I understand the coaches want to get Goforth on the field, but are worried about two small safeties. Is there any reason he doesn't just replace Wadood? Before he hurt his shoulder he was a better tackler, took much better angles, and was far better in coverage. Wadood's career to date involves bad angles, middling coverage, with the occasional somewhat big hit usually 10-15 yards down field. Am I missing something?
Do you get the feeling the dip in recruiting has anything to do with the bloom being off the rose? Mora has had his honeymoon and the usual recruiting bump that goes with being a new coach at UCLA (even KD pulled a decent class or two). But he hasn't won anything of note. Is that effecting the ability to sell the product? "Come to UCLA and finish in the top 5-6 in the PAC-12" obviously is not a rousing rallying cry.
It's been good to hear that UCLA has been able to run the ball, but is that a function of an improved offensive scheme? Better line play? Or the fact that everybody and their mother ran over UCLA last year (I think even Colorado pinned 250 on them)?
It sounds like the DB/WR battles have been fairly even, but it seems like DBs win a lot of the 1-on-1s. That drill is built for WRs to dominate. Is it that the coverage is that good or is UCLA still putting out very average to below average WRs?
Will UCLA run any situational 3-4? They have players on their roster who they recruited specifically to fit this scheme (namely their big AB 5 and 4 star replacements KLS and Brandt) and those guys don't really have a spot in the 4-3.
thanks for taking the time.
Do you get the feeling the dip in recruiting has anything to do with the bloom being off the rose? Mora has had his honeymoon and the usual recruiting bump that goes with being a new coach at UCLA (even KD pulled a decent class or two). But he hasn't won anything of note. Is that effecting the ability to sell the product? "Come to UCLA and finish in the top 5-6 in the PAC-12" obviously is not a rousing rallying cry.
It's been good to hear that UCLA has been able to run the ball, but is that a function of an improved offensive scheme? Better line play? Or the fact that everybody and their mother ran over UCLA last year (I think even Colorado pinned 250 on them)?
It sounds like the DB/WR battles have been fairly even, but it seems like DBs win a lot of the 1-on-1s. That drill is built for WRs to dominate. Is it that the coverage is that good or is UCLA still putting out very average to below average WRs?
Will UCLA run any situational 3-4? They have players on their roster who they recruited specifically to fit this scheme (namely their big AB 5 and 4 star replacements KLS and Brandt) and those guys don't really have a spot in the 4-3.
thanks for taking the time.
