent years, with few exceptions, since the glory days of Cade McNown and all that. But I'm going to Arizona next week, and Oregon State after that, and in my own little way I am going to let these players and coaches know that I have their back even after losing three in a row.

I still hope for good things from this team, and I don't mean 6 and 6, but whatever happens I applaud their effort, their talent. I appreciate they are laying it out on the field every time they put on that fabulous UCLA blue and gold uniform.

I do have some observations about our offense and defense and strategy. If you want to hear it, read on. But whatever you do, please stop throwing these players under the bus.

You have to be blind IMO to not notice the difference between the momentum of the offense and the defense. Our offense is much improved and getting better every week. The defense, on the other hand, is getting worse, much worse, beginning with Stanford.

The level of competition has changed, of course, though I think Tennessee was better than most think. I was at that game. We actually dominated their lines most of that game, not the entire game, but most of it. Are our last three opponents that much better? Certainly offensively. I don't know defensively.

At Stanford our offense played pretty well with Craft. For Oregon it plunged with a bad outing by Prince. For Cal, the offense bounced back very well, though a fumble and interception by Prince proved very costly. Overall it seems the offense is continuing to improve, has real flashes of excellence and once it finds its rhythm, I believe it will be very good in general. We did not lose the Cal game because of our offense.

The defense could not stop Gebhardt at Stanford, nor did it make any significant adjustments until late in the game. It gave up two very big plays that were critical. For Oregon I thought the defense played very well over all, again with the exception of one huge running play that was a game changer. The Cal game was mystifying to me, partly because I could not make it to the game [my first one this season], and by the time the TV showed it we were already behind 14-0. Unfortunately, I saw plenty of big yardage plays by Cal after that in the first half.

The worst was Best's 95 yard TD run. No doubt he is a great back when he has an opening, but OMG. We had the play defensed almost perfectly, or so it seemed. Then he cut back against the grain and I think 6 of our guys flat out missed him. I don't know if he's that amazing or if our guys just had bad angles on him, but once he hit our secondary it was over. Maybe someone could explain it to me, but shouldn't coaching include positioning players to watch out for the cutback by a back whose stymied on one side? That's the angle question I have. It seemed to me our players on the cutback were too "shallow" so he wasn't forced back up into the middle, but what do I know?

The point is the defense seems to be regressing, not improving, unlike the offense. Again, these opposing offenses in our three losses were superior quality, but I don't think that explains it sufficiently.

I have my usual criticisms for the coaches. I loved throwing to our wideouts who were 1 on 1. Big improvement. We actually threw into the end zone a couple of times. Big improvement. We still don't IMO run the ball enough in four down territory to keep the first down markers moving and put more pressure on the defense, and kick fewer field goals. I would like to see much more Brehaut. But these are minor. I see the offense improving, and with better timing and rhythm, I think we will be fine.

I think there's something wrong with our defensive scheme, but I'm not smart enough to figure it out. It just seems we are out of position early in the game and make adjustments way too late. I don't know. Suggestion: why don't we just try and stop something, either the run or the pass, and just do it. Shut one phase of the offense down. Force them to do something, I don't know. Maybe we are and I just can't see it.

There is a silver lining on defense. I know it sounds Pollyanish. But except for these few big plays, our defense seems fine. I don't see us getting overmatched, really.

That's my two cents. I believe in this team and these coaches. Even when we lose, I see real hope for improvement, not next year, but this year. I see a better team than last year, much better.

Remember, if a couple of our recevers catch balls they normally would, or even if Prince throws the ball six inches higher to a wide open Logan Paulsen, we're in this game to the end and maybe even win it. Our time will come. The sooner the better.

GO BRUINS

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly of the Oregon game

uclahy — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:55:11 -0000

I think the most amazing thing about today's loss is how close we came to staying in a game in which we made some terrible mistakes. I mean, for crying out loud, we gave up a 100 yard touchdown on the second half kickoff, a gimme touchdown on an interception on our very next series [for two touchdowns in 26 seconds] and fumbled the ball away at midfield the next series to set up Oregon's one and only touchdown against our defense. [Less than 4 minutes into the second half.] This does not count our failure to score from the one yard line on two successive plays in the first half. [More on this later] That's a 28 point spread right there. The game could not be more gift-wrapped to the other team. Yet our players never quit and actually made a game of it until the last freaky interception off a bobbles pass.

This is the Good thing to remember from this game. I truly believe our players were equal to the talent level of Oregon, maybe even better. The caliber of our players, I believe, is truly excellent overall. Yes, we can quibble about the quality of certain segments of our squad. We have issues everywhere. All teams do. That's not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about overall talent and team speed. We are more than competitive there and it showed today, despite our loss.

So what's the Bad and the Ugly that are contributing to our losses? Here's my take

The Bad: I question the judgment of the coaches in picking Craft and Prince to start over Brehaut. Perhaps it was defensible before, but certainly not after today. Let's face it. Without question, the most important decision a coach can make is who should be the QB. It makes a huge difference at any level, but especially college. I have only seen Brehaut pass twice in the San Diego State game and now in the Oregon game. And the difference IMHO is dramatic.

Craft is Craft, God love him. He is a gamer but he has obvious limitations. Prince is a redshirt freshman and knows the system to a T, but in his four games he has not shown anything much beyond his strong arm and tenacity to spare. Today, IMHO, he was surprisingly slow in his reads, terrible in his decision making and threw badly [high and wide on long passes and short-arming short ones into the ground]. Brehaut, both against SDSU and again today, IMHO showed not only signs of brilliance, but beautiful, tight, accurate passes all over the field. His performance was all the more remarkable since Oregon knew he was going to pass and our coaches, in their wisdom, did almost nothing to save him from the rush, ie. no screens, one dray, no pitches to backs, nothing, in fact, mostly empty backfields.

Some might point out that Prince was rusty. While that may be true, he had two prior starts and has been in the system for over a year. Brehaut, meanhwile, had the prior two passes against SDSU, period. He had no prior games to be "rusty" from. So I don't think "rust" explains the difference. It's raw talent more than likely.

My bottom line. The only QB of the three who appears to have the talent to excel in the offense is Brehaut. He is not merely a "game manager." He is a natural. Whatever reason he did not start before makes no sense now.

The Ugly. I love Coach Neuheisel and Coach Chow. i am thrilled they are our coaches, No question they have resurrected the program, are recruiting outstanding players and have us headed in the right direction, that is, forward and upward. I have faith they will get us to where we all want to be soon.

Which is why it is unfathomable to me how they have overcoached this team to its detriment. What do I mean by overcoaching? Does the name Gene Mauch, God rest his soul, mean anything to you? Someone who outsmarts himself and his team by constantly overmanaging, complicating the game, taking the bat or ball out of his player's hands at a critical moment. Someone who does not do the most important thing that a coach must do: LET HIS PLAYERS PLAY. Instead, this kind of coach tells his players that HE DOES NOT TRUST THEM TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE PLAY, THE PITCH OR THE HIT. Instead, he decides he must make some "brilliant" call for his team to make the play or win the game.

I really think that our coaches have done this throughout the season on both sides of the ball. In this game, however, I think Coach Bullough fixed this mistake from last week's Stanford game and let our defense play good assignment football and did not overcoach against the spread. The result, with the exception of two running plays, one a fluke and the other helped by a ridiculous failure to call an obvious face mask on our guy, was a tremendous effort against an outstanding spread team.

Unfortunately, on offense, I think our coaches continued the mistakes of overcoaching from the Stanford game. They didn't let the players play. the didn't trust them to get the job done. So they made decisions that literally took the game away from their own players.

The prime example was the call of two successive QB sneaks at the one yard line. [Mississippi State did the same thing, thought not as badly, against LSU last week with one ridiculous QB sneak at the one.] But two in a row? OMG. You are taking the air out of the ball from your own outstanding running backs, fullbacks. You're telling Chane Moline, with a head of steam, that he can't get a yard. You're telling your offensive line they can't block for a yard. You're telling your QB you don't trust him to carry out a fake up the middle and toss the ball to a running back around the end or fake a run and hit a tight end in the flat or over the middle. You're telling your team you have no confidence in them beating the other team physically. They can only win by being cute or surprising.

