Brief Thoughts on the Win over Idaho
I had to drive into work this morning to do a little prep work for Tuesday's cases. Sunday morning at 6:30 in NYC is a very quiet time, quiet enough to get some thoughts together.
First some history.
In 2004 and 2005 we saw one of the greatest offensive machines in the history of college football. We were spoiled to big wins and we dominated just about everyone we played and we were the toast of town no one can argue that there won't be another offense like that for some time regardless of the talent that is amassed. Coming into last season the questions were how do we recover with all the talent that walked out the door we did a pretty good job of having a productive season finishing the season with a win in the Rose Bowl but we didn't finish the job, as we didn't get to the title game. In 2007 pretty much all of the offensive talent form 2004 and 2005 has left Heritage Hall leaving a new crop of talent to carry on that which Pete Carroll started in 2001. There is no question that continues to be at the top of the college football hierarchy in terms of recruiting, preparation and all around enthusiasm of the game. You will be hard pressed to find a more motivated guy in the business and he always finds a way to get and keep his players heads in the game regardless of the outcome. But because we were so used to almost total domination anything less makes it look like we aren't prepared .
I know I mentioned that we weren't going to crazy about analyzing last nights game but a few things do stand out that should be looked at. Prior to signing of I got an email from a friend who as also watching the game that said in all of the time that he has been watching Pete Carroll at USC he has never seen a team that was "clearly the most disinterested I've ever seen USC in a game in the Carroll era and shockingly coach did nothing to rev them up." That's is a direct quote and I put it up because after I thought about it on the drive in this morning and he is very right. I am not sure what a dynasty in college football is, but USC has come close to achieving that with their constant prominence at the top of the college football landscape. I mentioned last night that we have been spoiled with big games and big wins on opening day and while last night was a win some will say it was not a convincing win. Fine, but I look at some of the other teams in the 5 or 6 spots in the polls and I'm not seeing any convincing wins over top teams in week #1. Everyone essentially played cupcakes and they either lost like UM or blew the other team out which isn't saying much. OU's 79 to whatever blasting of North Texas isn't much of a barometer. Texas also struggled with Arky St.
SC has had it share of injuries in training camp and that still leaves some questions, as we didn't see the complete unit that we want on the field at one time. So PC and staff will plug in the back ups and get them some time. And because those guys on the second string probably didn't see a lot of work in camp it doesn't surprise me that thy looked rusty.
Things that I liked:
The Offensive Line - Kris O'Dowd did a great job starting as a true freshman at center. The whole line did a great job of protecting Booty and making some holes for the running backs.
- The Running Backs - I know a lot has been said about not a having a dominant running back but Johnson and Gable I think did a great job in alternating the carries all of the available RB's saw some duty last night but I was generally pleased with the production. McKnight's fumble was rookie mistake and will be corrected but his cut back run seemed like he was barely moving and it gave us a taste of things to come.
- The Fullback - Havili did exactly what I thought he would do. What difference a year makes as he has really settled into the position. It was great to see him get a TD and he really is a threat out of the backfield. If he is healthy last December SC beats the bruins and we go to the title game a healthy fullback is worth their weight in gold.
- The Receivers - it is hard to compare groups of receivers once they hav moved on but it is safe to say that Ausberry and Hazelton are going to be just fine. Turner will get in the groove as well but they made some great plays last night and that only bodes well for their confidence. I was bummed when Ausberry dropped that pass in the end zone as that was a sure 6 points, he will need to make that play in the future. Hazelton one-handed grab was reminiscent of both Big Mike Williams and Dwayne Jarrett's receiving exploits. We will be fine at the receiver spot.
- The Secondary - I was not happy that SC gave up 122 yards in the second qtr. alone, most of it in the air. If we are going to be billed the best secondary in the country we need to do better than that.
- The Linebackers - On Idaho's very first drive I saw Rey Maualuga once again over pursue the run giving the opposing RB a hole to go through for extra yardage. I don't care how fast these guys are if they aren't going to stop them from getting extra yardage on routine plays or if they are going to allow the big plays then to me their speed is immaterial. The 2nd string LB's did a decent job when they were in the game.
- The Defensive Line - while they did an OK job of getting some penetration I would have been happy with a few more sacks or just more consistent pressure on the Idaho QB.
- Turnovers - We were -2 in turnovers last night. I mentioned the McKnight Fumble already but the Booty Int. was inexcusable and Hazelton should have done a better job of getting between the defender and the ball. Though it was late McDonald's Int. resulted in Idaho's only TD. Rey almost had almost had a Pick 6 but the he Idaho RB was clearly down so it came back.
