It's with some sense of foreboding that I return to the task of looking at UCLA by the numbers. Last year's post showed that the two teams, while having differing win records, were not all that far apart on a statistical basis. I spent some time looking at ways that UCLA could push for the win:
Plainly they do need to focus on disrupting the USC passing game and attempting to work a still-young USC secondary. They shouldn't be counting on getting a lot from the running game, which is -- whether they score or punt / turn over on downs -- going to make it hard to keep the defense off the field and resting. They need to get to Booty but not so much as to gift USC 15 yards on personal fouls. And they have to get a full ration of points when in the red zone.
And then concluded with something that was more targeted than I would have liked:HOWEVER. There is one other factor which we haven't touched on, and that's coaching. Part of playing a lights-out game is taking some gambles. It's possible that this might be the game in which Dorrell and his staff decide to go for it on 4th down, to keep momentum going, etc., but can you really count on it?
Well, we saw the answer to that - the Bruins were motivated, played their assess off, and managed to get the win.So, another year, and UCLA again has been erratic with wins against good teams and losses against bad ones. Coaching on offense is again a question mark, not least in the rotating cast of quarterbacks that they have been playing due to injury. When someone settles down to write the epitaph of Dorrell's time in Westwood, I think one of the biggest gaffes they would highlight would be coaching the Notre Dame game while having a former high-school quarterback at WR, and playing a walk-on QB who threw 4 interceptions and had a fumble returned for a touchdown. That response to having to pick up pieces of injured QBs is indicative of how strangely things are run over in Westwood at the moment, and it's why I've noted which QBs played in which games.
So, without further ado, UCLA's 2007 numbers against our common opponents:
| Offense |
Defense |
||||||
| Opponent |
Result |
Passing |
Rushing |
Passing |
Rushing |
Other Notes |
QB |
| Arizona |
L, 34 - 27 |
143 |
145 |
341 |
128 |
ToP 31.31, Push |
Cowan, Rasshan |
| Arizona State |
L, 24 - 20 |
181 |
119 |
200 |
152 |
ToP 26.57, Push |
Rasshan |
| Cal |
W, 30 - 21 |
190 |
183 |
232 |
67 |
ToP 29.06, T.O. +2 | Cowan |
| Notre Dame |
L, 20 - 6 |
193 |
89 |
94 |
46 |
ToP 27.58, T.O. -7 |
Olson, Bethel - Thompson |
| Oregon |
W, 16 - 0 |
64 |
156 |
105 |
43 |
ToP 31.56, TO +2 |
Olson, Rasshan |
| Oregon State |
W, 40 - 14 |
220 |
133 |
146 |
102 |
ToP 30.39, T.O. +2 |
Olson |
| Stanford |
W, 45 - 17 |
286 |
338 |
346 |
52 |
ToP 30.52, T.O. +1 |
Olson |
| Washington |
W, 44 - 31 |
204 |
333 |
216 |
124 |
ToP 34.21, Push |
Cowan |
| Washington State |
L, 27 - 7 |
167 |
100 |
271 |
274 |
ToP 22.00, Push |
Cowan |
| Total |
1648 |
1596 |
1951 |
988 |
|||
| Average |
183.1 |
177.3 |
216.8 |
109.8 |
And then, USC:
| Offense |
Defense |
||||||
| Opponent |
Result |
Passing |
Rushing |
Passing |
Rushing |
Other Notes |
|
| Arizona |
W, 20 - 13 |
130 |
146 |
233 |
22 |
ToP 33.06, T.O. +1 |
Sanchez |
| Arizona State |
W, 44 - 24 |
375 |
133 |
243 |
16 |
ToP 30.46, T.O. +1 |
Booty |
| Cal |
W, 24 - 17 |
129 |
239 |
199 |
200 |
ToP 30.19, T.O. +1 |
Booty |
| Notre Dame |
W, 38 - 0 |
235 |
227 |
117 |
48 |
ToP 30.15, T.O. +2 |
Sanchez |
| Oregon |
L, 17 - 24 |
277 |
101 |
157 |
182 |
ToP 30.59, T.O. -1 |
Sanchez |
| Oregon State |
W, 24 - 3 |
187 |
100 |
85 |
91 |
ToP 29.34, Push |
Booty |
| Stanford |
L, 23 - 24 |
364 |
95 |
149 |
86 |
ToP 32.08, T.O. -4 |
Booty |
| Washington |
W, 27 - 24 |
236 |
224 |
90 |
100 |
ToP 34.51, T.O. -1 |
Booty |
| Washington State |
W, 47 - 14 |
302 |
207 |
183 |
64 |
ToP 33.02, T.O. - 1 |
Booty |
| Total |
2235 |
1472 |
1456 |
809 |
|||
| Average |
248.3 |
163.6 |
161.8 |
89.9 |
Thusly, numbers.
I took a look at the Scouts preview, and the crux of their thinking was that UCLA has the edge in the areas of Defensive Backs and Special Teams (practice practice practice, in the latter case), but otherwise USC has an advantage across the board. In essence they proposed that USC will be able to key in on the run because Olson and Rasshan are struggling a bit, and Cowan won't play. This is pretty important because UCLA's running game really is half of their offense, give or take a few yards, and in fact something that the Bruins have done slightly better than USC over the course of the season against common opponents. (Those numbers probably look a little different if you include OOC games.) In the meantime, UCLA remains stout on defense, so presumably Booty's new-found passing plays that feature him rolling out of the pocket will come in handy, if only to reduce the chances of tipped and intercepted passes. Long story short, the Scout folks take the view that if USC can avoid turnovers and keep UCLA's defense on the field long enough to get gassed, they will be able to slowly push up the score as the game progresses.
Easier said than done, of course, as last year demonstrated.
As for myself, I find it hard to predict how this game will end up. You could look at the challenges that USC has had this year with replacing Smith and Jarrett at WR, and in establishing the run with injuries to the offensive line (now significantly healthier). You could look at the fact that Booty is still Booty, both in terms of strengths and weaknesses, and that UCLA is largely who they were last year on defense, which will pose a variety of challenges.
Fundamentally, though, I think that having a fragile starting QB and an inexperienced backup is what's going to bite UCLA in the ass this year. Olson isn't particularly mobile and I doubt that he could cope with the kind of battering that Carpenter took last week for ASU. Rasshan isn't in a better position. Accurate or not, my memory is that Cowan largely kept the in that game last year on offense by running the ball, and as I understand things he won't be playing this weekend.
As for coaching this year, I can't presume to guess to what extent Dorrell and his staff will be energizing their team, or the extent to which winning one for the coach is motivation for those players. Frankly, I don't think they'll need much help in getting fired up for this game. They shouldn't, anyway.
When all is said and done, however, I think that USC should be able to grind out a win - maybe by 7 to 10 points. It's hard to imagine a repeat of Route 66, and frankly any margin of victory would suffice so far as I am concerned - not that I would complain if it were higher, you understand.