Again I say let the players play. Let them risk failure so they can learn what it takes to win.

I think this same overcoaching applies to most of our offensive play calling. I've talked before about how, in general, we have a very effective run game, but the coaches give up on it whenever they get in the red zone. They did that again today in the red zone. At the same time, when we do try and pass in the red zone it is rare we go into the end zone itself. Instead, we seem enamored of passes to the flat or to the tight end that are deliberately thrown under the coverage in the hope he can make a move past a defender and get a first down. It is all so cautious, so tentative IMO, so self-limitng.

I really believe most of the failures on our offense are due to this overcoaching. How to cure it?

Run the ball in the red zone until the other team actually stops it more than once, especially in four down territory. And if you are going to throw it, throw it into the end zone, or at least over the first down marker. Let the players play. Let them have the chance to make the play that gets them somewhere. Give them the freedom to win or lose it.

And start Brehaut.

If we did these simple things from the start against Oregon, I think we win. If not, i think we score at least a couple of touchdowns, really.

Am I wrong? There's an easy way to find out.

My Two Cents

uclahy — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:42:10 -0000

My Two Cents

I was at the game and saw the whole turkey unfold. These are my observations, for what it’s worth.

The Defense: The word undisciplined comes to mind, despite flashes of brilliance. We have talent. You can see it. I mean NFL quality talent with Price and Carter and Verner, three layers deep. Price absolutely destroyed his blocker at times. Carter and Bosworth, not sure which one, made some huge hits. Verner came oh so close to a big interception.

BUT, the penalties, egads, and the missed assignments, the loss of containment, the sloppy tackling and the failure to ever make an adjustment to Stanford’s simple unbalanced line (I think designed to foil Price) were maddening. (Was that huge unbalanced line a throwback to single wing power football?) And how do you lose on a fricking flea flicker? Unbelievable. And how much time did Luck have to throw the ball? Yikes. I think back to the drawing boards fellahs. Who do I blame for these problems? While the kids must execute, it’s the coaches who are responsible for teaching the fundamentals, the containment, the assignments. The coaches, people.

The offense: I watched the line play with my binoculars the whole game. Our line was awesome. Our running backs were awesome. Franklin and Thigpen, especially. Question: Why was Thigpen saved for the late 4th quarter? He is amazing. Speed kills. He has it, plenty of it. IMO, Stanford NEVER STOPPED OUR RUNNING GAME. WE STOPPED IT, THAT IS, THE COACHES. I MEAN IT.

This is why we keep getting field goals. This is why Craft was killed in crunch time. Yes, I know the clock is running, but Thigpen was making huge yardage. A toss to him and a run out of bounds is as good as a pass play, especially when Stanford is blitzing Craft like crazy. I am so tired of getting down inside the twenty and then WE STOP RUNNING AND THROW WEAK ASS PASSES ON A SHORT, CROWDED FIELD AND WE HAVE TO SETTLE FOR A FIELD GOAL.

As bad as we played, Stanford won because they score touchdowns not field goals when they get in the red zone. How? They run the damn ball. That’s how. We run the ball great between the twenties and then we stop and play “finesse” football after our line has blown the defense off the ball for fifty yards. I am tired of weak ass, finesse football in the red zone. We scored only because Franklin, in a run, bumped it to the outside on short yardage. He and our other running backs can do that all day IF WE RUN THE BALL IN FOUR DOWN TERRITORY. Am I missing something?

We can win with our cheap, short passing game if we would just run the damn ball in the red zone. At least make the other team stop our run before we stop it ourselves, please, people!

As for our passing game, I am not an expert, but OMG I think on 90% of our plays Stanford was playing one wideout one on one. I mean ALL DAY. AND WE NEVER TOOK ADVANTAGE to go downfield or into the end zone. We never took advantage of our bigger, taller wide outs to go downfield. Never that I can remember. Well, maybe once. I understand that Craft seems incapable of going to a second receiver, but he rarely even looked to these one on ones as his first choice from what I could see. And the one on one mismatch was there almost every play.

I don’t blame Craft. He played an excellent game overall considering his well-recognized limitations. But the coaches put the whole game on him in the end, and Stanford knew it, and they got to him when it counted, finally. Maybe when Prince comes back he can take advantage. I sure hope so.

To our credit, the defense finally sucked it up, but too late. Stanford was set to get 5 to 600 yards entering the 4th quarter, and our D shut them down, and they barely made another 25. To our credit, our offense, which was finally opened up late again, nearly pulled it out.

But a weak-assed finesse offense in the red zone and undisciplined defenses are difficult problems to overcome, especially against a good team like Stanford. Stanford played as a team. They executed as a team. They play power, power, power in the red zone, not between the twenties (remember their one other long pass that set them up?), but in the red zone. I’m not sure they are more talented than we are, really. But they’re coaches out-coached our coaches, pure and simple. It was no contest. In short, gulp, I think our coaches are making the game too complicated. (Remember that trick “wildcat” play we called that screwed up an initial drive early in the game? Yikes.)

MORAL: RICKY AND CHOW AND CHUCK HAVE SOME ‘SPLAININ TO DO. Our players almost pulled out a game they played badly in, but their overall bad playing, IMO, is the coaches’ fault. We need to play more power football in the red zone and more fundamental ball on defense. It’s the coaching, stupid. Will they man up to it?

GO BRUINS.

PS. YES. The officiating was horrible, but I can’t say that’s why we lost the game. The flea flicker was really the dagger. No excuse for that crap to beat us. Other than that, we actually played them pretty even, despite our many problems. This ship can be righted, if the coaches just make these adjustments. Pleaaassseeee! We can still have a great season, people. DO NOT GIVE UP OR THROW IN THE TOWEL. WE LOST TO A VERY GOOD TEAM ON THE ROAD. IT HAPPENS.

Beat Cal and Oregon, yes, finesse, spread Oregon and we will be fine. Stanford will lose at least one road game in the Pac 10. Count on it.

The Day In Knoxville With Pictures

uclahy — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:48:28 -0000

Bumped. Just a fantastic story around UCLA best road win since 2001. GO BRUINS. -N

One thing I want to make clear. Without a doubt the people and fans of Tennessee, from Nashville to Knoxville, are the most passionate, polite and kind fans I have ever met. Whether on the street or in hotels or at bars or restaurants, wherever, when almost any local saw me or my family in Bruin regalia they were uniformly kind, gracious, hospitable yet unbelievably passionate about their team, especially so after their loss.

In fact, after they were going down to defeat and one Tennessee fan cussed UCLA, the crowd around him hushed him and a young mother holding her child next to my wife apologized for his behavior. We were right smack dab in the middle of hundreds of Tennessee fans:

Tennessee fans were knowledgeable, passionate and tolerant of my equal screaming on behalf of our team during the most heated moments of the game. We could learn a lot from these fans. In fact, some of them mentioned how well they were treated by Bruin fans over the years in their trips to the Rose Bowl to play us.

Nashville was a blast. The honky-tonk bars were fun, cheap and the musicians are fantastic playing everything from country to Bluegrass to Rock and roll hours on end. Some of the performers were phenomenal including the BB King All Stars at his club on 2d Avenue.

If you want to hear all about the Knoxville experience and Neyland Stadium, read on.

The drive to Knoxville was beautiful and easy, about 2 1/2 hours. The road was filled with Tennessee cars festooned with pom-poms, flags and decals. The Tennessee radio announcers were on AM and FM the whole way. They were surprisingly objective and respectful of UCLA though certainly expecting, like most, a 10 point UT win. They made a big deal about the Lane Kiffin, Monte Kiffen, Norm Chow connection and speculated about who would win that chess match.

A stop at our hotel, the Hilton Knoxville was fruitful. The team was leaving past the Starbucks walking straight downstairs the steps, past me sitting with my video camera and outside to the waiting Blue and White buses and their police motorcycle escorts. I videoed the entire team, players and coaches as they walked silently by. Coach Chow was completely focused. Coach Neuheisel noticed me as he passed. He said thanks when I wished him and the team good luck.