- - -

Booty had an OK night with some good numbers: 21/32 206 yds 3 TD 1 Int., but if he is in the hunt for the Heisman this didn't take any votes from those he is competing with as it looked as if he just wasn't crisp. And that one tipped pass brought back some nightmares. So what about the shotgun formation we all heard so much about?
With two weeks to prepare for Nebraska in Lincoln it will give some players some time to heal and hopefully work out some of the kinks. Like I said I don't want to get crazy over this game but these were some things that I noticed in last nights game.
Below are the drive charts from last night's game





0 recs |
4 comments
Comments
Points
Size, Linebackers and Depth at RB
As weakness he listed the corners and speed at wide receiver.
He then said the Defensive Line was adequate.
Of course, the WEARSC.COM crowd, as well as more than a few of Wolf's Blog commenters said he the scout was crazy, escpecially about the defensive line.
I think that after last night, the NFL scout is right on target.
First, the LB's are our strength. Early in the first quarter, Rey Rey did hit a hole too hard and took himself out of a play, but overall he played well. He had INT for a TD that was called back and he almost had a sack. Rivers was all over the field and I didn't see alot of drop off when Matthews came in for Cushing. Luther Brown even had a sack.
As for the RB's, the only issue is establishing a good rotation that keeps everyone happy but does not upset the tempo. Rhythm and tempo were off at a few points.
We still lack a fast deep threat at WR. After the game Carroll told Paul MacDonald that Idaho's free safety was playing as deep as he had ever seen. That may account for the lack of any deep passing game, but then I think WR will be a sore spot all year until someone emerges.
The biggest issue we have is our corners. I'm not sure if it's the talent or the coaching, but they just are not that good in the cover 2. I would hesitate to say that our entire secondary needs work because I don't remember Idaho completing many passes over the middle of the field -- Ellison and Mays effectively took it away. Most of the big pass plays were in open areas of the zone near the sidelines, just behind the corners, before the safeties could get there, and these usually occurred when we blitzed. PC loves thoses zone blitzes, but you need good corners, and we really don't have them.
This leads up to the D-Line. It looked like we blitzed a lot. That's not good, especially in the cover 2. If you have to blitz to get pressure on the QB in the cover 2, you'll be in trouble. That's what made the 2003 - 2004 teams so great, the Cody - Patterson line really carried that defense. They seem good against the run (ignore the fact that the Idaho TB gained 99 yards -- 40 of those yards were in the 4th quarter against our 2nd and scout team players).
The other issue is Booty. He's very good. He's not Heisman quality good (Brohm and that kid from BC are Heisman quality good), but he's still very good. He'll make great throws, but then at least once a game he'll do something that will make you scream. His pick was not Hazelton's fault, the free safety read it all the way and broke right in front of Hazelton. It's not that Booty locks into receivers as much as he seems to suffer from occasional boughts of "Sex Cannonitis," named after Bears QB Rex Grossman after his tendency to refuse to throw the outlet pass and instead fling it downfield regardless of where the free safety is. It looked to me like he got sick of dumping the pass off and he just forced this one downfield. He did thing all last year, in the OSU game and the WSU game. Unfortunately with that pick he killed all momentum.
If we had scored on that drive, we would have hung 50 easily, and today no one would be wringing their hands.
by Zoulou on
Sep 2, 2007 6:46 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Great points
by Paragon SC on
Sep 2, 2007 7:25 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Do you think 40+ point spread was ????
I'd say: yes, hell no, and not if you're profligate with your money.
Is any 40+ point win/loss prediction valid in this day and age of competition between competing NCAA Div. 1 universities?
I mean I can understand college ball media analysts not giving Idaho much a chance against USC, but first games are a chore for ANY team anywhere in college football. All I'm saying is, contextually- with regards to USC's/Idaho's programs- would lead us to believe that 40+ point outcome predictions are apodictic, I say- no way.
I thought the game would end in a 43-10 USC victory. And even then, I thought I was "high"- literally and figuratively. Any thoughts Paragon? (great charts and commentary btw) Lastly, any word on Cushing?
by tapoutstylist on
Sep 2, 2007 11:59 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't gamble on sports...
I'll play craps on occasion for a little excitement, but when it comes to sports a win is a win and I have never understood what the spreads are for or how and/or why they are determined.
by Paragon SC on
Sep 3, 2007 5:36 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs






