Should Karl Dorrell get a free pass now?
Quarterbacks Ben Olson (concussion, left knee) and Pat Cowan (right knee) have each been injured for different parts of the season, and either one or possibly both will be out for the bulk of UCLA’s schedule.
Now that we’ve learned standout linebacker Reggie Carter has been playing with ligament damage in his right knee, it seems like too many people ““ this writer included ““ have succumbed to the soft bigotry of low expectations and chalked up this season to a run of bad luck.
Whatever. The fact remains that a hefty portion of UCLA fans are not so eager to let Dorrell off the hook.
Despite the string of quarterback injuries that have plagued the Bruins, this was considered a watershed season by none other than Dorrell himself.
Is Dorrell the victim of bad luck, or the fulcrum of all that has beset the Bruins’ season?
Let’s examine the arguments that two of UCLA’s most articulate fans (whom I’ve encountered at least) have voiced to me, point by point, and try to find a crystalline opinion. That’s technically this column’s job, anyway.
First point of contention: the offensive play-calling.
“How do you give (McLeod) Bethel-Thompson more passing plays (against Notre Dame) than you give the first or second-string quarterbacks all season,” Marc Goldberg, UCLA class of 2001, wrote via e-mail. “He’s the most inexperienced player on the field and you signal pass-pass-pass to the new guy?
This is a reference to first-year (offensive coordinator) Jay Norvell’s decision to pass on a third-and-one and a fourth-and-one, despite the fact that a walk-on was the guy throwing the ball. It’s tough to judge an offense based on one series. And, for the record, Dorrell has been criticized in the past for an uber-conservative approach. In the end, winning justifies anything, and losing makes every coaching decision look stupid
Second point: recruiting and (a lack of) depth.
“Dorrell has been at the helm for five disappointing years,” Goldberg wrote, “and maybe consistent player injury speaks to the poor state (of) UCLA’s training and conditioning program, lack of positional depth, and poor recruiting by the coaches. … What about putting (Osaar) Rasshan in the QB rotation during practice last week to have another option?”
Wrote Mike Heatherly, class of 1969: “How does a top 25 coach get himself into such a position? How can he make up his mind about redshirting a QB when he has so little at the position to start with?”
The handling of Rasshan has been inconceivable. He might be the most talented athlete on the roster, and it is up to the coaching staff to make sure he gets on the field, somehow and someway. Moving him to wide receiver is fine, but he should have been getting on the field. Moving him back to quarterback is a necessity at this point. But why does it seem like he won’t get much of a look behind center?
Obviously, everything flows from recruiting, it’s much easier to win with superior athletes, and a team can sustain injuries if there’s a roster three-deep in talent.
Dorrell hasn’t done a very good job recruiting thus far in his tenure, but his 2007-2008 class is projected as one of the two or three best in the nation. However, it’s difficult for Dorrell to recruit elite athletes, especially on offense, if he’s reluctant to play guys who have only been in the program for a year or two.
Third, and penultimate, point of grievance: direction of the program.
“How do you account (for) the unpreparedness of team against Utah,” Goldberg wrote. “They admitted that they had a bad week of practice, the players were unfocused. … These are coaching issues. How come we are the joke of the Pac-10?”
Heatherly: “Notre Dame was the last straw. The defense played its heart out and the offense could not score. … How can you come into any game without a prepared replacement, especially when you know your starter is as slow and injury-prone as Olson and that (Cowan) cannot play due to injury? Was the Stanford QB (playing for the injured starter) that beat USC last week prepared? There is no good excuse for this lack of preparation. It wouldn’t have taken an All-American to beat Notre Dame.”
Part of me feels for Dorrell.
He’s had the unfortunate privilege of coaching in Los Angeles while Pete Carroll has had unprecedented success across town. And now that USC finally has a huge letdown, Dorrell still ends up looking bad. Obviously, that last diatribe is why fans shouldn’t be in a position of power. But the trajectory of the program doesn’t seem especially high. That is one eyeball test that cannot be ignored.
Dorrell’s program looks to be stuck in a second gear. Every year there seems to be something holding UCLA back. Now that he finally has a team comprising of all of his own recruits, 20 returning starters, and an easy non-conference schedule to contend with, there is still something missing.
So, we revisit the question: Should Dorrell get a pass?
In a word, no. But it’s not that simple. If UCLA shows up woefully unprepared or too guarded in the face of adversity, then Dorrell’s job security will be up in the air. If the team plays loose and inspired football, if Rasshan and others get a chance to make an impact, and Dorrell shows that he’s still growing as a coach, then he should keep his job.
Stay tuned.
E-mail de Jong at adejong@media.ucla.edu.