.vresize.36.36.medium.0.png){kind=small}
.vresize.36.36.medium.0.png){kind=small}
Go Joe Bruin continues the position group analysis of the UCLA Football team post-2016 as we now examine the receivers heading into 2017.
There was not a lot of good coming from the UCLA Football team’s receiving game. Despite the fact that they managed 295.6 receiving yards per game, there were a lot of factors that kept the Bruins from really making an impact, even before their starting quarterback went down.
RELATED STORY: UCLA Football Position Group Analysis – Quarterbacks, Running Backs
The biggest problem was dropped balls. Not only did UCLA leave a lot of yards out on the field, but they killed key drives in every single game they played. So what do we have to look forward to next year?
The State of the Receivers
The Bruins were forced to rely on their passing game due to the fact that the run game was non-existent. After starting the season with power elements (which did include bits of the spread), former Offensive Coordinator Kennedy Polamalu reverted back to pass-heavy spread style halfway through the season.
This was an interesting move, especially after Josh Rosen was out for the season due to a shoulder injury he suffered in game 6 vs. Arizona State. With backup QB MIke Fafaul in for the Bruins, things did not improve.
As the season went on, Fafaul and his receivers seemed to connect less and less. By the last three games, the receiving game took a hit not just becuase receivers were dropping balls, but because Fafaul was not giving his receivers the opportunity to catch said balls.
Throwing the ball away and throwing inaccurate passes were the norm and because of it, UCLA’s offense suffered another setback.
2016 Key Stats
Darren Andrews: 55 catches, 709 yds, 12.9 yards per catch, 4 TD, 59.1 yards per game
Jordan Lasley: 41 cat, 620 yds, 15.1 ypc, 5 TD, 56.4 ypg
Nate Iese: 25 cat, 400 yds, 16.0 ypc, 4 TD, 36.4 ypg
Kenneth Walker: 22 cat, 365 yds, 16.6 ypc, 4 TD, 33.2 ypg
Eldridge Massington: 20 cat, 285 yds, 17.4 ypc, 1 TD, 31.7 ypg
Austin Roberts: 15 cat, 261 yes, 17.4 ypc, 1 TD, 23.7 ypg
Caleb Wilson: 16 cat, 220 yds, 13.8 ypc, 0 TD, 18.3 ypg
Ishmael Adams: 20 cat, 178 yds, 8.9 ypc, 0 TD, 16.2 ypg
Theo Howard: 12 cat, 88 yds, 7.3 ypc, 1 TD, 11.0 ypg
Key Losses
Ishmael Adams – graduation
Kenny Walker – graduation
Nate Iese – graduation
2017 Recruits
No current commits for 2017
Nov 26, 2016; Berkeley, CA, USA; UCLA Bruins wide receiver Theo Howard (14) catches the football against the California Golden Bears during the second quarter at Memorial Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Neville E. Guard-USA TODAY Sports
Potential 2017 Depth Chart
WR: Darren Andrews, Stephen Johnson III, Mossi Johnson
WR: Theo Howard, Audie Omotosho, Damian Alloway
WR: Jordan Lasley, Alex Van Dyke, Eldridge Massington
TE: Caleb Wilson, Austin Roberts, Jordan Wilson
What’s Working
The good news is that there are a lot of young players waiting in the wings. The Bruins’ 2016 recruiting class brought in a few good receivers which could make an impact in 2017.
Theo Howard started that trend this year and despite being a receivers with some of the best hands, other less productive WRs were chosen over him. Although it seemed as though the coaching staff were correcting that error late in the season as he caught seven passes in the final three games (just over half of his season total), roster mismanagement was apparent.
The Bruins also have their two best and most consistent receivers returning. Lasley and Andrews (a 2016 All-Pac-12 Honorable Mention) should be the #1 and 2 WRs next year and will bring a little bit of stability to the receiving group.
The TE position also gave the passing game another dimension. Nate Iese was a key factor in this area and although he is graduating, the TEs look to be in good hands with Caleb Wilson.
The passing game will improve with the return of Rosen, but development of receivers also has to take a step forward.
What Needs To Improve
First off, catching the the ball seems to be a no-brainer. Receivers are brought in to receive. If they cannot, then they need to be off the field.
That leads to roster management. The coaches need to put in the best receivers that can catch the ball and make plays. If underclassmen are playing better than the veterans, then the young guns should be given a chance.
UCLA also needs to get the run going so the receivng game can be more effective. Whatever style Head Coach Jim Mora and his new OC decide on, needs to be one that is tailored to their players.
More from Go Joe Bruin
UCLA cannot force the ball downfield through the air. They are not Cal or Washington State. They do not have the receivers for that style of game. UCLA must address what kind of WRs they do have and game plan around that. The Bruins have talent, but they now need a plan and to execute that plan.
This article originally appeared on 
