The CardBoard
UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? (/thread-4331.html)

Pages: 1 2

UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - estephan500 - 11-20-2012


A lot of folks here have a direct line from the stadiums of the NCAA to their nervous system... I don't.  I just get nervous.

Can someone tell me a few of the main ways in which UCLA is super strong, and a few of their main weaknesses?

And how big is the "party in the backfield" index?

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - StannyBoy - 11-21-2012

They have a very good athletic QB in Brett Hundley. They may have the best 3-4 OLB in the conference in Anthony Barr. A good large TE in Joseph Fauria. A great RB in Jonathan Franklin. A decent but very young o-line and a good but not great D. IMO we should be favored by more than 2 though. I'm also excited to see Jordan Zumwalt play. He's listed as a MLB. I don't think his career has taken off like Tarpley's has so he really wasn't needed at stanford.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - fullmetal - 11-21-2012

QB mobility works both ways for this #partyinthebackfield--sometimes the QB will get antsy, try to escape the pocket too early, and end up walking into a sack.  Or the mobile could roll out and escape tackles as Mariota did frequently.  In either case, you tend to settle for QB disruption by any name--against Oregon, those third-and-long passes were generally disrupted by DL jumping in the passing lanes or DL putting a lot of pressure on Mariota.  Passes that I thought would be caught/converted for first downs weren't, and so it goes.

Hundley's a frosh, so I might expect a little antsiness, but maybe this can be a proxy game for predicting how Stanford would fare against fellow giant-killer Texas A&M, who has a similar set of personnel.  I haven't compared offensive/defensive schemes though.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - OutsiderFan - 11-21-2012

UCLA opened as a 1.5 point favorite.  Stanford is now a 2 pt favorite.  Like Stanford opened as a 27 point dog against Oregon, and I think ended up 24 or something like that.

These big line movements tell you the smart money knows how good Stanford is.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - FarmBoy - 11-21-2012

I think people are also evaluating the relative importance of the game to each team. For Stanford, this is their shot at playing for the Rose Bowl. UCLA has almost nothing to play for. I'm not even insinuating that the coaching that (or players) will phone it in so they don't have to play the Ducks in Eugene. But psychologically, Stanford knows that if they lose this game, they're likely out of the CCG. UCLA players know that win or lose, they're already in the CCG. And if the Ducks win, they know they're traveling, whether they win or lose. In the trenches, this will matter. Who will put forward that last bit of effort to lock down their assignment? Stanford players will have the motivation.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - CowboyIndian - 11-21-2012

I think I have this right: It becomes even more interesting if the Beavs beat the Ducks. Then both Stanford and UCLA know they'll be playing for the conference championship the next Friday, with home field the only thing on the line.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - yvonne - 11-21-2012

I think you guys are placing too much emphasis (hope?) in the fact that UCLA has already won the South. The players will want to beat Stanford because Stanford is a very good football team, and teams measure themselves by wins and losses, but also by signature victories.

I think Stanford will also play hard because that's what Stanford does.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - Farm93 - 11-21-2012

(11-21-2012, 10:11 AM)Yvonne link Wrote:I think you guys are placing too much emphasis (hope?) in the fact that UCLA has already won the South. The players will want to beat Stanford because Stanford is a very good football team, and teams measure themselves by wins and losses, but also by signature victories.

I think Stanford will also play hard because that's what Stanford does.

I don't think anyone is subscribing to an Olympic Table Tennis style lose on purpose type effort.  Rather if Stanford is down by 14 points in the 3rd quarter the team will know it has got to find a way.  Conversely, if UCLA is down by 14 points in the 3rd quarter a fair number of the players on the  team will be thinking about that mulligan option.  Almost all Pac-12 teams are capable of winning on any given weekend, so that possibility of an unprecedented difference in motivation is noteworthy.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - yvonne - 11-21-2012

Here's Kevin Gemmell's take:

Quote:3. About them Bruins: They are riding a five-game winning streak and are 3-0 against Top 25 teams. The offense continues to improve behind the play of quarterback Brett Hundley and running back Johnathan Franklin -- recently named a Doak Walker Award finalist for the nation's top running back. Interestingly enough, this will be the second straight week Stanford has faced a Doak finalist, after going head-to-head with Oregon's Kenjon Barner last week. When asked about his first impressions of Stanford's defensive front, UCLA offensive coordinator Noel Mazzone said: "The '81 [Chicago NFL team]. Or the '85 [Chicago NFL team]. Whichever [Chicago NFL team] team was really, really good."

4. About them Bruins II: I get what fans are saying about UCLA maybe playing conservative against Stanford -- not trying to lose -- but maybe keeping it closer to the vest anticipating a rematch with the Cardinal rather than having to face the Ducks in the conference title game. Even Ted made a little wink-wink, nudge-nudge at the idea in his prediction this morning. I'll say this -- it's bollocks. (I'd prefer to use stronger language, but decorum prohibits me. And yes, that was a nod to "Animal House.") Jim Mora won't coach his team to play less than 100 percent. He won't even hint at it. Anyone who has spent five minutes with the man (and I can assure you I've spent more than that) will tell you that's not how he operates. I think he wants to play Oregon. I think he wants to go through Autzen to win the conference championship and the Rose Bowl and cast an icy stare at everyone who questioned his hiring. I think he wants to tell recruits on the fence between Oregon, USC and UCLA that he stomped the Trojans and went into Autzen and took away the conference title from the Ducks. That's not to say UCLA can or will, but I expect the Bruins to come out with guns blazing in trying to win this game. Anything less would be cowardice. And you don't get to 9-2 and win your division by being cowardly. Any UCLA fan hoping for less than their team's total effort Saturday should be embarrassed.


Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - cardcoug - 11-21-2012

(11-21-2012, 10:22 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:I don't think anyone is subscribing to an Olympic Table Tennis style lose on purpose type effort.  Rather if Stanford is down by 14 points in the 3rd quarter the team will know it has got to find a way.  Conversely, if UCLA is down by 14 points in the 3rd quarter a fair number of the players on the  team will be thinking about that mulligan option.  Almost all Pac-12 teams are capable of winning on any given weekend, so that possibility of an unprecedented difference in motivation is noteworthy.

I think this is exactly right - the situation will matter only if Stanford jumps out to a solid lead, especially if our D consistently shuts them down through three quarters. You hear all the time about a team fighting "with everything they've got 'til the very end", which will certainly be Stanford this week, but you have to think at least a few Bruins (maybe the younger ones) will already start thinking "yeah yeah - just wait until next week" in this situation.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - fullmetal - 11-21-2012

(11-21-2012, 10:22 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:I don't think anyone is subscribing to an Olympic Table Tennis style lose on purpose type effort.

Point of clarification--that was badminton, not table tennis :)  I don't remember any notable cases of table tennis match-throwing...

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - Spiny_Norman - 11-21-2012

(11-21-2012, 10:22 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:I don't think anyone is subscribing to an Olympic Table Tennis style lose on purpose type effort.  Rather if Stanford is down by 14 points in the 3rd quarter the team will know it has got to find a way.  Conversely, if UCLA is down by 14 points in the 3rd quarter a fair number of the players on the  team will be thinking about that mulligan option.  Almost all Pac-12 teams are capable of winning on any given weekend, so that possibility of an unprecedented difference in motivation is noteworthy.

I read comments like this and think about the reverse situation.  What if Stanford had clinched the North while UCLA had everything riding on the game.  Would Chase Thomas, Shayne Skov, Stepfan Taylor, Zach Ertz, Jordan Richards, AJ Tarpley, Kevin Hogan, et al., give anything less than 100%?  If Stanford was down 2 TDs in the 3rd quarter, would those guys think about saving some effort for the apparent rematch a week later? 

No way!!  They play to win and I expect UCLA to do the same.  This game can be every bit as tough as Notre Dame and Oregon were.  Stanford had better bring their best effort for 60 minutes or it could be bye-bye Pac 12 championship game.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - Farm93 - 11-21-2012

(11-21-2012, 11:18 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=6975.msg53175#msg53175 date=1353518572]I don't think anyone is subscribing to an Olympic Table Tennis style lose on purpose type effort.

Point of clarification--that was badminton, not table tennis :)  I don't remember any notable cases of table tennis match-throwing...
[/quote]

True enough, though it probably happens frequently in most Olympic & Round Robin formats.  That is why FIFA moved to have the final group games played at the same time because teams were doing odd things to avoid sitting on the same side of the elimination bracket as Germany, Brazil & Italy.  It happens in Olympic basketball and hockey, so I am sure it has happened in table tennis at some time or other.  Those fine folks were just better at covering it up.

A quick comment on the 100% motivation thing from a Stanford perspective, I think we have seen it in other sports.  The best example is Men's Hoops and the conference tournament.  More than a few very strong programs do almost everything possible to avoid playing in the finals.  I think most can recall Monty packing it in to keep people fresh for the more important contests.  This really is not that different.

In fact, we might be lucky enough to see Stanford play for the next weekend on Saturday.  If OSU beats Oregon the entire complexity of the game changes.  Then the game is really going to be played just for home field on Friday.  If Stanford is down by...pick a number....say 17 a few minutes into the fourth quarter, then would you really want to see Shaw push the limits just for that CHANCE of home field?  Rather than letting Hogan get blasted by DLs and our limited WRs group get drilled down field by DBs for 10 or 12 minutes, it might be sensible to run out the clock and keep people healthy for the real contest.

It does not really matter if it happens or not.  It is certainly plausible, and because it is plausible the Pac-12 administrators must dread that it could happen.  Big time scheduling mistake to not find a way to have Stanford play a Pac-12 North opponent to end the season.  Big, big, big mistake.  And since we had the fine Pac-12 scheduling team move Big Game into October, I am delighted that this motivational dilemma is in the picture.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - needle - 11-21-2012

Well, Stanford would have to be, umm, a little bit complicit if we're casting about for blame at not playing a Pac-12 north opponent this weekend.

Remember, Stanford and Kal turned down a post-Thanksgiving clash in favor of October.

I'm a bit back-and-forth on the issue.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - pcgoode - 11-21-2012

UCLA gives up a LOT of sacks.  Never mind a #partyinthebackfield, this could be a full on #riotinthebackfield...as David Lombardi noted in a tweet this afternoon:

David Lombardi‏@davidmlombardi

There are 5 Pac-12 teams in the bottom 10 of FBS rankings in pass protection. UCLA is #110 out of 120 teams, giving up 3.27 sacks/game



Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - g1313 - 11-21-2012

I read somewhere that you can think of UCLA's offense as "like Oregon except pass-first rather than run-first". I haven't watched them enough to verify the validity. Given the weakness against short/medium timing passes we showed against Arizona, this would be cause for concern.

The "UCLA won't care if they win or lose" has been mentioned ad nauseum, but I would consider there to be at least an equal (by which I mean "exceedingly low, but possible") chance of a let-down game for Stanford (despite the stakes) after the emotional win over Oregon. For reference, witness our win over USC followed by the Washington game. I don't think it will be an issue because 1) Our defense certainly showed up for Washington and 2) Hogan has shown less emotion than a Terminator so far this year.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - Farm93 - 11-21-2012

The letdown potential is real, but in this case that is a push.

Oregon had won 9 of the last 10 and 2 in a row.  Oregon was seen as the class of the Pac-12 North, etc.

But with UCLA...
UCLA had lost 12 of the last 13 to USC.  USC was seen as the class of the Pac-12 South.  And here is the biggie, USC is actually UCLA's rival for the alums and students.  So UCLA beating USC in a game that actually was going to decide the Pac-12 South should have been at least as big as the Oregon thing for Stanford.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - Oasis - 11-21-2012

Call me naive (I hear worse almost daily) but I think Stanford and UCLA both want to win this game to prove something and will play as if it's for all the marbles.  We shut down Oregon and the football world says so what.  We need to beat UCLA convincingly and advance to the conference final to get some national respect.  If we are down 17 with 5 minutes to play we should play as if it's the last five minutes in the world.

UCLA was a doormat a year ago.  Now they control their own destiny for the Rose Bowl.  They desperately want to beat us first because we have trampled them the last two or three years.  And we are a respectable opponent nationally -- not with the recognition we deserve but an opponent that enhances their standing if they beat us. 

They might feel a bit conflicted because if they win they will have to play Oregon at Eugene.  But once the juices are flowing, I don't think that matters.  They will want to win in the here-and-now.  So will we.  I think it's unlikely that either team will play this game as part of a larger strategic picture rather than treat it as a stand-alone contest they have to win.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - estephan500 - 11-21-2012

I'm sort of embarrassed to add more replies to the "how motivated is UCLA" thing.

Just this:

People whose answer to this is "It is foolish to think they would give anything less than 100%" ... look, that is silly.

To say that is logically identical to saying: When there is a championship on the line for a game, that that team would not give an ounce more than they would if there was no additional consequence to a win or loss.

Because, you have told us, the team simply gives 100% because of their wonderful devotion to football.

Obviously that is ridiculous: When there is a serious consequence at stake, a team draws on added motivation. To deny that would be a very odd statement. And this week that is NOT the case for UCLA.  It is not saying they are going to lie down on the field.

A totally separate question is would UCLA play intentionally poorly to avoid the Ducks... or would UCLA put in a noticeably weak performance.  On that, I agree of course, they will play hard based on the pride, skill, energy, and love for the game.  But they do not have the extra boost that they WILL have one week later in the Championship Game.

You could even say that their love of football and desire to be champions could cause a team to play in a way to store up energy in reserves, knowing that next week their pride and position in history will be on the line.

Re: UCLA: How are they strong, where are they weak? - 81alum - 11-21-2012

What went wrong for our defense against Arizona?  Honest question. 

Does our performance against Oregon prove that we have figured out how to stop all spread teams, or are Arizona and UCLA so different from Oregon that we need a very different defensive strategy?