A long rant...

Wake me when 2012 rolls around...

Thought it was a great read Jon. Love the new things you keep adding to the blog. Thanks for the hard work. A lot of people wouldn't even read whats going on in the comments, let alone try and shed some light on the situation to quell some of the frustration.

The main problem is that this entire projection assumes that the coaching will be putting the players in the best position to succeed, and I'm not sure that's going to be the case. There have been numerous questionable coaching decisions so far this year, not to mention Neuheisel's UCLA career.

For example, why does he continue to start Derrick Coleman? He might be slightly better at pass-blocking, but his running is horrible compared to Franklin or Jones. UCLA has 2 backs that are each averaging over 5 yards per carry, yet Neuheisel continues to start a guy who can barely hit the hole. If the pass game isn't working that great, how about making this a run-dominant team until it can be shown that a team can shut down our stud RBs. The offensive playcalling continues to rely too much on the pass when it's pretty obvious we're deficient at the QB position; run Franklin and Jones until they cramp, and maybe the play-action opens up.

The offensive coaches continue to underutilize speed as well; why is Thigpen getting absolutely zero offensive touches? Look at the way good college teams like Florida, or even the NFL, use exceptional speed. Florida used Percy Harvin on a handful of run plays because he was just faster; Dexter McCluster was drafted high because of his speed and what he did at Ole Miss in a limited capacity; Darren Sproles might not get all the carries, but he gets enough touches to make a difference.

Looking at the defense, the playcalling has also been atrocious. UCLA has a solid secondary right now, with experience led by Moore, Dye and Hester. Teams are continuing to run on us; why not load the box and actually make the QBs win with their arm? Until it can be shown that the QB will consistently beat our above average secondary, stop the run and actually trust the secondary to make some stops. Using some aggressive blitzes or actually putting pressure on the QB might help as well, instead of playing in a base 4-3 all the time that is continually getting burned.

Having said all that, the QB decision is the glaring example of why the coaching staff is failing this team, not the players' experience or age. Why is Neuheisel putting in a player (Prince) who basically got zero practice in the new offense all fall camp, very limited reps for game day preparation for Kansas State and Stanford, and actually expects him to play at a high level. Prince should never have been in the game in either case; although Brehaut may not have known all the plays, get Franklin and Jones to run 60 times in the game, and limit Brehaut to a handful of pass plays. Neither Kansas State nor Stanford showed an ability to effectively limit the run, and yet UCLA coaches continue to think Prince is the second-coming of Brett Favre and can run a new offense without practicing.

Jim Harbaugh can beat USC at the Coliseum with Tavita Pritchard; Chris Peterson can get effectively QB play with a sophmore....why can't UCLA coaches actually coach up our QBs? Kevin Prince is an absolute turnover machine, with 5 turnovers so far this year. Even going back to last year, there was scarcely a game where he didn't have multiple turnovers, whether INTs or fumbles. Prince has yet to stay healthy for an entire season going back to his sophmore year of high school, and he's already been injured even before the first game of this year.

What this all adds to is a mound of evidence which leads to questioning the abilities of this coaching staff. UCLA can have all the high-school talent in the world, but if they can't be coached up, then it's wasted. Teams like Oregon State, Boise State and TCU continue to get inferior talent to UCLA, but the difference is that their coaching staff actually make them better; what player has Neuheisel actually made better since his time at UCLA?

The Kansas State and Stanford game just showcased the poor decisions by Rick Neuheisel, and do not inspire confidence going forward, despite whatever spin he might put on.

something that was reported on BRO. There might be only 10 or so scholies available next year (we could see a couple of medical retirements or kids leaving the program for different reasons). Right away that tells you that we are a young team. Our senior class (2007) only has 7 or so players in it and of those, only 3 or 4 starters/key contributors. If you look at programs like Oregon, BSU, USC etc. they have upwards of a dozen or so from that class. There is not one skill player from 2007 or 2008 (redshirt senior). next year we will still be very small in our redshirt senior class (especially if Ayers leaves), but our 2008 class will have a ton of starters and the 2009 class will start to make more of an impact and the 2010 class will have a year under it's belt.

Jon you do realize that most teams play a lot of 1st and 2nd year players. So you are saying that coach had a 6 year plan?

"I've been on the job a relatively short time, but I've seen an ebb-and-flow with the fanbase of the UCLA football program that is quite startling."

You said it John, you've only been on the job a short time and you don't understand. When you have been hearing the exact same story from our coaching staff for the last 8 years, you would be just a little skeptical as well.

Things we have heard consistently every year since 02':

4)(when the new coach arrives after the last ineffective coach was fired) We have a lot of work to do. Turning this thing around won't happen overnight. We think we have the right coaches in place to succeed.

2) the team is young (on one or both sides of the ball) so be patient as they get bigger, stronger, faster over time and, most importantly they need to "learn the system".

3) The team practiced well this week. We still have things we need to get better at but we're confident in our chances. Our injuries concern us, but thats where the back ups need to step up and fill the void.

4)(after the inevitable demoralizing loss against an opponent we should have at least lost by less than 30pts) we need to get back to the drawing board and figure out whats wrong. We'll study the tape and we'll make the proper adjustments. I dont question this team's heart, we just need practice time to fix whats ailing us.

5) (fast forward to year three or four of the coaches tenure, when theoretically, numbers 1 and 2 above have improved significatly) number 4 happens yet again.

6) rinse and repeat

Welcome to Ground Hog day, John.

Why do you even bother Jon, some fans are going to to be critics regardles of what happens. Any Bruin fan that thought this team was an 8 win team was and is dilisional.

Going into the season I had this team at 6-6 and that's if everything went right. This team had too many questions going into the season on top of a tough schedule...

I am a USC fan and at the moment I feel the same way about Kiffin as many UCLA fans feel about Neuheisel. Not sure if he is the right man for the job and I kind of wish that USC tried very, very hard to get Harbaugh b/c he is a great coach.
Anyhoo, I think the biggest problem for UCLA was the departure of Coach Walker. He was highly regarded by his peers, players, recruits and HS coaches. I don't think UCLA will be able to find any person to fill his shoes.
If I were UCLA I would seriously consider bringing in Coach Walker as Head Coach. Unfortunately, he is in a no win situation at NMSU. I still find it hard to believe that no major BCS team wanted to hire him as a head coach.

John, UCLA is not a new team. We have been here for years. Since 2002 we have been waiting on promises never delivered. We invest so much of ourselves year round just to be let down come September. mUch of what you pointed out is true yet this has been true for over eight years. We can no longer accept this as true. We are hungryfor change. Our cup is full. No more talk. We need W's.

You don't have to Sugar Coat it for us Jon. The reality is they do have a solid core of players other than the QB position. CRN explains that in Practice Prince is looking sharpe??? Well that is PRACTICE! No body hits him in PRACTICE, but when it comes to game time this guy goes into PANIC MODE and just wants to chuck the ball before he gets hit. He always goes three and out or fumbles and leaves his defense, which is not that bad, out on the feild all day!!!
NO MORE PRINCE.

I like the way you laid out your thought processes and observations. I am a hard core ucla fan, but we need to know what we can achieve with what we have. I guess, be the best that we are capable of.

I did not expect us to do well, though I hoped we would. Even in '97 i believe we opened with two losses. As long as our team is working hard in practice and on the field, then I'm okay with it. Inexperience and youth leads to mistakes. As long as they learn, then let them make the mistakes. If our team at the end of the season is better than at the beginning, then this fan will be content after his tears have dried.

Jon, what do you get when you apply your system to the other teams in the P10, errrrrrr, P12?

could Ucla be relatively WORSE off in 2012 (why skip 2010 & 2011???) rel to its competitors?

I feel for you. You like Neuheisel, and want to explain why its not his fault. that's gonna be hard to sell.

Jon,

You should be thanked and appreciated for the work you put into this creative analysis. Nothing in your offering calls for diatribes about expectations. Too many angry people here. (And I tend to agree with them for that matter.) God bless.

it never fails to amaze me how fans who never get to work players out or run practices seeing how well they can actually play present themselves as instant experts demanding that this guy play instead of that one. There seems little understanding that when a coach says a RB blocks better than another, what he is REALLY saying is that the first kid is screwing up half the plays he's in for because he hasn't yet mastered what he is supposed to do in different variations of that play - not just missing a block and costing the QB a yard or two, but screwing the whole thing up by blowing his assignment.

