Is our defense for real? Last week I asked this before the game and you said maybe we had one of the top 2/3 defenses in the conference. Did the Utah game change your opinion or do you see it as a bit on on early season OOC "fluke" that the "D" melted down like that?
I think it was part fluke, but two concerns came out of it for me. First, UCLA is not getting very good linebacker play. The LBs still have trouble blitzing, and are having trouble covering the running backs and tight ends on pass plays. Second, opposing offenses spent the offseason scouting UCLA’s defense, and came up with a way to expose them, and now UCLA has to answer that.

Why do you think DeWayne Walker continues to have trouble with spread or non-pro-style offenses? Is it lack of experience w/ them when he was in the NFL, do they just expose current Bruin weaknesses even more (lack of pass rush), or something else?
Because players do not pay attention enough in some instances, and in other instances the offenses have much more talent than UCLA’s defense.

Now that you have seen both BYU and Utah, would you like to see these two rivals join the Pac-10?
No, and for a number of reasons. It is not to the level of big-time Pacific-10 football, neither place offers an advantage because of the media market, and because if a conference is going to expand, bring in a heavy hitter or two, not a couple of schools that will compete in the bottom half of the league. If you’re going to bring in one of those schools, bring in Fresno State. At least that would create a potential rivalry.

How much control does Dorrell, the head coach by name, really have overseeing the offense and defense?
Dorrell has the final say on everything, but it is rare a coach will take the lead on offense and defense. Dorrell’s expertise is with offense, so he is more involved with that and let’s DeWayne Walker run the defense.

As compared to Pete Carrol, how would you rate Karl Dorrell as a coach? Ignoring his cleanup of the program, how does he rate in terms of in-game adjustments, playcalling, offensive/defense gameplanning, motivation and enthusiasm?
I don’t know since I don’t get to see USC very often. I know Carroll recruits at an incredible pace and usually seems to have his team prepared (Oregon State and UCLA some obvious exceptions), but I am not around USC enough, nor do I watch the Trojans enough, to make an accurate assessment.

Watching the top programs in the country, it seems like every TOP team in the country (i.e. LSU, Florida, USC) has a fiery coach who gets the most out of his players, even when playing 1-A bottom dwelling schools. How much does the coach's personality rub off on the character of the team? It seems that a quiet coach will lead to an uninspired team.
I think the personality of the coach rubs off big-time, but I also think some of that is overrated. If fire and intensity were the end-all, be-all, Florida State would not lose very often. And Jim Tressel at Ohio State doesn’t seem to be a rah-rah guy, from afar, but the Buckeyes don’t seem to struggle because of it.

What are the UCLA beat writers' views of what happened last weekend and what is happening with this football program?
I can only answer for myself. If you want to know what the other guys thought, ask them. But I thought it was an absolute embarrassment that lent credibility (not sure how much) to everyone who thinks Dorrell is the wrong guy for the job.

Matt Stevens (former Bruin QB, does color during the game) said in an interview this week that Karl confided in him during the summer that he was having trouble getting this group of players work hard. How does this team's work ethic in practice compare to what you have seen when covering other programs? Do you see Karl doing anything at practice to motivate his players to work harder? How does the tempo of the practices compare to what you have seen elsewhere (a lot is made of how much USC's 'Competition Tuesdays' keeps people working hard to maintain their positions)?
Let’s see, when I worked in Connecticut, I covered a pair of Division I-AAs, so there is no comparison there. When I was in New Jersey, I did not cover a team on a daily basis, so no comparison there.
As for as what is done at practice, I am not at liberty to say. That is part of being allowed into a closed practice. And on the competition aspect, it would be a bigger factor is there were backups more qualified to challenge for a starting spot.

Purely hypothetically, which football coach(es) would best fit the UCLA mold for continued success on and off the field, and could sucessfully compete against that coach from across town, Pete Carroll?
I have no idea. Hiring coaches is crap shoot. Look at Pete Carroll. He was considered a long shot and USC tried to give the job to Mike Riley. At UCLA, Dan Guerrero went after Mike Montgomery, but wound up with Ben Howland.

What are you thoughts on Dorrell's statements (such as "It wasn't anything about preparation," Dorrell said when we got together Tuesday. "I told our players this team was going to be dangerous and desperate. What's disappointing, our players got caught up with the fact 'we're UCLA and we're ranked No. 11.'" as quoted by TJ Simers at the LA Times) versus what Pete Carroll says, as reported by Scott Wolf ("Pete Carroll said Nebraska's success passing the ball, at least early, was his fault.
"The reason that happened was I didn't adjust fast enough," he said.)
What are your thoughts on shouldering the blame for breakdowns?
I wasn’t there to know the context of what was said, how it was said and all that, so it would be foolhardy for me to comment on it. I do think the blame should be spread around evenly. One thing I always find amazing is a team that trains for 11 months to play 12 regular season games can come out flat, and unfocused. Part of the problem, as I see it, is so many people want to blame the coaches for it, but the players need to be held accountable for not showing up.