Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Raiders' GM Begins The Purge

Cracks in the Armor

It has been interesting to read some of the comments that I have read around the Messages Boards and here on CC as well.

I think it's the first time in a long time that I have seen so much rancor on a part of the fans over this loss. And believe me A LOT is coming out.

It is safe to say that a bit of the SC soft white underbelly has been exposed and the fans are clamoring for answers. Some of those questions are legitimate and they really didn't become clear until now. Last year it was easy to point fingers at Kiffin in regards to play calling and such but he is gone and Sarkisian is now in charge. His being trained by Norm Chow was supposed to give us a sense of calm and that this season would be different than last season.

Anybody buying that?

Face it people Norm Chow isn't coming back and all the crap that people spew about PC running Chow out of town need to look at both sides of that situation. You are talking about two massive egos that could only work together for so long and from what I've heard this was more on Chow than it was on Carroll. I'm sure PC can be a real dream to work for when he wants things done his way so maybe Chow couldn't handle PC's way of doing things. Could PC have made a better choice in an OC? Sure but that time has passed and we are dealing with the here and now.

The fact is no team can continue to stay on top of the world in this sport and that SC has continued to be at the forefront is feat in and of it self. There are a ton of questions I have that I guess were always there but now they probably should be addressed.

It starts with the coaching staff. Anyone think that SC would be in this spot without Pete Carroll? Talk about Dumb F---ing Luck! Mike Garrett lucked out no question about it as NO ONE had any idea what Pete Carroll would bring to this program. PC did the right thing by hiring talent that knew the college game backwards and forwards. Chow, Oregeron and Davis knew how to recruit and work with these types of athletes and when you couple that with Pete Carroll's enthusiasm it is not hard to see why they picked off all the top talent and found a way to cultivate that talent into what we have seen the last 5 years.

Pete Carroll made it fun to root for USC again after all those years of sub par performance at the hands of Tolner, Smith and Hackett. (Robinson gets a pass with me because of what he was able to do in round one at SC and that win against Northwestern in the Rose Bowl was fine with me.) Pete Carroll did in a very short time what Bob Toledo and Karl Dorrell couldn't do at ucla, put his team on the national stage consistently during his respective tenure. I'm not talking about regional exposure but the type of attention that SC has had the past five years, good or bad - like it or not, where everyone wants to be a part of it. (To be fair you are seeing the same thing with Ben Howland across town.)

Nothing is ever perfect and when things are going great no one really worries about the flaws below the surface. Well those flaws are now staring us right in the face and a lot of fans want some answers or corrections.

My questions are quite simply these:

Is it really an open competition that takes place? I'm not saying that Sanchez would do better but how do we know and how was the competition between the two QB's meted out. Booty has shown a lot of loyalty to Carroll, as Booty did not made a stink while he waited his turn to get on to the field. So it appears that barring an injury PC will stick with Booty to work his problems out. That obviously flies in the face of an "open competition".

Why haven't the receivers progressed? Turner needs to learn to hang onto the ball. DC Trojan said it best to me today off line,"Sometimes I wonder if he's too busy thinking about what to do when he gets the ball". I think Turner is afraid to get hit. One solution is to throw it to at every turn, let him take the hits until he can do it while hanging on to the ball. Otherwise switch to corner or safety so you can deliver the hits.

You have some studs so why not use them? It was relayed to me elsewhere that Pete Carroll tends to shy away from players who are having problems i.e. Stanley Havili. Havili has blown some routes and dropped some passes and it was obvious that he was not going to be an option in the Stanford game. I have real problems with this as it obviously flies in the face of what I wrote above about Booty. Who else is PC going to go with at FB, Adewale? It was also relayed to me that it is clear that PC will live and die with this offensive scheme, as we have seen no imagination of late. Part of that was probably to rotate guys in to help get them a feel of real game experience so the plays need to be vanilla. The other part is probably to play down Booty's shortcomings.

Why hasn't Bradford seen more action? We have heard all this talk about how well he does in practice yet he doesn't get on the field. Washington is not the answer and his failure to score on 4th and short only makes matters worse when you have a player on the bench that can score on 4th and short. Once again sticking with Washington only stokes the fires of loyalty over who can get the job done. Mark my words Bradford will transfer if he doesn't see some playing time soon. Why didn't McKnight see any more action? Is he ready or not? Either play him or shut up about how great he is, stop baiting us.

How bad is the Offensive line?? Two guys go down and all of a sudden we are failures? If Ruel knew that he had some players that were having a hard time picking up line calls and assignments and hasn't fixed it, as was alluded to here, then what good is he? That says a lot about Pat Ruel to me. I'm sure there is some way to work with them without breaking the rules.

Here is an excerpt:

Pat Ruel - one of the great line coaches in the game - allowed me to sit in and watch film with the O-line during summer camp, and I remember being amazed that a few of the linemen who have been in the program for a few years still don't have a clue in terms of assignments and line calls.  I remember thinking at the time, "if these guys have to play, we are in trouble."  Well - these guys are playing and we are in trouble.

Whose fault is that?

How did we lose all the discipline? There are times when Scott Wolf drives me nuts but he nails this one here. I was so impressed that I have taken the whole thing.

One Word Sums It Up

Discipline.

USC committed 24 penalties in two games. When Ty Willingham beat a penalty-prone USC team during the Paul Hackett era, he made a comment that once a team gets used to penalties, it's hard to break the habit.

But discipline comes in other ways. Why are boosters allowed in the coaching area during games? The ref told a booster to "get out of here'' after he complained about a face mask penalty. This playpen mentality even bothers many in the athletic dept. and creates an unprofessional atmosphere.

Discipline also refers to my post last Friday about the office hours being kept the week of the Stanford game.

"I had a feeling we were taking them lightly, especially with the new quarterback,'' a high-placed member of the program told me.
I was told Stanford's offense was basic and did not require as much time to analyze. It sure looked successful in the fourth quarter.
Discipline also means having the sense to hire a special teams coach. There's been way too many penalties on special teams recently and it's because the responsibilities are basically farmed out through the staff.

There's a fine line between genius and hubris. When you win, it's genius, when you lose . . .

That's one pissed off alum who happens to cover the team. He also has a strong relationship with Carroll so I'm sure these questions were asked directly to PC.

The fact is the team follows the example set by the coaches and clearly the coaches took Stanford lightly as we could tell by the results.

I realize that Pete Carroll or his staff will probably never read this and if they do they will think I have no clue or are misinformed but look at what I asked carefully. We have been lead to believe that we have all this talent based on comments from the coaching staff and that only the best talent gets on the field yet over the past two weeks we have seen spotty or poor performances on the offense and no solutions put forth to fix them. If you think that you owe something to Booty or Washington then fine simply spell it out, we have supported you no matter what in the past so why wouldn't we now?

I also realize that some fans will disagree with me and that's fine too. All opinions are heard here and I welcome anyone who disagrees with me to point out where I'm wrong. I won't fly off the handle like they do elsewhere because an argument may or may not be based in fact. Emotional debate is fine; it is what being a fan is all about. I only want the best performance that SC can put on the field and if we lose, as long as we give it our best, I will be fine with it.

This season is not over but he staff is treading on thin ice in regards to the good will put forth towards this program by the fans. If the product stinks they will stop coming to games and it will be like the Hackett days with only 50,000 in the stands. Butts in the seats means money for the athletic department and money is always the bottom line. They also run the risk of missing out on recruits, if the recruits think that SC is all fluff and that top talent really doesn't get onto the field like advertised then they will look elsewhere.

I want this team to get back on track and I want them to use ALL the talent available not just the talent they think they owe something too.

FIGHT ON!

Comment 10 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Booty vs. Sanchez
Didn't they compete for the starting spot in spring practice? Didn't Booty beat out Sanchez for the spot then? Why the speculation now that there wasn't a competition?

As far as I know, nothing was altered out of a "sense of loyalty" to Booty. I'd assume his game time experience gave him an edge, but I don't have any reason to believe Sanchez didn't have a shot at the position. The natural extension of that argument is that Pete Carroll would knowingly choose to let his team founder out of a sense of loyalty to one player. Sorry. I don't buy that.

If Sanchez does get the start this week, I hope the fans aren't ready to crucify him if he isn't Leinart or Palmer.

by Defender90 on Oct 8, 2007 8:21 PM PDT reply actions  

I don't what the competition was...
But it was announced pretty fast that Booty would be named the starter.

But to me competition is always ongoing. Could it be that Booty has become comfortable enough in his position that maybe he has lost the edge? I know he says a lot of the right things about winning and all, but if there is no competition we can all get complacent. Booty has had 2 bad games in a row but we have heard noting from the staff that if it doesn't change a change should be made. Booty is what he is, an above average QB with a good arm and no mobility, opposing defenses have figured him out and the SC coaching staff has done nothing to offset those problems. Booty needs to focus; some people when pressure them they focus other fold like two-dollar suitcase so booty needs to be pressured into taking command of this offense.

It is interesting that you bring up game time experience. I said the same thing about Mitch Mustain when he transferred and I was criticized that Sanchez had more of an edge because he had 3 years in the SC offense. OK, so why not tap into that three years and pressure Booty in sharpening his game. Some things you can't teach and leadership is one of them. I could care less that Booty and Turner have similar southern roots or how well they get along. Booty needs to get in his, Turner's, face and tell him to smarten up and make some plays.

As far as Sanchez goes I am not sure that he is the answer but until he gets some reps we won't know. I don't expect him to be another Leinart or Palmer but I do know that one thing we will get with Sanchez that we won't get with Booty and that's mobility. It tougher to defend against a mobile QB who can make things happen on the run than it is to defend against a QB who consistently stares down his receivers and can't move efficiently out of the pocket.

There is no question that Pete Carroll is loyal to Booty. As I mentioned above "It was relayed to me elsewhere that Pete Carroll tends to shy away from players who are having problems i.e. Stanley Havili." I think that's true but it is selective. Booty has been atrocious yet PC sticks with him instead of looking at Sanchez. Havili has made some bone head plays and he disappears. You can't have it both ways either keep them in the game to work their problems out or put someone in who can get the job done.

We all want the same thing, the team to play a solid game and hopefully win. We are not doing that now.

by Paragon SC on Oct 9, 2007 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Very well said Paragon!
I'm 100% behind you in thought and analysis! Mobility (now that the line 40% decimated) is key to making defenses honest and it gives Sark more to work with in the playbook. O-line mistakes, WR-not staying in their routes, and backfield missed-blocks can be compensated (somewhat) with a mobile QB.

2 games is all I'm asking for with Sanchez in.

2 games.

JDB deserves more than just these past 5 games. He needs to get better (mentally and physically) and then he deserves to WIN US ALL BACK. His Rose Bowl is now finally over. I hope he knows it. I don't think we've all lost complete faith in his ability, we've lost our swagger. We've lost a lot of stuff, most of which is mental (injuries notwithstanding).

I want it back. And soon. (I happened to enjoy my smirk and smugness being a Trojan. Smugness is still intact. Smirk is now long gone)

by tapoutstylist on Oct 9, 2007 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Excellent point on Havili & Discipline
Anyone care to expand on Havili's limited role of late?  He seemed to be a big part early in the season, what happened?

The discipline has been lacking for sometime.  I believe that boils down to arrogance (look at all the unsportmanlike conduct penalties we've received).  Apparently it has flowed over onto the sidelines.

While we're on the subject of "lack of discipline", we haven't really heard Rey Maualuga's name called much this season.  Any insights?

by spn on Oct 8, 2007 8:32 PM PDT reply actions  

Rey Rey has been okay
He hasn't disappointed, it just that the scheme we play demands a different personality.

Probably the best Cover 2 middle linebacker (MIKE) I've ever seen is Brain Urlacher.  Did anyone see the Green Bay-Chicago game last Sunday?  In the second half Urlacher took away the entire middle of the field from the line of scrimmage to 15 years out.  It kept Favre from checking down to tight ends and took away the crossing routes.

In the Cover 2 the Mike must be able to play pass coverage.  No one does it better than Urlacher.  One MIKE that does it almost as well (but isn't as freakishly gifted as Urlacher) is Lofa.

Rey is more Ray Lewis or Mike Singletary than Urlacher or Lofa.  He's not that great on pass coverage, he'd rather kill people.  He's second on the team in tackles, but we do get burned every so often with pass plays up the middle.  His pass coverage skills are adequate at best, and I don't think he has an int this year.  IMO, if Lofa were playing the Mike, Stanford would not have converted the 4 and 20 over the middle.

by Zoulou on Oct 9, 2007 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

I just want
to see an outside running game.  Pretty please?

And maybe some deep passes to set up wheel routes for McKnight.  That'd be nice, too.

But what I really, really want is to see us run outside more often.

by Boy Howdy on Oct 9, 2007 7:49 AM PDT reply actions  

USC - dumb jocks?
Curious to see what you guys think of the LA Times article about the Cardinal geniuses vs the SC dumb jocks...
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-streeter9oct09,1,5856884.column?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctr ack=1&cset=true

The writer attempts to address the big issue of student athletes or professional athletes in training, but I think is more intent on embarrassing SC.

by uscny99 on Oct 9, 2007 9:28 AM PDT reply actions  

Disagree
He simply wrote about the obvious, that in order to have a consistently winning football program, you need to sacrifice graduation rates.  Berkeley's and  UCLA's grad rate is lower than ours, which he pointed out.  

by Zoulou on Oct 9, 2007 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

True
But he did attempt to paint picture that USC is all about winning at the expense of academics. I know USC will admit students to play that Stanford would not, but I don't believe USC's football team is a collection of academically inept jocks (at least for the most part) which is what he is implying.

Do you think USC has abandoned all standards in the pursuit of winning national championships?

by uscny99 on Oct 9, 2007 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

Disagree
I didn't get that impression at all.

Stanford is rare because even Northwestern will bend admission requirements for athletes, not a much as Michigan, but there are players on Northwestern that could not get into Stanford.  That reflects the reality that Northwestern has gone to bowl games three out of the last six years.  Stanford, zero.

by Zoulou on Oct 9, 2007 11:10 AM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Conquest Chronicles the SB Nation blog about the USC Trojans.

Community Guidelines

Managers

Images_small Paragon SC

Avatar2_small DC Trojan