Bullough Bullish on Owa
Chuck Bullough is hesitant to label freshman defensive end Owamagbe Odighizuwa.
But it's not because he doesn't envision big things out of the recently announced starting defensive end.
He just doesn't have the name for it yet.
"Physically, I don't want to use the word freak, because that's already used - Jevon Kearse - but he's physically gifted," Bullough said. "It's obvious. But he has to learn how to play. It comes with experience, and the more you play, the better you get. But physically - man, you give him two or three years, and he's gonna be outstanding."
Bullough sees in Owa the physical tools that show glimpses of his potential greatness, but much like the progression of former UCLA star defensive tackle Brian Price, he's just waiting for the day when it all comes together.
"BYU is when we first saw the real Brian Price come out, the Las Vegas Bowl," Bullough said of Price's first bowl game as a freshman in 2007, when he had three tackles-for-loss. "He made some big plays, and then he progressed from there. Til then, he was good, a good tackle, but he hadn't accelerated himself up. That BYU is what set him on a path to being a star."
Bullough sees a similar path for Owa.
But he's not waiting for one game to envision that breakout potential.
"I was happy on Signing Day," Bullough said, smiling widely. "It didn't take me long."
Regarding your opening sentence, Jon, I have to ask: when it comes to the UCLA defense, is there ANYTHING about which Chuck Bullough ISN'T hesitant?
I don't know the guy; but the way he shows up in his comments to the media and, more significantly, as the leader and strategist/tactician reflected by our defense on the field, I see him as being predominantly overly cautious, unimaginative, timid, and, yes, hesitant. Even CRN basically alluded to these same issues in his comments early this week.
Assuming we don't see a substantive change against Cal, I suspect the only reason we won't on Sunday or Monday see someone else introduced as our defensive coordinator is because CRN and/or Dan Guerrero can't find/afford a better one.
I eagerly hope to be eating these words before the day's over on Saturday.
HighDesertBruin,
Just wondering if you saw the Texas game? The defensive calling in that game was remarkable, gutsy, and overall impressive. Same against Houston--we physically took out their quarterbacks. Yeah, our secondary fell apart against WSU, and we were "ok" against K-State. And the Stanford disaster, well, the first half our D was pretty good, they just got tired and hopeless as our offense was a catastrophe.
Bullough isn't a mastermind, and he is a bit cautious, but honestly, I think he has been doing a fine job. Also, bringing in Owa as a starter is a huge gamble in several ways, but it is the type of gamble you expect--calculated.
"Yeah, our secondary fell apart against WSU, and we were "ok" against K-State. And the Stanford disaster, well, the first half our D was pretty good, they just got tired and hopeless as our offense was a catastrophe."
Unacceptable, unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable... What is this pop warner?
Im not writing the guy off just yet... But if our secondary is going to fall apart against the Wazzus of the world we are never gonna get to the next level. To be honest, I'd like to see how our guys bounce back this week against Cal. If we come out and our DBs lockdown then you'd say that our coaches did a fine job fixing whatever went wrong last week.
So much trolling from fellow UCLA fans. Bullough has never made claims to being a defensive master mind. He has been quoted as saying that he is similar to Walker but a little more conservative(and from the players too). Sure he is not perfect but i believe he is doing a fine job because look at who we have beaten and how we played those games. If at the end of the year the players don't improve from their mistakes then you will have a legit complaint. Unless you are going to give some constructive criticism I'd say in the meantime just deal with it and stop trolling.
Bullough is such a fool publicly comparing Owa to Brian Price and mentioning him in the same sentence with Jevon Kearse. Why on earth would you put that sort of pressure on a true freshman? Even if you think this privately, you don't say it in the press. So stupid.
INawe: What I trip out on is how so many "Troll-jans" come and troll on Jon Gold's blog under Anonymous names. They try to stir the pot and to create needless arguments.
Revol_Bruin: Your perspective is interesting and your approach is disappointing.
- Why is it considered "trolling" if a person shares his or her observations, opinions, and/or feelings about what he or she perceives as weaknesses their alma mater's team?
- How is it that sharing said observations/opinions/feelings constitutes "creating needless arguments?" It only becomes an argument when someone responds argumentatively. (That, by the way, would be you, sort of. I say "sort of" because you don't respond at all to the critical observations; no, rather than, perhaps offering a different perspective that might enlighten the person to whom you're responding, you just get oddly defensive and you make personal attacks.)
- And what's the point of the personal attacks, the name-calling?
- And, seriously, "Troll-jans?" Because someone who is a die-hard UCLA fan shares concerns and critical observations (regardless of whether or not they're accurate) -- and is obviously frustrated that the Bruins aren't as good as he or she thinks they can and should be -- that somehow makes them a U$C sympathizer? Really???!
- Based on your comment, my sense of you is that you'd prefer that everyone ignore the Bruins' weaknesses and post only glowingly rosey comments. OK. You're certainly entitled to that desire. For me, though, I prefer roses on UCLA jerseys in January. Earning those requires effectively addressing the things that otherwise keep us from getting there.
Go Bruins! (And roll over, you Bears!)
BruinBrent: Yes, I saw the Texas game. And, of course, I was very happy with the outcome, as well as with the many improvements the Bruins showed. I agree the defensive calling was one of those improvements, but if it was "remarkable" and "gutsy," I'd say that's only within the context of what we've seen more often than not over the past several years. Plus, I believe Texas showed against us and, so far, continues to show they are NOT as good as we all wish they were (because then dominating them the way we did would mean so much more).
Regarding the Houston game, I don't agree. Sure, we looked a helluva lot better than we did against K-State and Stanford, but again, context matters. And Houston looked mostly inept at several positions, as well as with their play calling.
Your willingness to basically excuse both our secondary and our team's (well, at least our defense's) pathetic level of physical conditioning and fortitude (particularly in that Stanford game) is surprising. It's a 60-minute game that requires solid performances from 22 positions (plus special teams) on every play. We could have the best D-line in the NCAA, but if they can only go 30 minutes and/or if the two layers of D behind them "fall appart" and/or if the offense is a "catastrophe," well, those issues MUST be more than just a sidebar.
You'll get no argument from me that Bullough isn't a mastermind, nor that he's a "bit cautious." But that he's doing a "fine job," nope, I can't agree with that one. Even if I could, a "fine job" shouldn't be acceptable to us, to the players, to Bullough, or to Neuheisel. We're UCLA, dammit. We should be a national concern.
And I disagree starting Owa is a gamble. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it's a directive from Neuheisel. Seriously, it's not like Bullough's bringing Owa in to replace someone who's on the verge of being an All-American. If the main strategy for this season is to build for NEXT season (and beyond), then the gamble would be to NOT play Owa, as well as other players who hold the promise of the Bruins' future.
I believe Bullough is doing his best. And that's why I don't believe he's the guy we should want leading our defense. C'mon... The guy has created a squad with so little motivation and competitive drive that HE DIDN'T WANT OUR OFFENSE TO BE TOO SUCCESSFUL last week.
You're really OK with that?
INawe: Just as I asked Revol_Bruin, why is it "trolling" if a person raises concerns about the team he/she supports? Can you -- or can anyone else -- please clearly define what you mean by "trolling?"
As I suggested in my reply to BruinBrent, I'd be OK with a Buddy Ryan sort of defensive coordinator doing a "fine job." But in the context of a DC who, by your own admission is NOT a mastermind and, by his OWN admission, is similar to Walker (who was NOT the right guy for us) but MORE conservative, well, then a "fine job," sounds like a C+. No thanks.
And, sure, let's take a look at whom we've beaten and how we played those games. We beat Houston (they're not good this year), Texas (also showing themselves to be weak in many areas this year), and Washington State (is any comment necessary?)? And we have the talent and ability to have CRUSHED the Cougars. Instead, as a take a look at how we played that game, we came close to letting them win. Again, no thanks.
The mistakes the players are making -- and making consistently -- should have been eliminated (or at least significantly reduced) by the time Spring ball ended. And if not by then, then certainly before the fourth week of the season. Considering how the Bruins have struggled the past several years -- especially the past two -- are you really comfortable waiting until the end of the season to see improvement?
What constructive criticism would you suggest that isn't already obvious? DBs: don't get beat long. Everyone on D: finish your tackles. D-line: be quicker off the ball and create space between you and whomever is trying to block you. Linebackers: don't overcommit and read your keys. Bullough: forget that you're not the best DC in college football, get a ferocious fire in your belly, instill that fire in your players, and then inspire and demand DISCIPLINED and AGGRESSIVE play on every play.
Does this mean I no longer have to "just deal with it?" Or do I need to state the obvious about the offense, also?
Go Bruins!
I was SO hoping to eat all my words.
Well, at least the defense did a "fine job" in the second half.
Damn.