- NEWS
- SPORTS
- Kobe hits Knicks with his best shot 39 minutes ago
- O.C. players make an impact in NFL
- Big-play Trojans? Not this season 2 hours & 17 minutes ago
- Hudler, Physioc let go by Fox
- BUSINESS
- O.C.Biz Wrap: Hot cars, cliff hanging homes 2 hours & 17 minutes ago
- Creatively enhanced home listing of the week 1 hour & 35 minutes ago
- Really? Housing regulator defaults on loans
- California workers see bad job market
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Grading the Trojans: USC’s coaching vs. Stanford
November 17th, 2008, 8:28 am · 2 Comments · posted by Michael Lev, staff writer
LEV’S GRADE: C-MINUS
Pete Carroll said he didn’t play up the payback angle with his players - and Stanford seemed to have the initial edge in intensity. Coincidence? Maybe not. Carroll took a similar approach heading into Oregon State - same old, same old in terms of preparation - and we know what happened there. Saturday’s game appeared to be headed in that direction for a while - I actually looked up the Holiday Bowl particulars at one point - before the usual Carroll-era second-half adjustments kicked in. Why it took Carroll and Steve Sarkisian so long to figure out their original pass-to-the-perimeter game plan wouldn’t work - and a blunt rushing attack would - baffled many of us in the press box. Even after the running game got going in the third quarter, Sarkisian called six consecutive pass plays at one point, including the one that ended with a Stanley Havili fumble. At least Sarkisian did adjust during the game. Likewise the defensive coaches. And special props to DL coach David Watson, who, according to linebacker Chris Galippo, detected the weakness in Stanford’s kick coverage that USC exploited for critical runbacks.
Now it’s your turn:
More grades to give out:
More from the USC blog:
- USC football: 100 games in, 15 losses bug Carroll the most
- USC football: Carroll takes shot at SEC
- USC football: Carroll says call against Turner was wrong
- USC football: McKnight aggravates toe injury
- USC football: Holding steady at No. 6 in BCS
- Five observations on USC-Stanford
2 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
ADVERTISEMENT
Consider:
- Coaching includes getting the players that the team has to work with on the field. CARROLL = A+
- Coaching includes practicing. Anyone who goes to a Pete Carroll USC practice (including media, coaches, and NFL scouts) rates them all = A+
- The first couple of years that Carroll was at USC, Norm Chow called the plays. It was known that USC would call a variety of plays to start the game. Some worked, some didn’t. The purpose was to see the opponent’s reaction. It was considered brilliant. Chow moved on, but under Sarkisian the same method is considered stupid.
People might recall and understand that the BCS Champion Trojans had to overcome a big first half lead by Stanford and other teams. This team wins by a ton, but the coaching is now dumb. Why? Pete Carroll created this entire offense. Chow had nothing to do with it - nothing. As he said , he just called the plays. Carroll created it by conferring with NFL coaches.
USC will continue to call a full scope of plays in the first half and adjust as needed. They always have and always will. In 100 games, Pete Carroll has only lost 15 by the total sum of 26 points. No team in the nation can say the same over that amount of time.
USC coaching = A+
Here’s my question, Doug: Why even bother putting together a game plan during the week if you’re just going to experiment with various plays at the start of the game?
Seems to me if you’re going to spend all this time scouting the opponent and working on specific plays that some of those plays should actually WORK.
Pete & Co. deserve all the credit in the world for their terrific in-game adjustments. I just don’t understand why they can’t START better.