What my family and I noticed the most was the mood of the team: somber, determined, focused yet relaxed. All business. No joking around, but a quiet confidence, a good omen.

We walked the short mile to Neyland Stadium. It sits on a bluff over the Cumberland River, a spectacular location. On the way you pass through beautiful water displays and ponds, leftovers from a World's Fair held in Nashville about twenty years ago. The campus seems to be all around you. The sea of orange shirts takes you to an ocean of fans tailgating on one side and waiting for the Vol walk on the other.

The Vol walk, Rocky Top and the Pride of the Southland band are the triple whammy of Tennessee tradition. Tens of thousands of Tennessee fans line up to wait for their team bus. The players came out dressed in black and followed a snake path through the screaming fans as they entered the stadium. Shortly after, the entire band in full regalia, led by scores of drum majors and song girls marches down the hill, again flanked by thousands of fans. At a corner they form two sides and the dancers perform to traditional tunes followed by the never-ending Rocky Top which is sung in unison by the tens of thousands of fans.

The whole time a radio broadcast of the Vol station is carried live by audio speakers with announcers making breathless points about the most insignificant Tennesee traditions and football you can imagine. For example, this time two Tennessee legends were honored during the Vol walk and the game: Johnny Majors and John Berry, the father of current player Eric Berry. During the game fans would whisper, "There's Johnny," almost reverentially. Others wished he was the coach because he would have just rammed the ball down our throats until the humidity got to us.

Oh, the humidity. And the sun. In the stadium the hot sun beat down on you, unless you were in the "shady" part or under the top awning. Every time the sun was hidden behind the threatening dark and cloudy sky you wanted to thank the Lord. Plus you were grateful the game didn't start until 4PM. No way we could have survived a game that started at 1PM. Impossible.

To get to your seats you followed a maze of erector set ramps. Fans routinely volunteered [no pun intended] to help you find your seat. The stadium seating is mainly bench, which was both practical and necessary since the average spot is fifteen inches wide. You put your fanny smack dab down over your number and you keep it there, or you will find yourself much too friendly with your neighbor.

Entry into the bowl is awesome. The stadium inside is vertical, very steep and the steps are very old and narrow with no railing. The seats edge close to the football field, especially in the corners with only breathing room for the players on the sidelines. At 60 minutes the countdown begins.

The teams shared the field for some time ignoring each other. The fans screamed and chanted at every movement of the Tennessee players. Our guys looked cool and calm as the coaches put them through their paces.

The huge band comes out on the field and plays among other things, the UCLA alma mater, then the National Anthem, which the fans all sang together without a lead singer. Then it forms a huge moving T and marches closer and closer to the central tunnel where the Vols are waiting to enter the field. When their team explodes out of the tunnel they run through a hollow T formed by the band as the fans go wild, all 102,000 of them with Rocky Top.

The whole scene is incredibly intimidating and exciting. I cannot imagine how it must have felt to our team, especially the younger ones, but OMG, how young they all are! For them to overcome in such fine fashion in such a difficult place to play is truly amazing. Unless you were there you have no idea how loud the 100,000 plus Tennessee fans can be in this vertically, 100% elliptical, completely closed stadium. To say you cannot hear yourself think is an understatement. Then they pound their feet on the concrete and it feels like an earthquake, except it continues throughout the game, particularly at the key moments we need to shout out signals and hike the ball.

Coach got his glimpse of blue in that sea or orange. The largest contingent was a group of about 2000? about the goal line to the 20 where the cheerleaders did their thing. Others were scattered way high in a corner near the top. To their credit, the Bruin faithful made their own share of noise and we interacted with the players who often implored us to support them by raising their arms to us. Before the game and after the hotel was filled with scores of happy Bruin fans.

To say the least the game was thrilling. The whole experience was awesome and unforgettable for both myself and my family. We had never gone to a Bruin away game, outside of SUC, and this was particularly memorable and satisfying.

As the clock wound down to our victory, the Bruin players ran to our cheering section and we all celebrated together. After his TV interview, Coach Neuheisel almost ran over to the fans and pumped his fists in victory. Then he ran back to join his richly deserving team.

The Tennessee fans were amazingly classy. Yes, they lamented the poor performance of their quarterback and rued their suddenly dismal prospects next week against Florida and then Georgia. But they wished us a safe trip home and congratulated our win. Without trying to patronize them I tried to soften their blow by telling them the truth. They were the most passionate and polite fans I have ever met. And I said they might might be surprised at just how much better their QB plays against Florida next week because our defense, frankly, is underrated nationally.

Coach Neu said we should go and be part of the glimpse of blue in the sea of orange because it is a special environment. I was lucky enough to do it. He was right in more ways than one.

GO BRUINS!

Link to Photo Gallery

What's the plan for those going to Tennessee?

uclahy — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:04:16 -0000

Bumping this back up so folks can use the threads here as an organizing tool for Bruins congregating in Tennessee. GO BRUINS. -N

Not sure where to put his with the new format, but here goes.

As Coach Neuheisel suggested after the game, I am lucky enough to be going to Knoxville this weekend with my family for the once in a lifetime opportunity to put some blue into that sea of orange at Neyland stadium.

I am ready and raring to go see the Bruins kick some Volunteer butt in their home turf, but I don't know the schedule for any events set for those traveling there to share all the fun together before, during and after the game.

Does anyone out there have the details about this stuff? Please let me know.

I know I will be sick of hearing Rocky Top all day, but I hope when I come home that every time I hear it I'll have a big smile on my face.

GO BRUINS! LET'S SHAKE DOWN ROCKY TOP!

No more one and dones

uclahy — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 01:20:49 -0000

I am happy for Kevin Love and his future in the NBA. No criticism or regrets about his effort, spirit or personal contributions. He was great in every way, but the whole concept of these one and doners leaves a sour taste in my mouth even though K Love's situation was the best possible good example of a one and doner. He was classy in every way.

But is this what we want as our program, UCLA? Just keep reloading fantastic one and doners and say, wow, what a great college we have when in fact we're really just a revolving door, minor league player development league for the NBA?

I mean, how many classes does a one and doner have to take before he moves on the pros? Two quarters worth, maybe? How many units is that? 20% of what's needed to graduate? A guy's on campus barely 7 months and he's a "UCLA" legend? I don't know.

I just don't like it. To me, it takes the student out of student athlete. These guys are just marking time, going through the motions. Yeah, I'm gonna finish my degree. Of course, I'm gonna make a few million dollars before I get around to doing it, and yeah, I have over three years of classes to take, part time, and I haven't even picked a major yet, but yeah, I'm gonna do that. Sometime. Someday. Really.

Star Trek teaches us that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Look what is happening to our "team" and with it the team concept.

Two players are already gone, two more are on the verge and our only salvation is that we hope our new recruits will be so good we can just reload, throw UCLA on ther shirts, and we have another UCLA "team." Of course, if they're really good enough to take us back to the Final Four next year they'll all probably be one and done, too. And we can recruit more "UCLA" one and doners. Great, right?

And then we can hang a banner high, number 12, that says UCLA for sure, and say we're Number 1, but of what? Something we still call "college" basketball when our players don't even stay long enough to get an AA degree?

Funny, in this last tournament, Western Kentucky and Drake and Xavier and all those other mid majors reminded me a lot more of the old John Wooden teams I worshipped than any team that just relies on some big one and doner. And I don't think the Pyramid of Success includes cutting corners, recruiting hot shot one and doners, and doing whatever it takes to get to the pinnacle.

I remember something about success being the self-satisfaction of knowing you've done your best, as a team and as a person, and not just winning at all costs.

Call me old fashioned. Some will call me naive. College sports is Big Business. Fine, but the emphasis should still be more on college than money, right? Can't we win with men that really want a degree? Or even more important, wouldn't we be prouder if we had teams that really were teams and not just a short stop for some guy on the way to his "one and doner's" road to personal riches and fame?

Can BH or any college coach only win the big one by sacrificing the school's integrity? We can only win it all with lottery picks? If so, I'd rather not, thank you.

Just food for thought.

Go Bruins!