_UCLA fails to build strong start in loss to Stanford_

STANFORD “”mdash; The building process has to start somewhere, and UCLA’s blueprint looked promising.

It started when the Bruins won the toss and demanded the ball. Aggressive, determined to keep Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck off the field.

UCLA went to the air: quarterback Richard Brehaut was 4-for-4 on the opening drive for 60 yards. The Bruins were driving, getting the ball to the Stanford 4-yard line in front of the lone corner of blue-clad fans.

But what couldn’t happen, happened. Four plays later, it was Stanford’s ball, courtesy of a turnover-on-downs. The momentum switched sides, the scoreboard still showed zeroes, and the ball was in Luck’s hands. The foundation crumbled at the laying of the final brick.

“You’ve got four downs to get those yards,” offensive coordinator Mike Johnson said. “In a game like this you have to cash in on it.”

You certainly do. The Bruins were never going to win this game, even though in a parallel universe they should, considering they have the talent advantage at practically every position outside of quarterback.

But we’ve seen enough of both of those teams to know that the proper amount of coaching, discipline and execution can overcome such talent disparities.

In hindsight, Stanford was too good. But hindsight isn’t an issue when you have a chance to make a statement on the first drive in hostile territory and score first for just the second time this season.

Luck ““ an architectural design student who knows a thing or two about building ““ was never going to let UCLA construct a palatial upset on this night. He was too sharp, too precise, too Luck-y: firing darts all over the field and even making a one-handed sideline catch on a first-half trick play.

“They showcased him,” UCLA coach Rick Neuheisel said of Stanford’s Aristotle-Adonis hybrid who seems to lack an Achilles heel.

Still, what would it have meant for the Bruins’ confidence had they drawn first blood here?

“To go up 7-0 would have been huge for us,” Brehaut said.

Instead, the fateful set of downs revealed a frustrating lack of killer instinct and a troubling lack of something ““ trust, cajones, confidence, whatever you want to kill it. Seeking to maintain its identity as a running team ““ an apparent misnomer given Brehaut’s effectiveness through the air ““ UCLA instead saw its foundation give way.

Things like botched punts and missed PATs will have to be addressed heading into next Saturday’s game against Washington State, but it would have been nice to say, at the end of the day, “But how “˜bout that opening drive where we marched it down Stanford’s throat? Let’s recapture that swagger and multiply it over the course of an entire game.”

Neuheisel’s mindset was right on the money.

“We wanted to set an example and prove that we could play in there,” he said. “We just didn’t get it in.”

The UCLA coach was fired up in the postgame locker room, encouraging his players to keep their heads up and to keep believing.

He’s got the right idea ““ Stanford is an elite team for a reason, and UCLA just isn’t at that level yet. The Bruins need to keep their composure and not let things fall apart in the middle chunk of the season.

There was a dim trace of a blueprint early tonight, breaking through all that Cardinal red. Sooner or later, though, the best-laid plans need to become the best-made plays.

If you have any thoughts about the UCLA program or its architect, email Eshoff at reshoff@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *