September 26, 2006
UCLA on the verge of a meltdown
The team at Bruins Nation is documenting the full-on meltdown that the UCLA Bruins are experiencing in the wake of the loss to Washington this past weekend.
Coaches are now blaming players for losses, and the players are openly criticizing both the coaches and the play-calling.
"We just run the plays they (the coaches) want to do," wide receiver Junior Taylor said, clearly irritated over the play-calling."I want the ball, the receivers want the ball. In order to make plays, we have to have the ball. You have the receivers; you have to go to them to make plays."
Meanwhile the Head Coach is sounds like Baghdad Bob:
"We're trying to call as good of plays as we can," UCLA coach Karl Dorrell said. "It always looks bad when things don't work. That's easy for us to see."But that's one of those things that we have to continue to develop (within) our offensive staff, and our players. We're still working through growing as a football unit on that side of the ball, and we're doing the same thing defensively."
It's getting ugly out there for the Bruins and you get the impression that no one at UCLA has any idea how to fix it.
Comments:
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on September 26, 2006 8:04 PM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
So, what's new? The 'Ruins always become dismantled at some point. Yeh, they'll probably get a win next week at lowly Stanford - but they'll be destroyed again by Arizona in just two weeks. That's when you'll really see the fur fly.
Last year they had all of those miracle comebacks. It was ridiculous to think that they could be that good. Oklahoma had a real down early year last year. So, and I even listened to this game on the radio, Arizona completely destroys an undefeated 'Ruin team. It was no surprise at all that USC just mauled them. They have no chance and the coaching staff is only trying to hold onto their own collective butts. They are nowhere near the team that they were under Terry Donahue or Bob Toledo. And, there is way too much talent in Los Angeles for that too even happen. Heck, USC can't recruit everyone - they only get to pass out about twenty-three free rides a year. No, the kids are opting for Cal, Oregon, Arizona and Arizona State. USC brings in four top freshman RB's and UCLA gets none? The did get the good FB - which it turns out that we really need now. Can you beleive that USC has already lost it's top three FB's already? Amazing! They should just stick Bradford over there and that will soften the blow of losing Moline to UCLA. Nope, until Dorrell is gone - UCLA will never be a truly reliable decent team. You'll just never know who will show up on Saturday's.Tommie T
bearguy said:
posted on September 27, 2006 6:10 PM — 204.75.249.20 — link — abuse?
Remember that Bruins Nation started out as a "Fire Carl Dorrell" site, so they are hardly objective. They were calling for his head after one of the most successful seasons in UCLA history. They won 10 games, including their bowl. Nobody rational wants to fire a coach at that point!
The more they squalk about Dorrell the more you have to wonder, just how much about it is because he is black. Obviously some of the flack he gets is coming from racism and some isn't. The more irrational the Bruins Nation and thier ilk get, the more they look racist. I can't think of a white coach ever getting attacked like Dorrell has been after a 10 win year.
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on September 28, 2006 9:08 PM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
The:
I also have a nephew who played on that very same team with Mark Sanchez when they won the National Title. Great thing for that boys life. What an experience that must have been. Hope Mark Sanchez gets to win a couple of more real soon. We still would have liked to have Moline and Rueland though.
Tommie T
Gerald said:
posted on September 29, 2006 9:09 AM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
"They are nowhere near the team that they were under Terry Donahue or Bob Toledo." Oh please. What did Terry Donahue and Bob Toledo accomplish? The PAC - 10 did not have a dominant national title contending team from 1980 until 2003 (save Washington for a few years). Every "great coach" and "great program" that was in the PAC - 10 during that time was a fraud. Even Bill Walsh had things fall apart his second go - round at Stanford.
As for why UCLA did not recruit a top RB ... because they had 2 or 3 top RBs coming back! That is why Maurice Drew came out early ... the guys playing behind him were better. Of course USC was able to recruit top RBs ... they were losing Reggie Bush and LenDale White, and they didn't have anyone capable of staying healthy or eligible behind them. UCLA dedicated their last recruiting season to getting bigger and better on the defensive line, and they did a pretty good job.
Yes, UCLA wasn't that good to begin with last year. Are you aware that injuries played a huge role? They lost their best WR, several offensive linemen, and some of what few defensive players they had. That is why they got blown out by Arizona: because of injuries they had been playing their starters almost entire games and they were tired.
Yes, UCLA isn't recruiting as well as they should be. But at least Karl Dorrell has an excuse: Pete Carroll, Jeff Tedford, and Mike Stoops are recruiting like crazy. Further, UCLA keeps jacking up their admittance requirements for football players. They are much higher than those at Southern Cal and Arizona, and they do not even get the JUCOs that Cal gets. Aaron Rodgers and J. J. Arrington, the two guys most responsible for that 10 - 2 season? Both JUCOs. But Bob Toledo and Mike Belloti, they did not have those excuses. Pete Carroll and Jeff Tedford weren't at Southern Cal and Berkeley then, Stoops wasn't at Arizona then, and the admittance requirements for football players weren't as high. As a matter of fact, Toledo had Belloti AND Tedford on his staff at UCLA and wasn't getting the players that Tedford is getting now.
Karl Dorrell may not be John Heisman or Knute Rockne, but it is high time that people quit pretending that he took over a program in a conference that had some history or expectation of great football. UCLA didn't even win the PAC - 10 in Troy Aikman's senior year. Bob Toledo's best season, that 10 - 0 start, went down in flames, losing first to Miami and then getting absolutely dominated by Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. That whole Cade McNown - Skip Hicks - J. J. Stokes - Freddie Mitchell team, that great Bob Toledo team, was a fraud. Who did they beat out of conference? Texas A&M in the Holiday Bowl? Like wow. What did these guys do in the NFL? NOTHING. The only difference between Karl Dorrell and those UCLA coaches who preceded him is that Karl Dorrell has a much tougher road thanks to Pete Carroll and Jeff Tedford.
And it makes you wonder about all this pressure on this guy anyway. Was there ever any pressure on Bob Toledo or Terry Donahue to win a national title? Nope. Donahue was never fired, he quit after years of failing to use UCLA as a springboard into an NFL head coaching job. And the only reason why Toledo was fired was because the program became a total mess with all the things going on off the field. So here you have a program that never did squat but win 10 games once every 5 years for decades before (and beating absolutely no one in the process), but now everyone all of a sudden wants a national contender, and they want it yesterday. Anyone care to explain to me what that is all about?
Vint Shurtliff said:
posted on September 29, 2006 10:27 AM — 216.152.208.1 — link — abuse?
The sad thing about all of this is NO ONE at UCLA cares!!!! This is a sports program that cares ONLY about B-Ball. Every year this program get worse and worse. Every year UCLA loses more and more recruits to other school both in and out of the PAC-10. Which is sad!!! This should be one of the nations top programs!!!!
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on October 2, 2006 9:02 PM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
Gerald:
Do your homework. Were you even alive when Terry Donahue was at UCLA? Here some stats for you to chew on - and I watched the games. They weren't even that close.
UCLA's record and Bowl game results between 1980-1991 under Terry Donahue:
1980 UCLA (9-2) 34 Oregon State 3 [Mirage]
1981 UCLA (7-4-1) 14 Michigan 33 [Bluebonnet]
1882 UCLA (10-1-1) 24 Michigan 14 [Rose]
1983 UCLA (7-4-1) 45 Illanois 9 [Rose]
1984 UCLA (9-3) 39 Miami 37 [Fiesta]
1985 UCLA (9-2-1) 45 Iowa 28 [Rose]
1986 UCLA (8-3-1) 31 B.Y.U. 10 [Freedom]
1987 UCLA (10-2) 20 Florida 16 [Aloha]
1988 UCLA (10-2) 17 Arkansas 3 [Cotton]
1991 UCLA (9-3) 6 Illanois 3 [Sun]I don't know how you add up the math, Gerald. But, it looks as if anytime that UCLA could have escaped the Pac-10 with some kinda winning record - there were demolishing all comers!
Let me give you the numbers: (9-1) record with 275 points for and 156 against. That's 27.5 to 15.6 per game - in case you've forgotten your calculator. And, no those aren't great records for UCLA, but who could get out of the Pac-10 without any losses in those days? Nevertheless, whoever they played in the post season they beat handily. That's three Rose Bowl wins, one Fiesta Bowl win over Miami (Fla.) and one Cotton Bowl win.
So, ask me again who was Terry Donahue and what did he ever accomplish? I'll tell you what! UCLA would have kicked the possum out of any SEC team in those days. Looks like they only got to beat Florida and Arkansas though.
Hey, want me to check their non-conference schedules to see just how many SEC teams UCLA squashed under Terry Donahue? I can look it up for you!
Tommie T
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on October 4, 2006 9:53 PM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
Gerald:
Where are you on this one? I can't feel ya' here. Thought you might get back to me on why UCLA was able to win all of these Bowl games under Terry Donahue. Certainly, there must have been a misalignment of the stars or a great volcano erupting in some other solar system that could explain this one away. I was really looking forward to what your take on these facts could have possibly been. Maybe you honestly didn't understand that UCLA was a pretty good program under Donahue. They even had a couple of pretty good years under Toledo using Donahue's players. Kinda similar to what is happening in South Bend at the moment. Turned out Toledo couldn't recruit and neither can Karl Dorrell.
Tommie T
T-Mac said:
posted on October 5, 2006 1:28 AM — 66.78.161.35 — link — abuse?
TOMMIE,You say you were in War in the early 70's.That should put you in your Mid-50's to 60 years old in age.In post #11 you use the phrase(I can't feel ya' here).I don't know a single person at that age who talk's like that or uses phrases like that.Keep in mind.I'm from the inner-city of Atlanta bro.I'm 27 years old.That's how my generation talks.What's Up Tommie Trojan?Are you trying to keep it STREET or are you on here LYING???The Mayor is a very smart Military man and he doesn't talk like that.What's Up Tommy Trojan???T-Mac
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on October 5, 2006 9:45 AM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
T-Mac:
Learn how to live life and educate yourself. I'm fifty-two years old. Entered the US Army when I turned seventeen years old in 1971. I discharged in 1976. I have ten children all ranging in age from thirty-two all the way down to four years old. Yeh, been married a few times. Got three teenagers right now (17,15 and 13). Got teenagers runnin' all over the house. I listen to all the cool music - even if I don't like it. I rap with the teenagers and my daughters boyfriend. I don't live in a cocoon. I mingle with all sorts of "peeps" at work and wherever I go. Man, I'll tell ya' - I've never heard a dude spout off the crap that you do. At 27 years old you really think you got it all figured out - don't you? I grew up in the 60's and 70's. I was into things way back then that you did not even invent. What do you think? That the world began on the day that you were born?
P.S. - There is no way that you could possibly be one of my long lost offspring - because all of my children and women are all accounted for. They stand muster every single morning. And, I haven't noticed that you were MIA.
Tommie T
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on October 5, 2006 2:00 PM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
T-Mac:
Hey, Good to see that your sense of humor is coming back around. But, the reality is: unless your head looks like something that someone would carry a bowling ball around in (without the handle of course) - then I seriously doubt that you could be my illegitimate spawn. Besides, I put your date of birth somewhere around 1979, and I quit wagin' war down in Louisiana somewhere around 1973. So, I doubt if I ever ran into your mama anywhere unless it was when I was pickin' up crack down on 4th and San Pedro here in "The City of Angels". Ask your mom if she's ever been to LA. If that be the case then it is a good possibility that you were conceived for another "hit on the pipe". Hope that not be the case though - I would like to think that either the "Stork brought you" or you could be the next "Super Hero" delivered from the planet Crypton.
Tommie T
T-Mac said:
posted on October 5, 2006 5:24 PM — 66.78.161.35 — link — abuse?
Daddy Trojan,I just got off the phone with my momma.She was in LA at that time.I'm going tomorrow to get the paperwork for the DNA test started.It looks like you have 11 kids now and not just 10.You better get another chair.Thanksgiving is coming up.We have to go on the Maury Povich show for the DNA results.Regards.
Your Son,
T-Mac TrojanTommie Trojan said:
posted on October 5, 2006 6:24 PM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
T-Mac:
Not so fast. I often questioned if some of those women were even human or not. Doesn't matter much when your as drunk as I was though. The question I have is if a "crack baby" can even have DNA. Furthermore, there is a high liklehood that you have contacted HIV from birth. And, if you have it - I probably got it too. Or, maybe Magic Johnson is your real pappy - and, I'm safe afterall. Nevertheless, we're gonna have to medi-vac you over to Reed Army Medical Center and have you checked out to see if you are even human and rather you have HIV or AIDS before we hit the Maury Povich show. I think that the VA should cover all of the expenses. And, I also think it would be a good idea to have Maury go ahead and bring Magic in and test him also. Could be the story of the year. Be a bummer if you had to move to LA, just to suck your long lost pappy's bank account dry, and have to root for the Trojans (or even have to watch them every Saturday), just to make a living.
Tommie T
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on October 6, 2006 9:25 PM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
Here are some interesting facts:
I have taken what I consider to be the Top Programs from between 1960 to 2005 and was interested to see how these teams faired against each conference as a unit. The teams that I used for the criteria were: Oklahoma,Nebraska and Texas from the Big 12, Michigan,Ohio State and Penn State from the Big 10, Florida State and Miami from the ACC, Alabama and Tennessee from the SEC and USC and Washington from the Pac-10. I tried to use historically dominate programs with Tennessee and Washington bringing up the rear. They were added as probably the 2nd best teams from some very good conferences. The outcome is to try and determine which conferences put up the toughest fight against these elite teams.
Overall Hardest to Beat:
SEC .629%, Pac-10 .665%, Big 12 .731%, Big 10 .738%, Old SWC .740%, Big East .791%, ACC .816%
The lower the percentage - the harder for these teams to win against. This includes all teams from these conferences - not just the great ones.
Hardest to Beat while at Home:
SEC .671%, Pac-10 .738%, Big 12 .780%, Big 10 .781%, Old SWC .828%, Big East .835%, ACC .888%
Every conference held their place at Home
Hardest to Beat while on the Road:
Pac-10 .592%, SEC .610%, Big 10 .703%, Old SWC .710%, Big 12 .725%, Big East .759%, ACC .760%
Clearly, the Pac-10 is the hardest place for a Top Team to come away with a win. Must be those cheatin' zebras.
Hardest to Beat at a Neutral Site:
Old SWC .528%, ACC .559%, SEC .563%, Pac-10 .571%, Big 12 .579%, Big 10 .633%, Big East .706%
Now, this might more clearly define "Bowl Games". A lot more parity and jumping about on this one. The winning percentages were clearly lower. This indicates play against other elite teams.
Clearly, the SEC has a comfortable lead on being the toughest conference for a great team to play against with the Pac-10 well out ahead of everyone else.
Now, I have never been one to argue that the Pac-10 is a better conference than the SEC is - clearly they have about six or seven really good teams. But, my contention has always been that the Pac-10 is at least the 2nd strongest overall conference in the land. Almost anyway I can figure it up - it always comes out that way. And, I contend that recently the Pac-10 is closing the gap on the SEC. That can be proven also.
But, what would be too cool is if some of the SEC people would come to understand (from the numbers) that the Pac-10 is not the worst conference of them all. There is a tremendous misconception in the south on this matter. That's what the debate has always been over. The SEC likes to have it's respect - but, it is not willing to give any to anybody else. Well, the SEC is the best conference, but, it's not by that wide of a margin to claim complete and utter dominance over all other teams. Clearly, the Pac-10 is the hardest place to play at for the great teams.
But, like I say, it's just some more numbers to banty about that prove what happens to elite teams when they have to play members from certain other conferences.
Tommie T
Gerald said:
posted on October 8, 2006 9:21 PM — 65.12.162.103 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan:
Thank you for proving my point. The best that the great Terry Donahue was able to manage was a 10 - 1 - 1 season (only a TIE better than Dorrell last season), and that was in a conference that did NOT have a national title contender like Southern Cal is. And I note that you did not even bother to put Bob Toledo's results on there!
Karl Dorrell inherited a program where the talent was way down and the players were out of control, goes 12 - 13 his first two years, and he had to compete with the juggernaut across town and the building juggernaut in Berkeley. But in year three, he goes 10 - 2 and wins the Sun Bowl, easily UCLA's best season since the McNown - Hicks - Mitchell team beat Texas A&M in the Holiday Bowl. And in year 4, after having to replace a bunch of senior contributors AND several coaches (including offensive coordinator Tom Cable), they are 4 - 1, with their only loss to 4 - 2 Washington, whose only losses are to Southern Cal and Oklahoma.
UCLA isn't that good now? Well big deal, they never HAVE been that good. Even your little list shows a 7 - 4 - 1 and an 8 - 3 - 1 season and strangely omits 1989 and 1990. UCLA: mediocre under Donahue and only slightly worse since. The notion that UCLA was ever a nationally significant program under Donahue or Toledo is a joke. The only reason why anyone paid attention to UCLA back then is because there was no one else better. Well now there are two teams better than any of those UCLA teams ever were: USC and Cal, and not only that an Oregon team that is just as good as any of those UCLA teams were. You are actually going to try to run some 7 - 4 - 1 and 8 - 3 - 1 teams by me as examples of UCLA's EXCELLENCE before Dorrell? Ha ha ha ha ha!
Gerald said:
posted on October 9, 2006 1:02 PM — 216.113.128.239 — link — abuse?
Tommie Trojan and So Cal USMC:
So ... Southern Cal beat Arkansas 50 - 14, and Arkansas has since gone on to knock off Alabama and Auburn. They will OBVIOUSLY beat Ole Miss and Mississippi State, and even if they lose to LSU, they will still be a game up in the SEC West. So ... I guess I will have to cease my SEC homer - isms until an SEC team actually beats Southern Cal ... hasn't happened yet, and I really do not think that it will happen this year, because I do not see the Gators running the table the rest of the way (Auburn, Georgia, FSU, and the SEC title game against, well, maybe Arkansas!).
Tommie Trojan said:
posted on October 9, 2006 2:34 PM — 206.135.38.217 — link — abuse?
Bravo Gerald:
I knew that you would come thru. Your research can be almost impeccable. Great catch on some of my slants. I almost always tilt it slightly one way or another. You can take numbers and make them mean almost anything - as you well know. But, I knew that I could count on you to notice a couple of years that were omitted and come back with something or ruther to prove your own point. In fact, I'm about ready to start and give Dorrell more credit than I have been giving him. Your right, I am somewhat impressed with how they hammered Arizona after last seasons meltdown.
Tommie T
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Bring Brady Back MgoBlue said:
posted on September 26, 2006 4:53 PM — 216.46.213.190 — link — abuse?The point of playing football is for the players to have fun! Right? So I guess if the players do not get excited about running the plays that are called then the plays are not going to work.
As a player you should determine that you are going to do your best every play no matter what play is called,but there comes a point when the coaching needs to realize it's not about them,it's about the players and if they would let the players get in on the play calling then just maybe the players would make sure the play works on the field.
And maybe when the coaching looks for a recruit they should not try for a cry baby five star and maybe shoot for a three or four star that has character and the determination to work hard every play. Recruit character over talent!
M GO BLUE