Q: Some people have suggested that Myles Jack’s decision to leave the team and focus on the draft will hurt him because it shows he isn’t a “team player”. Isn’t that the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard?
A: Oh, I’ve heard dumber things. No one can question Myles Jack’s talent or potential, and he has a good chance to be a first-round pick even with his knee injury — which isn’t one that should severely limit him by the time he has to prove himself in pre-draft workouts. But is maturity a potential knock on Jack? Probably. It’s not that dropping out of school after a season-ending injury is so shocking in an of itself. I think Jack is better off focusing on rehabbing and training for the NFL draft, but front offices could certainly ask whether or not he could have waited until the end of the season to declare. Take that in context with his being ejected in three straight training camps — with the latest incident occurring in front of NFL scouts — and I don’t think it’s a complete non-factor. (I think those displays were also indicative of why he wasn’t voted a team captain despite his considerable abilities.)
Still, talent wins out in the end. Washington dismissed cornerback Marcus Peters last season, far more serious than anything Jack has done at UCLA. Peters was still taken No. 18 overall this past spring.
Q: What position do you think Myles Jack will play in the NFL? Outside linebacker? Strong safety?
A: I think he’ll stay at outside linebacker, maybe in a 4-3 scheme. His coverage ability is his best attribute, and that’s a premium skill at linebacker in today’s NFL. I think keeping him in the front seven is a better way to utilize his versatility, but he’s certainly a viable candidate to play strong safety too. It might depend on what the team that drafts him needs more badly.
Q: Who do you think will follow Myles to the NFL after this season? Will it be Kenny Clark or Eddie Vanderdoes or both?
A: I doubt it’ll be both, and it could certainly be neither. Vanderdoes’ stock wasn’t as high as Myles Jack’s is, so I’d bet that tearing his ACL likely compels him to return to school for at least one more year. He’s not going to be healthy enough to participate fully in the NFL combine, and has still plenty to gain on the field. Clark has a tougher decision to make, and that might come down to whether or not his NFL draft evaluation indicates that he’s a potential first rounder.
Q: Wouldn’t UCLA be smarter to adopt a more “pro-style” offense with a non-running quarterback instead of the zone read? Nobody worries about Josh Rosen running so it takes away a huge part of the zone read.
A: It’s not feasible to overhaul your offense midseason, but even speaking to UCLA’s long-term future, I think the problem has less to do with the scheme than the playcalling. Rosen hasn’t run much, but I think he has the mobility to establish himself as a more dangerous running threat, particularly once he puts on more weight. (Not as a dual-threat quarterback, per se, but effective enough to get first downs and keep a defense honest). But as offensive coordinator Noel Mazzone admitted, he was too passive and stubborn against Arizona State. The question now is whether or not he’s willing to back up his words with action.
Q: Based on your interactions with the team, do you think its sorry performance vs. ASU was the result of overconfidence fueled by the hype generated by the media (present company excluded, of course) regarding playoff and Heisman possibilities, or was it simply an inevitable downturn in energy and emotion after a big road win vs. a Pac-12 South contender?
What has the demeanor of the team been after its first loss of the season? Do you think they will be resilient enough to bounce back?
A: Regarding the first question, the obvious cop-out answer is that it was a bit of both. But given the team’s insistence that “outside expectations” weren’t an issue anymore given last season’s letdown against Utah, I’d lean towards the latter. Pumping UCLA up enough to blow out Arizona on the road fits Jim Mora’s M.O. He’s excellent at fostering an “us against the world attitude,” and that became an easy task in the wake of three injuries to UCLA’s defense and national media shifting toward the Wildcats. A letdown after a win like that isn’t surprising.
But it’s the coaching staff’s job to keep the team focused, and a blowout win coupled with a follow-up game against a struggling opponent had the team relaxing more than it should have.
Can the team bounce back? I think so. The Pac-12 doesn’t have any dominant teams at the moment, and the bye comes at a good time for UCLA to re-focus. The Bruins certainly aren’t out of the Pac-12 South race, and just winning the division keeps all those bigger possibilities alive.
Q: Do guys like Eldridge Massington and Devin Fuller get frustrated with the lack of targets, because it seems like 80% of the balls go to either Thomas Duarte or Payton? Is that by design?
A: Only Jordan Payton and Thomas Duarte have proven themselves as truly dependable week-to-week targets, and even Duarte had a costly late-game drop against Arizona State. I don’t blame Rosen for starting to rely on those two players more than he did at the beginning of the season.
Fuller has two 40-yard games, so it’s not as if he’s vanished, but I think part of the decrease is also due in part to Duarte’s emergence. Massington isn’t helped by the fact that he’s no longer on the same team as Brett Hundley. The two were close, and that relationship kept him involved heavily in the offense.
Q: Why doesn’t Mora go for it sometimes on fourth down, especially when we are stuck in the water and need to sustain a drive near midfield? Why didn’t he go for it on the Bruin’s last drive?
A: A lot of football coaches are conservative in those situations, and Mora certainly isn’t immune from that type of philosophy. They’re risk-averse, and rather than relying on data that suggests going for it on fourth down, they think about the potential of failing on first down and allow that to outweigh the potential benefits.
Q: What happened to Steve Manfro? I was looking forward to him being back and catching passes out of the backfield.
A: He’s out with a right shoulder injury. Still walking around campus in a sling as of this past week. At this point in the season, I wouldn’t be surprised if he tries to petition for a sixth year.
Q: As we saw last week and last night, getting through the Pac-12 without a loss is nearly impossible and will likely never happen. Is there any talk of automatic bids for power conferences into the playoff?
A: Not until the playoff expands. Given that there are only four spots right now, automatic bids wouldn’t work with five power conferences plus several good programs outside of that fold. If the field expands to, say, eight teams, then auto bids would make a lot of sense. In 2013, CFP executive director Bill Hancock insisted that the playoff will stay at four teams through 2026. The sport’s power brokers could certainly decide to renegotiate that sooner.
Q: I’m convinced we will never win without Clarendon numbers. Is the contract with Adidas locked in for the foreseeable future?
A: April 2, 2016 is the day you want to circle on your calendar. UCLA’s contract with Adidas doesn’t end until June 30, 2017, but the exclusive negotiating period between the two parties ends next April. If they don’t hammer out a new contract by then, then the Bruins might finally be looking elsewhere.
It’s worth noting that in UCLA’s contract with Adidas is worth $7.5 million in 2015-16 ($3.5 million in cash, and the rest in equipment and apparel). That’s a higher value than any other Adidas school except Michigan at $8.2 million. The Wolverines’ deal will end next July, and they have already agreed to a record 15-year, $169 million deal with Nike.