SMQB: DeShaun Foster Is Starting to Look like Karl Dorrell 2.0
The Dorrell era featured a complicated offense which players had trouble executing, lots of punting, lots of field goals and very little risk-taking. Sound familiar?
When I started writing the Sunday Morning Quarterback, I would look at the postgame press conferences in order to see what Jim Mora was saying immediately after the game.
So, let’s do that.
In his postgame presser, DeShaun Foster was clearly dejected after last night’s loss. I do like that fact that he doesn’t hide his emotions the way Chip Kelly would. With Chip, he always took a matter-of-fact approach and never seemed to be emotional about how the team had fared.
DeShaun is the anti-Chip in that respect. There’s absolutely no doubt that he wasn’t happy about losing last night’s game.
Unfortunately, the credentialed media failed to ask the all important question about Foster’s decision to punt the ball away on fourth down with seven minutes to go.
It was a white flag from Foster. It’s something Karl Dorrell would have done.
As I wrote last night, he gave up. There was plenty of time to change the result, but Foster chose to punt the ball away on fourth down with seven minutes left.
Coach Foster said, “There were no guys out there quitting.” Except there was.
It was every member of the coaching staff who contributed to the decision to punt the ball away with seven minutes to go. That may just be Foster or it may include his coordinators or others. We don’t know for sure.
But with seven minutes left, there was still enough time to to try to mount a comeback but punting it away at that point ensured that UCLA had given up.
To be sure, had the credentialed media done their job and asked about the decision to punt it away at that point, Foster probably would have said that he was hoping the defense could get a stop and get the ball back quickly.
But it still doesn’t excuse not trying to get a first down at that point of the game.
Let’s assume UCLA went for it on fourth down there instead of punting it. Oregon would have gotten the ball back, albeit in better field position. In that scenario, the same hope applies. You hope that the defense stops Oregon to get the ball back.
If UCLA had gone for it there and failed, you’re basically in the same position you were in if you chose to punt. The absolute worst case scenario is that a failed fourth down conversion gives the Ducks better field position and they go down the field and score again.
OK, so then the Bruins don’t cover the spread. Big deal.
Is a 28-point loss much different from a 21-point loss? Of course not.
You might argue that, at that point, UCLA’s second string quarterback was in the game because Garbers had gotten hurt.
Well, what does that say about your faith in your backup quarterback to make things happen? If you don’t have faith in Martin, what about Chase Griffin? It’s not just that Griffin has more experience than Martin since he’s been in the program longer, but Griffin has actually started and played well before even if it’s been a while since that happened.
For all the talk we’ve heard about how Foster likes how his players don’t give up, it would be nice to see the coaching staff take the same attitude by not throwing in the towel with almost half a quarter left.
Success requires two parts: strategy and execution.
Right now, the Bruins are struggling on offensive execution, but it doesn’t seem like the coaching staff has adapted their strategy to try to compensate for that or to put the team in a better position to improve their offensive execution.
Instead, they would rather rely on the hope that the defense can execute a stop or a turnover, but hope is not a strategy.
It’s one thing to give up with two or even three minutes left down by 21. But throwing in the towel with almost half a quarter left is coaching malpractice. It says you aren’t trying.
At the start of this season, I said we need to be patient, mostly because I believe Chip Kelly’s lack of recruiting left UCLA at a serious competitive disadvantage, but that doesn’t excuse bad in-game decision making. DeShaun Foster and/or his coaching staff need to make better in-game decisions.
I realize we’re still just four games into the DeShaun Foster era, but his in-game decision making is already looking too much like Karl Dorrell’s decision making for my liking.
Go Bruins.
Thanks again for supporting The Mighty Bruin. Your paid subscriptions make this site possible. Questions, comments, story ideas, angry missives and more can be sent to to @TheMightyBruin on Twitter.
Our roster and Bienieny are not good fits. Garbers doesn't have the skill set to reliably execute the plays that Bieniemy stubbornly continues to call, and even less so when he's constantly under pressure while waiting for receivers who struggle to create separation. The OLine regressed a lot in this game, too, which is impressive considering how close to rock bottom they already were in the first place. So, we have no reliable run game to keep the defense honest, we have awful pass protection, and we have an OC who keeps asking a limited QB to make deep drops on long developing routes and hit covered receivers 20 yards downfield. It's absolutely brutal to watch.
The poor roster falls precisely on FUChipKelly. The poor offensive schemes and play calls fall on the current coaching regime. Sadly, then, the misery of our football program falls on all of us.
This is all on the Martin Jarmond. When he came on board he should have recognized that Chip was cratering the program and started to compile of list of replacement coaches. Instead, he extended Chip's contract a couple of times and was unprepared when Chip resigned at the worst time. In his panic, Jarmond promotes a position coach to head coach and calls it a day, instantly putting Foster in a position to fail. What objective qualifications were used to justify this decision? What credibility do you think Foster has with his coordinators when he's never been a coordinator, much less a head coach? Chip left the program in shambles and Jarmond picks a total rookie to steer the ship?
Given the performance of the team so far, Foster's in-game decision-making and post-game responses, what do you think Jarmond is doing? Is he compiling and maintaining a list of replacement coaches in case the probable implosion occurs? Is he developing a presentation on his strategy to revitalize the football program as well as UCLA athletics overall to get the support of the incoming Chancellor? Nah, he's probably targeting a move to his next gig, which should be pretty soon, since he averages about 5 years per job.