Game #4 vs UCLA Bruins discussion thread

Gladiator Cat · Post by **Gladiator Cat** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:02 pm

No DC I didn't say that and you know full well I didn't mean that.

But then again, you love to kill a topic and slam an opposing view because it has to be RAW, RAW, RAW all the time and forever.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:58 pm

Gladiator Cat wrote:No DC I didn't say that and you know full well I didn't mean that.

But then again, you love to kill a topic and slam an opposing view because it has to be RAW, RAW, RAW all the time and forever.

Then what did you mean? Chiefs a big boy and trust me when I tell you that he can take care of himself. He gives as much as he takes.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:24 pm

Yes Bug, it is time. Bet is on.

As for depth, is it the coaches fault guys like Ware and Cobb can't grasp the scheme and the coaches decide they like walk on's better.

I agree with Machina on the content of most of the posts. Chief was implying big problems in a program that just won10 games last year and 26 over 3 along with a first ever south title. He painted a panic situation GC and its nit even close to that.

Look I really like Chief. He generally brings great stuff but I am finding it hard to find common ground here

Gladiator Cat · Post by **Gladiator Cat** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:06 pm

azcat49 wrote:Yes Bug, it is time. Bet is in.

As for depth, is it the coachesvfault guys like Ware and Cobb can't grasp the scheme and the coaches decide they like walk on's better.

I agree with Machina on the content of mostbof the posts. Chief was implying big problems in a program that just won10 games last year and 26 over 3 along with a first ever south title. He painted a panic situation GC and its nit even close to that.

Look I really like Chief. He generally brjngs great stuffbut I am finding it hard to find common ground here

49,

I completely understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to side with Chief just to be a pain in the ass. I think some alternative views are OK overall if they are coming from a true Cat fan and that person is not completely pulling stuff out of their ass. Like an ASSU fan would for example.

Additionally, I happen to agree with you and most others that if Chief is going to stur the pot about potential or realized problems then he needs to be willing to provide a bit more information and substance to the debate. Just coming on and crying the end of the world and slithering off is not cool either.

The cryptic crap get's old quick, so it would be nice if he could provide some context and not over-hype a situation that may not need to be hyped.

At its simplest point, we're in RR forth year and we're still filling gaps with walk-on's and appearently we have recruited players who are either too dumb or too lazy to fill one of those slots they received a full ride schollie for.

The operational battle plan to plug holes with walk-ons most assuredly has a expiration date that doesn't end well in a conference like the PAC12.

I hope the staff gets it figured out.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:15 pm

But Stoops was the opposite, he let guys who had not earned it in practice play and sat Kadeem and Bondo.

We all know RR was a walk on and he is going to let the best player play. How does he define that? I am not sure. Maybe its effort. Maybe its understanding the scheme?

I just know that because we are playing our 5th string Mike LB we all of a sudden have a coach that in his 4th year has failed. That is nonsense.

That hard work, hard edge, play the best builds a great culture. The best guy in practice plays and guys who think they got shafted and need a look are coming here and some of them are playing.

We have it school is guys like everyone else. If someone wants to say RR and staff are missing on too many guys, That's fine. But saying as Chief did we are in deep trouble and soon, is comical

Gladiator Cat · Post by **Gladiator Cat** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:30 pm

I'm not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not!

Gladiator Cat · Post by **Gladiator Cat** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:33 pm

And additionally, Chief needs to spell out what deep trouble and soon actually means.............specifically.

And in the future if he won't clarify things, I'll join you guys in riding him like broke mule with no reservations.

Folesfor10K · Post by **Folesfor10K** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:35 pm

Bug, any news on Ishmael adams? Has he been playing in games so far? Practicing? Is his court date still a few days before the arizona game? Do you think he plays against us on the 26th?

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:36 pm

Gladiator Cat wrote:I'm not sure why you think I'm disagreeing with you. I'm not!

Oh I know GC. And I have been perplxed as to what the chord of discontent is with Chief concerning RR

dmjcat · Post by **dmjcat** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:37 pm

Gladiator Cat wrote:My god, it just blows my mind the way some of you act everytime Chief come to the board to participate in the football dialog.

The damn football team in year four does have depth issues, and its easy to see. You can be completely football illiterate and come to the correct conclusion that a team in a bigtime conference like the PAC12 thats in year four of a no-turnover solid staff doing the recruiting and the coaches are still trotting out low level walk-ons.

The odds are very high that that is going to caught up with you.

Most of you I suspect could never believe deep down inside that we would be having these issues in year four, but here we are and we do.

It OK to love and defend the school and your team. That's to be expected. But the complete denial of the depth situation and what it means going into conference play show me the many are simply not equiped to deal with reality and admit that maybe RR and the staff may not have done everything perfect like some of you believe.

And jumping down Chiefs throat just because he brings it to your attention only serve's to prove that he's probably more right than wrong and it pisses most folks off.

I love RR and the staff. I feel their the best we've ever had, but they do have some issues to deal with in year four (the win big year) and anyone coherent enough, and sober enough that is willing to put the booze down long enough to watch the game on game day should be able to see it.

If people can't come here and discuss shit like this, then site's like this are meaningless.

Excellent Post.

Although I certainly don't agree with everything Chief has posted he certainly has a good point regarding depth in year 4. I for one am more concerned about positions other than LB where we aren't even using walk ons..............like cornerback for instance. In year 4 RRod and company have trotted out a PeeWee sized 2 Star true frosh and a transfer converted WR as the starters..........neither one of which is a walk on. The fact that the staff (and position coach) hasn't been able to recruit/develop a single true PAC12 level CB in 4 years is rather telling.

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:55 pm

Alabama would have depth issues with the injuries we're having already....the whining about how awful our recruits are and how bad rr is is strange when it's the fault of catastrophic bad luck with injuries and not anything the coaches have done wrong.

MrBug708 · Post by **MrBug708** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:01 pm

Folesfor10K wrote:Bug, any news on Ishmael adams? Has he been playing in games so far? Practicing? Is his court date still a few days before the arizona game? Do you think he plays against us on the 26th?

I think there is a small chance he never plays for UCLA ever again. Not much news is coming out about it though. Most people suspect it'll be a misdemeanor charge and he pleads out

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:37 pm

Gladiator Cat wrote:
azcat49 wrote:Yes Bug, it is time. Bet is in.

As for depth, is it the coachesvfault guys like Ware and Cobb can't grasp the scheme and the coaches decide they like walk on's better.

I agree with Machina on the content of mostbof the posts. Chief was implying big problems in a program that just won10 games last year and 26 over 3 along with a first ever south title. He painted a panic situation GC and its nit even close to that.

Look I really like Chief. He generally brjngs great stuffbut I am finding it hard to find common ground here
49,

I completely understand what you are saying. I'm not trying to side with Chief just to be a pain in the ass. I think some alternative views are OK overall if they are coming from a true Cat fan and that person is not completely pulling stuff out of their ass. Like an ASSU fan would for example.

Additionally, I happen to agree with you and most others that if Chief is going to stur the pot about potential or realized problems then he needs to be willing to provide a bit more information and substance to the debate. Just coming on and crying the end of the world and slithering off is not cool either.

The cryptic crap get's old quick, so it would be nice if he could provide some context and not over-hype a situation that may not need to be hyped.

At its simplest point, we're in RR forth year and we're still filling gaps with walk-on's and appearently we have recruited players who are either too dumb or too lazy to fill one of those slots they received a full ride schollie for.

The operational battle plan to plug holes with walk-ons most assuredly has a expiration date that doesn't end well in a conference like the PAC12.

I hope the staff gets it figured out.

Agree with everything except the bit about walk-ons. I say that because I listened to RR talk after practice specifically about Walk-ons and I found it interesting. They don't just take anybody to walk-on and the onus is on the player to improve tot he point that he can contribute. For some it's getting bigger via the weight room tot he point that they can contribute. Also, some guys are late bloomers and grow after HS and that can be a reason why nobody wanted them. RR likes to have Walk-ons develop and eventually contribute on special teams as they don't like to play their starters on ST. Why? Because of the number of plays they run, the coaches feel it's important to give guys a rest for ST play. I get it and it makes sense.

At the same time they obviously have no problem putting Neal on the edge of a FG try if he thinks he can get there for the block. Doesn't mean every walk-on is going to work out and nowhere does RR say that he expects Walk-ons to eventually start or anything of the sort. It's up to the player (see Jake Matthews as an example) to battle like everybody else if they want PT and that's true if you're on Scholi or a walk-on. I think RR has been pretty consistent with that approach.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:45 pm

dmjcat wrote:
Gladiator Cat wrote:My god, it just blows my mind the way some of you act everytime Chief come to the board to participate in the football dialog.

The damn football team in year four does have depth issues, and its easy to see. You can be completely football illiterate and come to the correct conclusion that a team in a bigtime conference like the PAC12 thats in year four of a no-turnover solid staff doing the recruiting and the coaches are still trotting out low level walk-ons.

The odds are very high that that is going to caught up with you.

Most of you I suspect could never believe deep down inside that we would be having these issues in year four, but here we are and we do.

It OK to love and defend the school and your team. That's to be expected. But the complete denial of the depth situation and what it means going into conference play show me the many are simply not equiped to deal with reality and admit that maybe RR and the staff may not have done everything perfect like some of you believe.

And jumping down Chiefs throat just because he brings it to your attention only serve's to prove that he's probably more right than wrong and it pisses most folks off.

I love RR and the staff. I feel their the best we've ever had, but they do have some issues to deal with in year four (the win big year) and anyone coherent enough, and sober enough that is willing to put the booze down long enough to watch the game on game day should be able to see it.

If people can't come here and discuss shit like this, then site's like this are meaningless.
Excellent Post.

Although I certainly don't agree with everything Chief has posted he certainly has a good point regarding depth in year 4. I for one am more concerned about positions other than LB where we aren't even using walk ons..............like cornerback for instance. In year 4 RRod and company have trotted out a PeeWee sized 2 Star true frosh and a transfer converted WR as the starters..........neither one of which is a walk on. The fact that the staff (and position coach) hasn't been able to recruit/develop a single true PAC12 level CB in 4 years is rather telling.

Neal was a 5 star recruit out of HS as a DB not a WR. Morrison was a legacy guy from the get go and RR said it was a no brainer once they saw his film - which probably says a lot as to why he's only 2 stars. He wouldn't be out there if he couldn't play. I've heard plenty of folks who know, say that think Morrison and Neal are potential all pac 12 corners. Morrison is not only a coach's son but he's the son of a guy who was a pretty good DB in his own right so I don't get (actually I do) where you come off acting like we're scrapping the bottom of the barrel for DB's? Denson was also a highly thought of DB out of HS and is battling Morrison for the starting position but both play a lot as one will come in with the Nickel package.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:59 am

We've got three corners that get a lot of time. One was a 5*, one was a 4*, and the third is a 2* who has earned time. CB is not the position you want to complain about recruit quality.

At LB we've got three 4*'s who can't crack the depth chart. Our All American 2* LB is hurt. His 2-3* back-up is out for the season. We've got walk-ons at 3 and 4 on the depth chart. Our starting outside backers are both hurt. That's just freak bad luck, not poor * recruiting. Not too many teams can trot out quality players at LB after 5 injuries at the position.

The DL looks better than it has in years, at least with regard to size. I wouldn't mind having Reed or EMFM on this team, though.

So by and large, I don't know where the 'lack of depth' complaints are coming from. I know this is supposed to be the 'win big' year, but that will be tough to achieve if the injuries keep piling up like they have.

RazorsEdgeAZ · Post by **RazorsEdgeAZ** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:46 am

Don't care if it's a walk-on, 2, 3, 4 or more star recruit regarding depth. They were invited or offered and they were invited and offered with making and contributing to the team in mind. Because that's how they were assessed and evaluated.

That's the point. Rich Rod and staff have stated this many times. They invited or offered with intent that recruit could play. Best player plays. Because of Scheme, tempo and conditioning, Rich Rod teams rotate in lots of players (as some have stated). Just more emphasis on depth and recruiting classes. Two and three deep roster emphasis on a Rich Rod team is not new. Especially not to them.

Injuries, amount of injuries are part of every teams obstacles. High profile or rated recruit not thriving or understanding scheme and not playing is not unique to AZ. Happens everywhere. One way depth can be defined, is how much drop off (if any) between the # 1 and #2, Or #2 and #3. And how good the #1 is. Really important if a team plays a faster tempo and rotates frequently.

AZ is not starting from a weak point this year. They just won the South.

So lets see if the recruiting classes are good enough to win South again or not. Progress against the league or not.

UCLA game is the 1st test of this. Let's see.

Merkin · Post by **Merkin** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:45 am

Puerco wrote: At LB we've got three 4*'s who can't crack the depth chart.

That's just freak bad luck, not poor * recruiting.

In all fairness, 3 4* LBs who can't crack the depth chart is pretty poor player evaluations but your point is of course correct.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:57 am

Merkin wrote:
Puerco wrote: At LB we've got three 4*'s who can't crack the depth chart.

That's just freak bad luck, not poor * recruiting.

In all fairness, 3 4* LBs who can't crack the depth chart is pretty poor player evaluations but your point is of course correct.

Arizona wasn't the only school recruiting those guys as they had offers from a lot of good schools hence the *4. Not everybody makes the transition from HS to college and I'm not just talking about athletes either. Cobb and Ware are RS frosh so they still have plenty of time on the clock to contribute but the point that they aren't ready now is a valid one. Both players are missing out on a golden opportunity. Would things have been different if they had gone elsewhere? In Casteels D the LB positions are clearly the most important positions as they are put in position to make plays.

I know some have questioned the HS coaching that these guys received as lacking because they're not even close to seeing the field at the LB position at this point. In HS you can get by with just being the better athlete but that doesn't work at this level. You have to be able to make your reads and react to those reads - you can't just go charging after the ball at this level - especially in this D. One guy not making the correct read or being out of place and you get exposed pretty quickly.

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:52 am

dc4azcats wrote:
Merkin wrote:
Puerco wrote: At LB we've got three 4*'s who can't crack the depth chart.

That's just freak bad luck, not poor * recruiting.

In all fairness, 3 4* LBs who can't crack the depth chart is pretty poor player evaluations but your point is of course correct.
Arizona wasn't the only school recruiting those guys as they had offers from a lot of good schools hence the *4. Not everybody makes the transition from HS to college and I'm not just talking about athletes either. Cobb and Ware are RS frosh so they still have plenty of time on the clock to contribute but the point that they aren't ready now is a valid one. Both players are missing out on a golden opportunity. Would things have been different if they had gone elsewhere? In Casteels D the LB positions are clearly the most important positions as they are put in position to make plays.

I know some have questioned the HS coaching that these guys received as lacking because they're not even close to seeing the field at the LB position at this point. In HS you can get by with just being the better athlete but that doesn't work at this level. You have to be able to make your reads and react to those reads - you can't just go charging after the ball at this level - especially in this D. One guy not making the correct read or being out of place and you get exposed pretty quickly.

I told you and many others about Salesian and their poor coaching staff. These kids almost had to completely relearn their positions plus learn the complexity of the 3-3-5. Not small tasks at all.

DC-Don't start stealing my stuff now!

FightWildcatsFight · Post by **FightWildcatsFight** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:24 pm

ASUHATER! · Post by **ASUHATER!** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:37 pm

So they'd rather go to an unranked asu vs. #6 usc than a #10/11 ucla vs. #19 Arizona?

FightWildcatsFight · Post by **FightWildcatsFight** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:39 pm

ASUHATER! wrote:So they'd rather go to an unranked asu vs. #6 usc than a #10/11 ucla vs. #19 Arizona?

1. I think Jurecki actually has no idea.
2. As I said on another board, that's what preseason hype gets you. USC's name is bigger than UCLA or UA regardless of ranking, and who cares if ASu was 5 minutes away from being 0-2 with a loss against Cal Poly? If it happens after 11:00PM ET, did it really happen?

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:46 pm

Hey all...I've been busy and I will answer what you guys are asking. I'm not ignoring you. On a small note....the lack of depth with the O-line scares me more that the LBs. Scooby is going to come back pretty soon and when he does, that cluster will get shored up a bit. If you look at it overall....I think if Anu went down....trouble. If Nick went down....trouble. If Bundage went down....trouble. Scooby went down....trouble. If Neal, Denson or McCall went down....trouble. Not trouble in the sense of not making a bowl game but definitely raising some big questions. I see a pattern here with lack of depth. If anyone goes down on the DL or OL, there will be struggles IMO. So, with no byes, you just have to cross your fingers and hope that no one gets hurt and that whoever is hurt, heals quickly. IMO it is the 4th year and recruiting and evaluation needs to get better. RR has said that this offseason and on paper, I like the 2016 class for the most part. However, if this team has troubles and doesn't win 10 games again but drops to 8 or 9....it might be viewed as a drop off considering the tough circumstances. IMO I believe that RR from here on out needs to start getting top 25 recruiting classes. I think he can do this and that he is on the right track but there are some variables that have to pan out. UCLA is a big freaking game. It's the watermark for this season. RR is a good coach and he knows what has to be done. We shall see what is in the tank for this team.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:03 pm

FightWildcatsFight wrote:

I just can't buy this. Maybe it's all about market size for leadership. Neither ASSU or USC will cover there games but both should win

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:06 pm

chiefzona wrote:Hey all...I've been busy and I will answer what you guys are asking. I'm not ignoring you. On a small note....the lack of depth with the O-line scares me more that the LBs. Scooby is going to come back pretty soon and when he does, that cluster will get shored up a bit. If you look at it overall....I think if Anu went down....trouble. If Nick went down....trouble. If Bundage went down....trouble. Scooby went down....trouble. If Neal, Denson or McCall went down....trouble. Not trouble in the sense of not making a bowl game but definitely raising some big questions. I see a pattern here with lack of depth. If anyone goes down on the DL or OL, there will be struggles IMO. So, with no byes, you just have to cross your fingers and hope that no one gets hurt and that whoever is hurt, heals quickly. IMO it is the 4th year and recruiting and evaluation needs to get better. RR has said that this offseason and on paper, I like the 2016 class for the most part. However, if this team has troubles and doesn't win 10 games again but drops to 8 or 9....it might be viewed as a drop off considering the tough circumstances. IMO I believe that RR from here on out needs to start getting top 25 recruiting classes. I think he can do this and that he is on the right track but there are some variables that have to pan out. UCLA is a big freaking game. It's the watermark for this season. RR is a good coach and he knows what has to be done. We shall see what is in the tank for this team.

OK, this all makes sense to me. Gotcha Chief. Of course losing any key player makes it hard for most teams and a slide from 10 to 8 wins would hardly mean circle the wagons for the AD but I do understand what you are saying

UALoco · Post by **UALoco** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:23 pm

chiefzona wrote: recruiting and evaluation needs to get better

I think there are only 4-5 team's in the FBS who this wouldn't apply too. I think we offer better talent and they don't accept so we have to take OKG's who we can get. Are RR and his staff not identifying "getable" players who are better than the ones who do commit? There might be a few but I think given the circumstances (not a destination location, small market, lack of a brand-name football heritage, apathetic fanbase, etc), they do pretty good. These are not excuses, they are facts. With more consistent winning, the needle will move in the right direction. We need to be patient and continue supporting the team/staff, even if there are setbacks.

BearDown.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 8:32 pm

chiefzona wrote:
dc4azcats wrote:
Merkin wrote:
Puerco wrote: At LB we've got three 4*'s who can't crack the depth chart.

That's just freak bad luck, not poor * recruiting.

In all fairness, 3 4* LBs who can't crack the depth chart is pretty poor player evaluations but your point is of course correct.
Arizona wasn't the only school recruiting those guys as they had offers from a lot of good schools hence the *4. Not everybody makes the transition from HS to college and I'm not just talking about athletes either. Cobb and Ware are RS frosh so they still have plenty of time on the clock to contribute but the point that they aren't ready now is a valid one. Both players are missing out on a golden opportunity. Would things have been different if they had gone elsewhere? In Casteels D the LB positions are clearly the most important positions as they are put in position to make plays.

I know some have questioned the HS coaching that these guys received as lacking because they're not even close to seeing the field at the LB position at this point. In HS you can get by with just being the better athlete but that doesn't work at this level. You have to be able to make your reads and react to those reads - you can't just go charging after the ball at this level - especially in this D. One guy not making the correct read or being out of place and you get exposed pretty quickly.
I told you and many others about Salesian and their poor coaching staff. These kids almost had to completely relearn their positions plus learn the complexity of the 3-3-5. Not small tasks at all.

