Now that we "worked" the 2nd worst Pac-10 team - annihilated the worst defense in the Pac-10 and dominated the 7th worst offense in the Pac-10 - the Dorrell cultists and MSM apologists are out in full force.  Even on our site, a Dorrellista is saying that Dorrell is now off the hot seat.  It's to be expected.  We will hear more of this the next 2 weeks when we play equally bad (Oregon St.) and worse (Notre Dame) teams.  5-1 and these cultists are going to be reviving talk of Pac-10 championship and Dorrellian glory.

And it's not just the cult and the MSM apologists that are bringing the righteous talk. It's Dorrell himself, in full self-preservation mode. Check our this odd bit of chest-thumping:

"We needed a difference in me this week,'' he said. "It was important for me to coach hard. I have good coaches on this staff, but I'm the added coach who is coaching every area. I was trying to emphasize what my role is given the circumstances from the week before. I like challenges and being put up to the task like this. I answered the bell, and I'm going to continue answering the bell like I did this week."

Huh?!? "I answered the bell" … "I'm the added coach" … "coach hard." Wow.  Dorrell just sprinkled some magic Dorrell fairy dust on the other coaches this week … and Kaazaam … a win!  Hi-larious.  How does he come up with this stuff??  Dorrell just set himself up for a big fall when we next lose and put in an embarrassing performance.  He won't be able to point the finger of blame so easily again, although knowing Dorrell he'll find some new way.  But it would be fun to be at the presser … here are some questions we would ask:

1. "Karl … was it just a case of you not adding enough Dorrell to the coaching staff?"
2. "Karl … did you hear the bell?"
3. "Karl … it looked like you were taking it easy out there on the field today … did you feel you coached hard?"

We could go on ….  We all know what's coming. Dorrell could save himself obviously by winning out, winning the Pac-10.  But, the writing is on the wall.  Quotes and actions such as those from Dorrell and his staff since the beginning of Summer, and particularly the last few weeks, and Dorrell yesterday, demonstrate beyond any doubt that they know it too.  Finally, there are even those in the MSM that are going public with clear evidence that there is similar talk among the powers that be, from Mike Waldner, Daily News:

Like all coaches, Dorrell lectures about finishing games. To be blunt about it, his career with the Bruins could be winding down. 

More to the point:

Speculation already has started. Bruins insiders think - Dorrell's NFL resume to the contrary - Guerrero has another NFL assistant in mind. Others think he is looking at a coach at a smaller college program. Common sense dictates he take a hard look at USC offensive coordinator Steve Sarkisian.

This is great.  But you all know what we think about hiring unproven inexperienced head coaches, so this Sarkisian talk is ridiculous. We've gone down that road with absolute failure for drawn out periods (Bill Barnes, Farmer - UCLA player and NCAA champion, Hazzard - UCLA player and NCAA champion, Toledo, Lavin, Dorrell - UCLA player).  On the other hand, all of our successful coaches had proven experience and came from OUTSIDE the program (Wooden, Red Sanders, Prothro - although he had been a UCLA assistant, Pepper Rodgers, Vermeil, Harrick, Howland).  What more evidence do we need??!!!  Donahue, a Bruin assistant promoted to his first head coaching job at UCLA, had some great seasons, but ended his career on a solidly mediocre streak. He fits in neither category.

We love that talk of coaching change is out there and hitting the MSM .. that is what is important. Dan Guerrero has a chance to do something special by bringing in the right football coach.   Let's hope he gets the message deeply embedded in our history … proven experience works for UCLA!!! 

Bookmark to: