« Gordon update | Main | Answers, Part II »

July 28, 2007

Answers, Part I

Again, thanks for the great response. I'm thinking of making this a regular feature, maybe once every two weeks. Let me know what you folks think, but now on to the first group of answers.

I was a little surprised that Lombard moved to FB for this season. Does that leave us a little thin at DE? Who's backing up Davis now?

I think Lombard moved to fullback, in part, because he was tired of getting banged around on the defensive line. He was playing inside and outside on the line, so to say he was backing up Davis isn’t fair. Now, UC-Davis transfer Tom Blake is Davis’ backup.

In the event that E. Scott is not reinstated and KD ends up coaching the wide receivers, will he also coach them during the game when there are so many other game management decisions to be made?

I do not think he would coach them during the game. Remember, the season is still five weeks away, so there is plenty of time. I think this thing will be sorted out by then. If not, I’m sure one of the other assistants can pick up some of the slack. Running backs coach Dino Babers used to coach the receivers, so he could help out.

If Moya possibly gone for the year, who do you see stepping up to fill the void at tightend?? How is Heater doing? Has he made progress to play??

I think the tight end spot would be covered, mostly, by Logan Paulsen and William Snead. The coaching staff is thrilled with Paulsen’s development, and I think he can have a big season. As for Adam Heater, I don’t see him doing much this season. He still has a ways to go.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how confident are you in the offense(Only the Offense no defensive Tds) being able to score over 25 points per game?
I’ll go with 6. UCLA has 10 starters returning on offense, but until the Bruins can show they can do it, I will remain conservative.

Does UCLA need to be Nike school to get the attention it deserves, also do you think switching to Nike will improve recruiting?
A lot of that stuff is overrated. Kids like uniforms and shoe companies, especially on the basketball circuit, but I’ve never heard UCLA coaches complain during backroom conversations that they lost recruits because of the apparel and equipment contract.

Brian, in the event that E. Scott is dismissed from UCLA, what are the chances that some of the major recruits from the 2008 class will back out of their commitments?
I think there would be a big chance of recruits bolting, and my top picks would be Kemonte Batemand and Rahim Moore.

I know the answer but your response is really for the benefit of my delusional UCLA friend. Has there been any reaction to the Eric Scott incident from any of UCLA's current commitments?
So far there hasn’t been any real backlash. UCLA reached out to all of its recruits quickly to put out any fires, and I don’t think there will be any backlash unless Scott is let go.

how do you think the Scott situation will affect our comitted players? Do you think many will reconsider?
See above. But I think when it all comes down to it, if UCLA wins this season, the recruits will stick.

Posted by Brian Dohn at July 28, 2007 07:06 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.insidesocal.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/15788

Comments

Brian,

I love these Q&A sessions. I certainly hope you plan to continue doing them!

Thanks.

Posted by: TSKPhoto at July 29, 2007 01:48 PM

I do not see Bateman leaving UCLA. Carter and Price will make sure that he does not leave the fold. Moore is another story.

Pat

Posted by: Sean Patterson at July 29, 2007 03:46 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)