DC-Don't start stealing my stuff now!

I'm not stealing it - I'm dishing out the knowledge you've been so kind to pass on.

chiefzona · Post by **chiefzona** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:11 pm

dc4azcats wrote:
chiefzona wrote:
dc4azcats wrote:
Merkin wrote:
Puerco wrote: At LB we've got three 4*'s who can't crack the depth chart.

That's just freak bad luck, not poor * recruiting.

In all fairness, 3 4* LBs who can't crack the depth chart is pretty poor player evaluations but your point is of course correct.
Arizona wasn't the only school recruiting those guys as they had offers from a lot of good schools hence the *4. Not everybody makes the transition from HS to college and I'm not just talking about athletes either. Cobb and Ware are RS frosh so they still have plenty of time on the clock to contribute but the point that they aren't ready now is a valid one. Both players are missing out on a golden opportunity. Would things have been different if they had gone elsewhere? In Casteels D the LB positions are clearly the most important positions as they are put in position to make plays.

I know some have questioned the HS coaching that these guys received as lacking because they're not even close to seeing the field at the LB position at this point. In HS you can get by with just being the better athlete but that doesn't work at this level. You have to be able to make your reads and react to those reads - you can't just go charging after the ball at this level - especially in this D. One guy not making the correct read or being out of place and you get exposed pretty quickly.
I told you and many others about Salesian and their poor coaching staff. These kids almost had to completely relearn their positions plus learn the complexity of the 3-3-5. Not small tasks at all.

DC-Don't start stealing my stuff now!
I'm not stealing it - I'm dishing out the knowledge you've been so kind to pass on.

I encourage you to take my hand offs anytime brother. Slainte

krissyp · Post by **krissyp** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:11 am

FightWildcatsFight wrote:

I don't see this at all given the "scum faithful" that showed up last night along with the Gameday gang buying what their used car salesman coach was selling a week before the season. They have to be none too pleased with Hot Toddy.

I think if UCLA wins tonight, it's a done deal.

Those people up north are the most delusional idiots ever.

dc4azcats · Post by **dc4azcats** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:40 am

krissyp wrote:
FightWildcatsFight wrote:

I don't see this at all given the "scum faithful" that showed up last night along with the Gameday gang buying what their used car salesman coach was selling a week before the season. They have to be none too pleased with Hot Toddy.

I think if UCLA wins tonight, it's a done deal.

Those people up north are the most delusional idiots ever.

I don't either. Two undefeated teams vs one undefeated team and an Assu team that can't stop anybody from running the ball on them. Ucla just needs to take care of business.

Gilbertcat · Post by **Gilbertcat** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:07 am

No way Tempe. I think they wanted to see OU Utah but injuries are killing those chances.

splitsecond · Post by **splitsecond** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:51 pm

With the $c loss and sUCLA win and our dominance tonight we should be in.

Gilbertcat · Post by **Gilbertcat** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:18 pm

https://twitter.com/ArizonaFBall/status ... 23200?s=09

5pm

dirtbags · Post by **dirtbags** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:20 pm

all right! ABC OTA!

Gladiator Cat · Post by **Gladiator Cat** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:22 pm

I know it was only NAU but man we took care of business and totally took over after the first qrt.

Best performance by miles against the Jacks ever.

It should be a really good game next week. Our guys should feel good about their chances with Rosen coming back down to earth.

MrBug708 · Post by **MrBug708** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:54 pm

Ugly game for the Bruins. When teams play zone defense and stay home, Rosen has struggled. Playing man and blitzing plays into ucla's offense. Passing game needs some work, but Perkins is killing it. Likely his last home game in Zona so hoping he plays well

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:10 am

Rosen will have to play a lot better against Arizona for UCLA to win that one. Arizona can keep Perkins in check enough to force UCLA to have to throw it. (Not saying they're going to shut down Perkins, but they can grind him down enough that he won't be the one man wrecking crew he was tonight.) Keep him at 120 or less and that's going to put the onus on Rosen.

Both teams have a lot of question marks coming into this one so I can't really get a good feel either way on it. UCLA got punched in the mouth, got off the mat and took that game away from BYU despite Rosen's performance. Arizona is looking more in sync every week. But the Bruins are struggling at QB and AZ is struggling in the secondary. Solomon is looking sharp but the line play has been uneven. Looking forward to this Saturday.

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:20 am

Are we really struggling in the secondary? I only saw the second half against NAU, but I thought we looked sharp. 3 picks is a pretty good thing.

MrBug708 · Post by **MrBug708** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 12:31 am

Ucla had three turnovers, lost an onside kick, got dominated by the TOP, lost their starting Mike, and still beat a top 25 team that was the most physical team they'll see. I'll take it

But Rosen needs to play better, but ucla is 3-0 because if the run game and the trench play.

azpenguin · Post by **azpenguin** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:00 am

Puerco wrote:Are we really struggling in the secondary? I only saw the second half against NAU, but I thought we looked sharp. 3 picks is a pretty good thing.

3 picks is a good thing, but it was NAU. Earlier in the game they got two 60+ yard pass plays, one of which was a TD. UTSA lit up the secondary and they've scored a total 17 points since then. I will say that Neal is already looking better as he gets more aggressive, but McCall has been getting burned downfield. The defense without Scooby has been struggling to get pressure on the QB and that's a problem against a team like UCLA.

MrBug708 · Post by **MrBug708** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:37 am

I do think ucla struggles next week offensively

Chicat · Post by **Chicat** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:43 am

MrBug708 wrote:I do think ucla struggles next week offensively

Not sure why you'd think that. Right now the most effective weapon the Bruins have is the running game and we're down to fourth stringers and waterboys in the linebacking corp, which in the 3-3-5 has a ton to do with stopping the run.

My prediction is a tight but high scoring game. I think it goes back and forth and last to score wins.

MrBug708 · Post by **MrBug708** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 6:28 am

The defense did play well for us, considering we threw three picks, two in the red zone, and they spent 40 minutes on the field. It felt like UCLA was almost never on the field and when we were, we probably going to throw a pick. Special teams played really well

gumby · Post by **gumby** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 6:59 am

Puerco wrote:Are we really struggling in the secondary? I only saw the second half against NAU, but I thought we looked sharp. 3 picks is a pretty good thing.

Against Cookus, they gave up several big plays. He had like 160 yards in the first 20 minutes or so. Against Poe, it was nevermore.

CalStateTempe · Post by **CalStateTempe** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:27 am

Again is Myles jack going to play fullback next week?

Puerco · Post by **Puerco** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:36 am

azpenguin wrote:
Puerco wrote:Are we really struggling in the secondary? I only saw the second half against NAU, but I thought we looked sharp. 3 picks is a pretty good thing.
3 picks is a good thing, but it was NAU. Earlier in the game they got two 60+ yard pass plays, one of which was a TD. UTSA lit up the secondary and they've scored a total 17 points since then. I will say that Neal is already looking better as he gets more aggressive, but McCall has been getting burned downfield. The defense without Scooby has been struggling to get pressure on the QB and that's a problem against a team like UCLA.

UTSA is not counted.

Too much adjusting to do in the first game of the season.

Looked good against Nevada. Remember, Nevada scored 10 more against A&M than ASU did. Transitive property ftw.

NAU is NAU, but after a couple of misfires, the secondary settled down. Didn't see much NAU offense in the 2nd half for sure.

azcat49 · Post by **azcat49** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:25 am

Any guesses as to the opening line from Vegas. UCLA is bet heavily by the public as that opening line vs BYU went from 14 to 17. Also Vegas must really like them to establish them as a 14 point favorite against a good BYU team.

I think it opens as a pick em. If AZ is a 3 point favorite (basically saying the teams are even) I think too much money flows to UCLA. This should be a fun week

UAEebs86 · Post by **UAEebs86** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:33 am

azcat49 wrote:Any guesses as to the opening line from Vegas. UCLA is bet heavily by the public as that opening line vs BYU went from 14 to 17. Also Vegas must really like them to establish them as a 14 point favorite against a good BYU team.

I think it opens as a pick em. If AZ is a 3 point favorite (basically saying the teams are even) I think too much money flows to UCLA. This should be a fun week

Sagarin has it at about UCLA -1.

azgreg · Post by **azgreg** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:57 am

Main Event · Post by **Main Event** » Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:57 am

Dope.

Login • Register