they don't call plays like fade back and hit Rosario over the middle. They call a package which requires the QB to read the defense, choose which option to run, then everyone has to make their reads - the same reads - and carry out the play accordingly. If a QB can't do that, the entire offense is trashed. Even if he can throw a nice pass. That's why Cowan eventually beat out Ben Olson - who could throw great but not run the team as well as Cowan could. (It's also why Ucla alum Bill Kilmer wound up starting in DC over the great Sonny Jergensen - Sonny could throw an amazing pass; but Kilmer could drive a team to a superbowl.)

i too am waiting for the development of Jones and James - they're going to be a great one-two tandem. They - and Franklin - have what Coleman doesn't - breakaway potential. But Coleman's running has NOT been "terrible" as one poster said, not compared to anyone. Kid is averaging 4.7 yards a carry. That's just not "terrible." In that case, "terrible" is in the mind of the beholder.

Playing in the backfield requires a combination of things. Coaches have to bring guys along. Jones is already playing; James will, also. They will play more and more. Once they - and Franklin - show they can consistently hold up ALL of their responsibilities in the backfield, the comparison will shift and they will take over. But nearly five yards a run, not having lost yardage even once yet, AND the ability to be in the right place all the time and carry out the blocks required of a RB right now makes the coaches' decision to play Coleman AT THIS POINT pretty darn understandable. Besides, they ARE playing Franklin and Jones - and probably would have been James as well had he not been injured in the fall - and they'll continue to increase their workload as the year goes on

There's a lot to be sick about after the last game especially. The star, Moore, was out of position at times. Stanford had guys in the end zone with no Bruin within five yards of them - once okay, something happened; four, five times, no - that's a problem.

Norm Chow knows more than i ever will about football but why oh why were we running fly patterns with our slowest receivers? Probably Prince's selection among options in each package, hoping for surprise, but their fastest defenders have the advantage to catch up to our slower receivers, made worse when our guy can't hold onto the ball if it is thrown right to him.

But while i too have dreams of seeing Thigpen and Carroll using their speed to get wide open out there, when have they actually SHOWN they are ready to be able to do that in a real game? (Yes, they did get tries last season and this fall as well.) It's like Prince's running in this offense - yes, he had a fast 40 time but he doesn't run like a football player - he runs straight - or out of bounds; we've finally taught him to slide but that really doesn't cut it in this offense; and he has yet to show he understands that, in an option, the QB has to READ THE DEFENSE to see when to hand off and when to keep it and run with it.

Prince has had a lousy fall so far, but offenses are complicated and these coaches - with tons of experience - clearly believe he gives the team far and away their best chance to bust out of this and play better than does Brehaut or the others. That, and trying to support and coach him up. If he doesn't break out of it, now that he's physically ready to go, no doubt we'll see them simplify the package and give the ball to Brehaut - as they should. But sticking behind the starter right now makes sense. Unless one is just getting off on doing a rant.

Defense the same thing but worse - it's not just that we lost skill, we lost our pass rushers in Price and Datone Jones. And we lost strength and experience in Jerzy. We lost our lock-down cover CB in Verner. Verner's ability created a great luxury for our safeties who could play center field and scoop up the mis-throws. Not this year and it has magnified their inexperience and getting out of position on a number of key plays so far.

Larrimore will be very good - but he's not there yet, not by a long shot. And worse, look at the three decision-making positions, the guys who call the signals for the whole team - on offense it's sophomore Prince (or Brehaut), it's Taylor a new center trying to step in for Maiava, and it's Larrimore, trying to replace Carter. None of that is good because those guys cannot simply run plans called by the coaches; they have to read, analyze and get the entire team into the right positions and making the right reads.

Stanford's gotten a lot of press out of their victory last Saturday but that game was close well into the third quarter - 13-0 - before we completely fell apart and gave it to them. A whole lot needs correcting and the coaches certainly have to bear the weight of it. While you understand the shortcomings, what they have shown so far is 'way below the level of basic competence one would have expected. i never thought we'd win more than six this year with this schedule and i understand that the injuries to Maiava, Jones and Prince were devastating, but right now they're on track to likely win one game this year and that's a lot worse than any of us had expected.

i expect they will improve. i expect they'll win more than one game this season. i still expect they will take a major step up next year. still, this year so far has been as disappointing and ugly as any i can remember and that's why we're all so upset about it. But i think that's what it is - we're upset. Thank you, Jon, for at least laying out the baseline, where we're REALLY starting from as opposed to where we all dreamed we would be right now - including the effect of the HC's unavoidable coach-speak to try to shore up his kids' confidence. It is what it is - but the pieces are indeed being put in place to improve it.

my questions about CRN don't involve whether or not he can field solid teams once he has solid talent and experience throughout his program. i don't think he's yet proven he can take a program to a very high level AND KEEP IT THERE. But get it up there - he's done that before and he'll do that much at least here. As to a six year plan? i've heard interviews with countless coaches over the year answering the question how long does it take to turn a program around. The answer is nearly always five or six years. Not three

Well done, Jon. You're so right. I was told to split last week when I laughed at people here who were convinced UCLA would upset the Furd. I had us losing by quite a bit (but did, of course, expect us to at least score). There's no sense of reality on this board - we are filled with young, inexperienced and, in some cases, still not very good players. 7-6 this year would be great. If we're not demonstrably better next year, it might be time to start discussing CRN's future. Until then, everyone should just take UCLA football for what it is.

opinions are like.........

everybody's got one.

It takes 5 or 6 years to field a competitive team? Tell that to Jim Harbaugh, I don't think he got the message.

So now we're waiting for 2012?

Very very few college teams have the type of experience that Jon seems to think is necessary to avoid getting hammered 35-0 at home.

Thanks for the great read John!

What really bothers everyone is the way we lost. Stanford could have played their 3rd string defense and we still wouldn't have scored. Prince and the receivers are killing us. Just run the ball, that's our best chance. I don't care if it's 3rd and long. Everytime we throw, it blows up in our face. I watch Nevada run the pistol and they hardly throw the football. The Nevada QB is a threat to run and Prince is not. The defense doesn't respect Prince's running ability so they don't even worry about him. The oline kills drives with the false starts and holding penalties, and these guys are nowhere near the point where they can overcome penalties.

The defense played a good first half, but in the 2nd half they lost containment on the outside, allowing Luck to run for first downs. Chandler and Holmes weren't disciplined to stay in their lanes. Chandler needs to move back inside and Graham should start. The defense wore out again in the 2nd half because the offense is sorry.

The "ebb-and-flow" of football fans should not be shocking let alone surprising. Fans running hot-and-cold has been going on for decades, and it is worse with the pros than it is with the colleges.

True fans identify so intensively with "their" team or school that it blinds them to reality. Every new season brings the hope in most teams' followers that they will be a winner, and perhaps a very big winner.

Hence, the inevitable losing hurts these people to the core, and most fans do not handle it gracefully. Losing becomes their personal loss, and since it was not their fault, fans feel justified to take it out on the players and coaches.

LAWYER JOHN

Princess is the best practice qb I have ever seen until he becomes a frog on the playing field on Saturdays. I hope this decision to stick to princess will end Not-wiser tenure at UCLA (Unwise Coach Losing Again). I am sick and tired to his lies. Produce or resign but don't embarass your alma mater.

VB, I am stunned that you not only refrained from attacking other posters but made a decent argument even if if you listed more than "a couple of things" based mostly on opinion & speculation rather than grounded in fact. Maybe there is hope for you after all...well probably not but hope springs eternal.

Thank you Jon for hopefully calming a little bit of the hysteria on this board. Hope to see you in Austin, I'll be there!

Inside UCLA blog poster scale: Perhaps the expectations were a little high to begin with, and a 40-point, unscientific scale will reveal the current breakdown of the blogosphere, and the potential virtual nervous breakdown of the various blog posters. The scale is broken into four parts: IQ, FB Know-how, Age, Mental Health.

Current Poster 2011 Poster 2012 Poster IQ,FK,A,MH
-------------- ----------- ----------- ----------
bereal bereal bereal 8,2,10,5

backdoorcut replaced by replaced by
fredoftroy 15yroldtroll 5,1,1,6

ucla '05 ucla '05 ucla '05 8,6,5,9

neuheiselwatch neheiselwatch neu'sbestfan 7,6,10,9

barrya barrya barrya 8,8,10,9

I think VB is right here. Jon, we aren't San Diego State or even Cal. We are the most successful athletic department EVER and one of the top 10 (conservatively) public schools in the country. Despite only having 1 national championship, we are the second most successful program in the pac-10 even counting the past decade, and were a couple tackles of Edgerrin James away from playing for the national championship not so long ago. Throughout all your podcasts and articles, you consistently underrate the UCLA program historically. We are a fan base that is used to success, and the last decade has been an insult to these expectations and the history of UCLA athletics in general and football in particular. We've been waiting for 3 years from now forever.

I HAVE AN IDEA !!!!!

HOW ABOUT PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE. DEAR DAN GUERRERO, STARTING NEXT YEAR, I WILL PAY A PRO-RATED PORTION OF MY WOODEN ATHLETIC FUND DONATION AND SEASON TICKET PRICE BASED UPON PERFROMANCE ON THE FIELD.

THE POINT OF THIS SARCASM IS THAT WE ARE MORE THAN JUST 'FANS.' WE ARE INVESTORS IN THIS VENTURE. WE ARE TOLD ALL THE TIME AT THE SELECT-A-SEAT DOG AND PONY SHOWS HOW VALUABLE WE ARE AS DONORS TO THE PROGRAM AND INTEGRAL TO ITS SUCCESS.

SO, AS AN INVESTOR, I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE R.O.I.

"No, Sonny, it's not personal, it's strictly business."

Sincerely,

UB, stakeholder in UCLA Athletics since 1979.

"why can't UCLA coaches actually coach up our QBs?"

That's the million dollar question. RN and Chow are QB guru's. This is Prince's 3rd year in the program. I'm very surprised they have yet to develop a competent QB here.

If they get Prince rolling into a top-flight Pac 10 QB by the end of the year, UCLA definately turns the corner. If not, and it is another year of playing pin ball with a poll of QBs they have failed to develop and prepare, then this program never gets off the ground.

None of the other issues exposed saturday night are crucial. This one is.

By the way, the Pistol was meant to improve the run game and help the O line. Well to this distant observer, the run game looks significantly better so far, and the OL looks markedly improved.

I understand why people are panicking. But if that first question raised by UCLA '05 gets solved by the QB experts, all is well in Westwood by next fall.

On the flipside, if this team can't win 8-9 games next year, then I would think the athletic department would be smart enough to move on.

I'm sorry to say it jon, but you'd better get used to it. Online ucla fans are some of the biggest fairweather fans I've ever seen. Just look at how many have been calling for howland to be fired just a couple years after he was taking us to final fours. Add to that the fact that howland is a proven winner that has rebuilt several programs, so you can imagine how they'll treat a relatively unproven coach like neu. Rest assured though, if neu is able to right the ship and make ucla a contender, the same fans that are calling for his head will be the ones claiming the supported him all along.

What is Chow's problem with running the ball? We have very able RB's who can pound it for at least 4 yards per carry. Knowing the sorry shape of our Defense and our passing inefficiency, why does Mr. Chow insist on putting the ball up? Does he react at all to what is going on on the field or is his game plan already set in stone? We should have run the ball down Standord's throat and given the D some rest and a reason to keep fighting. How many times this season have we seen our running offense moving the ball successfully, then a pass play is called, which is dropped, and we're 3 and out, again. Their defense is off the hook, resting on the bench, and our guys are back on the field huffing and puffing getting the ball run down their throats. In Rick's news conference he wanted constructive comments: Here's one for you Rick. Play to our strength: RUN THE DAMN BALL! And for gosh sakes getting somebody more dynamic, and more awake, to run the offense.

Here's why this rant doesn't really ring true and why you now seem like a paid shill for Neuheisel:

Jeff Tedford.

Are you trying to tell everyone that the talent level at a 1 - 10 Cal when Tedford took over was significantly better than the talent at Ucla that Neuheisel inherited? And that by the third year Tedford had that much an advantage in stockpiled kids over the third year Neuheisel team?

How about the Harbaugh comparison? Maybe what Mike Riley did after getting to OSU? Or perhaps what Sarkisian is able to do after inheriting a winless UW program.

Sorry, it just doesn't fly.

These endless excuses, explanations, justifications, rationalizations, and promises are no longer working. Nobody but the most deluded bruin fan expected this team to get 8 or more wins, but what is on then field is not cutting it. Something is wrong in Westwood, and no amount of pleading or talking will fix it.

Anonymous:

online ucla fans are some of the biggest fairweather fans you've ever seen, compared to what? please share what programs you've "seen" that don't have fairweather fans.

i agree with you that whoever was calling for howland's firing crossed the line into "im not thinking straight overreaction mode" but howland also doesn't walk around talking like a car salesman.

no one is forcing neuheisel to preach relentless optimism. as far as i'm concerned, he could quietly go about his business as a coach and let the results speak. but when he does talk a big game, then people cant be surprised at fan's reactions.

does being a "good" fan mean tolerating repeated subpar performances?

people need to quit acting like we want neuheisel to fail. maybe i can't say the same for everyone, but I want the bruins to perform at a high level. if neuheisel's the guy to do it, GREAT. we're 2 games in the season, and i've already lowered my standards about 100%, so I just want to see some improvement. Coaches, like players, can and need to learn from mistakes and MAKE BETTER DECISIONS.

Holy hell - not only did VB not insult somebody, but I actually agree with what he said. This is one of the first signs of the apocalypse, right?

Look, I'd like to implore many of my fellow Bruins to take a chill pill. Nobody is happy or impressed with what is happening on the field right now. We're all frustrated and we all have different opinions of what may or may not be the cause and solution to what ails us.

...but please have some class and don't take it out on Jon. He's trying to help some of the more vocal naysayers here gain some perspective. I don't see it as him selling Neuheisel and Chow. I see it as him trying to show that some of the extremist "thinking" is more emotion than fact. (I put "thinking" in quotes because frankly some of what I've read recently is closer to shitting out loud than actual dialogue.)

Please show Jon and the rest of the Daily News staff the respect they all deserve. I mean, Christ, it's not like he wrote an article about how Pete Carroll is all that is right about college football...

Jon, thanks for injecting some realistic perspective into the discussion. I think this year will be the biggest bump on the road to excellence for UCLA football. Many people will complain while we go through it, but, once we're on the other side, things will make more sense.

"Or perhaps what Sarkisian is able to do after inheriting a winless UW program."

Ocean Blue,
for what it is worth, the jury is still out on Sark.

Despite taking over an 0-12 team, Sark had the luxury of inheriting one of the most physically gifted QBs in the nation. Much more physically talented than the guys in UCLA's current trio or past upper classmen of the last 3 years. The catch was he didn't know how to play QB. Sark was able to develop him into a credible QB in one year.

We'll see if Sark can continue to develop him into the consistently superior QB that he appears to have the potential to become.

But where's the indication UCLA as a team actually IS getting better? Our starting QB has passed for a total of 159 yards with 5 turnovers thus far, and now we're facing 2 ranked teams in Houston and Texas.

What's the next step if UCLA goes 2-10 or 3-9? That is pretty pathetic, and UCLA has a LOT more talent than that, no matter what anyone might say about "experience". The players who are such "scrubs" were ranked as high or better than those now at Oregon State or Stanford; the excuses really need to end, and the leaders of the organization need to take some personal responsibility for the failings of the team.

Jon,
While somewhat flawed your rant did what a good journalist is supposed to do.Keep up the good work.

@UW Fan

True about Sark inheriting Locker. But Neuheisel inherited a few players too. Maybe not as impactful, but this idea that there was absolutely nothing when Neuheisel came in is ludicrous (Brian Price anyone?).

And the cries of youth are similarly lame. The Robinson kid at UM is a sophomore. Keenan Allen @ Cal is a freshman. Last year Barkely and Luck were both freshmen. Several of Oregon's skill players are first or second year kids. Etc etc etc.

Ucla hasn't had poor recruiting classes, yet the team on the field looks lost and overmatched. Again, no one is expecting a Rose Bowl from this team right now (well, sane people aren't), but it would be nice to at least see a team that is somewhat competetive.

And I'm not even a Ucla fan complaining. But this team is an embarrassment to the conference!

No more excuses. No more promises. It's time for the Ucla coaches to sh!t or get off the pot.

In other news...3 people have been confirmed dead after a large cloud suddenly plummeted to Earth. Witnesses with tin-foil hats reported seeing headless chickens running amok, and at least 4 cats and dogs emerged from the fallen sky and were captured on video playing together in a nearby field. Oh the humanity!

We'll have more info as this situation changes. In the meantime...

..back to you Jon.

Get a grip folks.

Nice job trying to quantify the problems, but I have a couple of comments

1. While I may get arguments, Sheller, Savage and Kia are not dead - probably a typo giving them a 0 health.

2. Scout started splitting out from just "OL" classification in 2007 - to "OG, OT and C". This means that a #36 ranking at OL really should be something like #18 at OT - I think this affects your grades for people like Sheller, Kia and Baca. While I won't argue that Baca is more talented, if you go down the route of projecting talent levels in 2012 I think you're in trouble. If you base 2010 skills based on what they've shown on the field, it's hard to compare to a 2012 guy who hasn't seen much of the field. Sua-Fila coming back from a mission, Capella, Yandall, Ward, Evans, Marvray, Owa, Marsh, Epenesa, Zumwalt, Bowens, Hilliard, Riley are being graded on their potential at this point. Will they all reach the levels you are giving them? History says no.

3. There will be 3/4 guys on your 2012 list that will leave to the NFL, be passed up by someone else (potentially a freshman) or get injured. Look at this year - Sheller, Savage and probably someone else (if Su'a Filo, Harris, Baca and Maiava were all available) would not be playing. So take the 2012 list and take 3 or 4 of those guys off of it and replace them with a slightly less talented, slightly less experienced player.

Look, I'm not trying to say that the 2012 team won't be better or more talented (I sure hope not) but I think it's not a fair comparison to say that in one year - oops, make that two years - all the guys will stay healthy and reach their potential when history says that won't happen. We shouldn't be screaming that the world is over now, but let's not kid ourselves that we will be BCS bound in 2012.

Your hard work and innovations on this blog are much appreciated, Jon.

Hands down. THE. best. post. EVER.

Wow, you're a douchebag.

Sometimes reading these comments is like listening to the guy on sports-talk radio who says, "Let's trade Sasha, Mbenga, the ball boy, and a 12th rounder for LeBron!" C'mon, guys, remember that it's a game played by a bunch of kids. Yeah, if they had an experienced QB, then maybe they would have the luxury of starting the inexperienced game-breaker running back, who also often misses blitz pick-ups or runs the wrong way on pass patterns, as the experienced QB can make the adjustments. Look what happened to USC last year, when they crashed and burned with a freshman QB (who was/is supposed to be the second coming of Johnny U.)who is surrounded by 5-star athletes. It takes time to develop the depth that allows for seamless transitions from year to year, especially when you're competing with a (currently? formerly?) dynamite program across town. RN and NC have been winners elsewhere, and I'm sure they want to give themselves the best chance to win. It's not like they're "tanking" to get a high draft choice next year! They do this for a living, have done so pretty well over the years, and I'll give them more time. Enjoy the journey, it may make success even sweeter.

Ocean Blue,
fwiw, I'm very surprised that Chow/RN have not done a better job in their 3 years there in developing a semblance of a QB. I think They can still get Prince to where he can shine, but am surprised they're not farther along. While some of Dorrel's recruiting classes were much worse than UCLA shoulb pulling in, I agree that there wAs stuff at UCLA to work with.

Your rant is very amusing. If only statistics could win ball games, you would be a genius! You can't intellectualize this game. It is organized violence with emotion. Neuheisel belongs in some hippy school teaching Zen football in a classroom; not coaching our team. He has prepared our team to play like a bunch of powder blue powder puffs.

I enjoyed this, thanks for all the hard work Jon.

Jon, you actually think Ayers and Moore will both be around in 2012? wow that's crazy. Ayers is a guaranteed mid 1st rounder and Moore is projected late 1st rounder in 11 draft.

I'll be SHOCKED if Ayers sticks around(assuming no lockout)

Thanks for the post, Jon.

@Chicken Little: LMAO!! Good one.

Seems like there are a lot of ignorant 'sc fans posing as Bruins fans on this page to stir up the pot now that it's apparent that suc's team is steadily plummeting.

Jon, The youth and inexperience excuse (as you wrote, no science) has become laughable because we've heard it for so long. Neuheisel was cut some slack because he's an alum with a decent coaching resume but his results thus far are not impressive. When that is combined with the poor decisions at the qb position last year and the continued poor decisions this year with the qb position it becomes obvious that mediocrity is going to be the best result under Neuheisel.