ADVERTISEMENT

Zona sucks and ucla

UCLA will come around as the season unfolds. Tough start for them. Cincinnati is no bargain.
 
Just like Leach had to overcome a culture of losing, Chip Kelly has to overcome a culture of softness that has been At UCLA for a long time. He needs time, especially with a young quarterback.
 
I talked a little about UCLA in the other thread, but I'll add some things that may be really interesting.

UCLA is currently 0-2 and if they lose to Fresno things could be a disaster for Chip Kelly's first season.

If and this is a big if they lose to Fresno, they have Coloardo, then UW, and then Cal.

Fresno/Coloardo will tell us a lot about UCLA. If those games go poorly I think UCLA may be staring 0-6 to start the season which would be quite the disaster.

Arizona is obviously not faring any better to start but does get to play Southern Utah and Oregon State up next. Arizona could be 2-2 and probably will be but then face USC and Cal who obviously are much further along in their development.

So by the time Arizona plays UCLA this year we could be looking at 0-6 UCLA vs 2-4 Arizona that is an actual possibility.

We'll no more about both teams when Arizona plays Oregon State and UCLA plays Colorado. Those two games will really tell us if they are legit trash this year or just suffering from new coachitis.
 
I watched the zona game and was shocked at bad they looked... a dumpster fire. Houston looked fast and dominated them. Arizona might be screwed!
 
Just like Leach had to overcome a culture of losing, Chip Kelly has to overcome a culture of softness that has been At UCLA for a long time. He needs time, especially with a young quarterback.
Not a UCLA or Chip fan but I do think it will be interesting to watch how he does in Westwood. It's not like Kelly was responsible for building the culture in Eugene. Brooks, Bellotti, and even Knight/Nike had done most of that work. Kelly took them to another level but he has decades of softness to work out at UCLA and that seemed on full display against Oklahoma.
 
Not a UCLA or Chip fan but I do think it will be interesting to watch how he does in Westwood. It's not like Kelly was responsible for building the culture in Eugene. Brooks, Bellotti, and even Knight/Nike had done most of that work. Kelly took them to another level but he has decades of softness to work out at UCLA and that seemed on full display against Oklahoma.

Yeah, I have been wondering about the same thing. It is not as if UCLA didn't recruit extremely well. They always have no matter the coach. We shall see if he can have the run that he did at Oregon.
 
I was never sure who did less with more...UCLA or Cal? It probably depended upon the year. FWIW, UCLA always seemed more soft, and Cal had more folks uncommitted to success.

SC has some problems this year. Not quite sure why they can't have a couple of QB's on the bench who are capable of playing PAC ball every year, but clearly they can't manage that.

Stanford looked good.
 
Stanford looked good.

Stanford is loaded with upper classmen this year. Seriously go look at their roster two deep. Tons of upper classmen and a ton of seniors, but the good news is they are about to graduate and I expect Stanford to fall off quite a bit after this year, but make no mistake they are going to be really good this year. This is their everybody is an upperclassmen/senior year.

Fortunately we get them late in the year after they play ASU. I think we can beat them but it will be a very tough game this year.
 
I watched the zona game and was shocked at bad they looked... a dumpster fire. Houston looked fast and dominated them. Arizona might be screwed!
Watched their last two games and came away feeling the players weren't engaged or buying in. Looked like they were just going through the motions at times.
 
I was never sure who did less with more...UCLA or Cal? It probably depended upon the year. FWIW, UCLA always seemed more soft, and Cal had more folks uncommitted to success.

SC has some problems this year. Not quite sure why they can't have a couple of QB's on the bench who are capable of playing PAC ball every year, but clearly they can't manage that.

Stanford looked good.

There is something to be said about having everyone pulling the same direction. At Cal, Imthink they get a lot of resistance from the admin about how much money is spent on athletics. I think they get blow back from faculty. All this adds up. Shoot, there are people at Cal pissed because they branded it Cal and not Berkeley.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT