Kiffin says offensive veterans better step uo in the spring or...

[chrisgalippo]

Originally Posted by SColdtimer

and they admit it and bounce back from it. Read John McKay's autobiography. What set him apart was that he didn't make excuses for USC's down years. He accepted responsibility and admitted where he was at fault and worked hard to make whatever corrections there were that needed to be made. The buck always stopped with him and no where else.

McKay took a long walk with assistant coach Dave Levy after the 51-0 loss to ND and worked out where he was at fault and what changes USC needed to make so something like this never happened again. USC won three NCs after that.

Every CFB team faces inexperience or a slew of injuries each year, that they can use to explain away a poor performance.

You can't just explain away giving up 47 and 55 points in two out of three games. USC has never done that in the history of its football program. Tell me who was injured on defense and out during those two games? Almost all of the players that started the year were on the field for those games.

USC had a veteran offensive line even with O'Dowd's injury and had experienced receivers and running backs. Yet the Trojans were 64th in the country in scoring last year. They averaged 26 points a game.

I agree with Kiffin that its time for the veterans to show up and step up. They need to raise their games and play with the same intensity or greater than Oregon and Stanford did last year or..." The pine is the greatest motivator there is, because everyone wants to play.But USC's problems last year diidn't come from injuries or lack of talent.

The Trojans don't have an advantage talent wise in their depth chart over any team in the Pac 10.

USC had injuries. TE Anthony McCoy hurt his ankle and then disappeared the 2nd half of the season. He had 153 receiving yards in the ND game and then he's gone. TEs Rhett Ellison and Blake Ayles didn't make the most of their opportunities because of key drops.

Seniors on any CFB team can have their eyes on the NFL the second half of the season. The old saying is juniors want to win, seniors have their eyes on the NFL. That can be overcome with great coaching. Carroll's appeal to Sanchez to stick around sounded kind of hollow with Pete leaving the following year.

Problems like Joe McKnight driving around in a new Range Rover don't help.

I do think USC had some problems with focus last year.

Corps injury was a bad thing, but I think the coaching staff was looking for a reason to start Matt Barkley. Barkley was the QB that Carroll and Bates wanted.

Barkley's shoulder injury hurt USC in their Pac 10 opener against Washington. But the Trojans marched down the field for two scores to start the game and then went flat the rest of the game. It wasn't injuries that caused USC to settle for a FG toward the end of the 4th quarter. It was a lack of push by the offensive line. And it wasn't injuries that allowed Jake Locker to drive the team down for a winning score. USC lost the Washington game and Arizona game because they lacked intensity.

Did you see how Nebraska pushed Arizona around?

After the Oregon game and Stanford games the USC players were saying, "we just didn't prepare for what they were doing." The truth is Pac 10 teams have become comfortable with what USC is doing. One of the reasons they have caught up is USC doesn't change up from game to game. They know what to expect, because USC hasn't given them enough to think about.

It's going to be interesting watching both Kiffins week to week adjustments. Your first year of coaching you are way behind anywhere. It takes time to communicate core philosophies and schemes to each position and evaluate players.

But you can bring a new intensity. Carroll would have done that if he stayed. Howard Jones and John McKay and any great coach have new beginnings and fresh starts in their programs. There is a great book written in 2004 about Joe Paterno. It's called the Lion on the Throne. It was written before Penn St made its comeback. But it shows the changes Joe Paterno made in what he and his coaches and players were doing to recapture the intensity that Penn St played with.

USC isn't starting over. It is getting a fresh start. That could have happened with Pete Carroll at the helm. Pete's the best coach I've ever seen. No one has ever brought more joy to preparation, practice and play than Pete Carroll.

I wish he was still here at USC.

We don't know how good Lane Kiffin is as a head coach. But I think we can say with assurance he's put a great staff together, and he's going to have some very talented players on the field this spring and August.

Which Pac 10 team would you have traded talent with last year? USC made lemons out of lemonade in 2009. Maybe that sounds too black and white. But 5-4 in the Pac 10 is a pretty objective indicator of the Trojans performance.

This is USC we are talking about. It's okay to expect greatness!

damn...it's good to read Oldtimer's posts!

[SColdtimer]

A great coach brings spirit, example, agenda and order to a football program.

You have to have the right example to put before players, you have to have the right agenda to develop players and you have to have order to be a disciplined team. And coaches like Orgeron bring those things.

Ed Orgeron was Pete's hammer. He is a very demanding coach. Look at the drop off in play of the defensive line in Franklin's two year's in 2005 and 2009. Norm Chow was also very demanding in a different kind of way and also very tough.

A coach like Orgeron brings a ferocious competitive spirit.

When you bring Ed's fiery intensity meets the defensive line's natural ability and athleticism you have something going.

Erik McKinney had a great interview with the DL this month. Nick Perry said, "Orgeron forces you to be disciplined. He's about being tough all the time on and off the field. He makes you work hard every time you step on the field and give it all you got."

Players like Perry and Armstead need their roles defined and we will see that under Monte Kiffin and Ed Orgeron. Perry said, "They are still evaluating us. Everything's open and I don't know what will happen when the season starts."

USC isn't starting over with Kiffin, it's getting a fresh start.

We are not sure how Kiffin will do, but if he continues to recruit well and has a strong staff he will do well.

I've seen 11 USC head coaches. I would have to put Pete at the top.

If I was rating staffs I would be John McKay's staffs far and above the staffs USC has had since 2004. McKay coached through his staffs. He was a very good recruiter and evaluator of talent.

Pete Carroll's record stands alone among Trojan coaches.

The Pac 10 was probably tougher in the 60's and 70's. Washington was a real powerhouse. The OOC schedule USC played in the AAWU was the killer of all time. ND has some all time great teams in the 60's and 70's and Stanford had some terrific teams from '69-72. UCLA had some great teams as well,

But no one came close to Pete Carroll when it came to recruiting.

It was just time for Carroll to go to the NFL. He left unfinished business there and it became a distraction.

Comparing McKay and Carroll is like comparing Reggie Bush and OJ Simpson. Bush's stats look better. But I saw them both play. No one's has ever had the speed, power and ability to make people miss like Simpson. Opposing defenses were stacked against Simpson and he still pushed them backwards.

Bo Jackson was the only RB of Simpson's size who had Simpson's speed. But Simpson was much more shifty. OJ was the best I've ever seen.

[CactusDave]

Originally Posted by trajan

It is very difficult to compare the different eras but I think that most USC fans would say that John McKay was the better all around coach.

It's not very difficult to compare the results against the common rivals (UCLA and Notre Dame) whom both coaches faced every year. It's not very difficult to compare the results against the traditional PAC opponents who both coaches faced although McKay didn't have to contend with the Arizona schools. It's not very difficult to compare Rose Bowl results or results against the Big 10, or number of times a coach may have finished in the top 5.

The only thing that requires speculation is how many national titles McKay would have won had he coached in the BCS era versus Carroll coaching in the old bowl system. By any fair measure, you'd have to conclude that Carroll's results would have improved and McKay's results would have diminished.

Originally Posted by trajan

I think that your argument in support of Pete Carroll fails when you try to criticize the greatness of Norm Chow and what he meant to the success of USC.

This argument has been had a 100 times before on this board.

Chow hasn't accomplished anything for anybody since he left Carroll's staff prior to 2005. It's far easier to make the argument that suggests that Chow's success was predicated off of the fact that he coached with Pete as opposed to the converse argument. Pete's teams enjoyed plenty of success after Chow left.

Originally Posted by trajan

Pete Carroll seemed to fall apart without a decent offensive coordinator to work with.

That perspective doesn't fit with the results. Carroll strung together a decade of winning teams accomplished by a handful of other coaches in the past 50 years and McKay's not one of them. John McKay was a great coach but in his 16 or so years as head coach he had a half a dozen teams that finished with 4 losses in an era where teams ordinarily played 10 game seasons.

So when you say Pete "fell apart" and you're trying to compare him with McKay? I can't imagine how you're characterizing those seasons where McKay's teams were completely out of the college football discussion as total non factors. 6 times in 16 years with 4 or more losses in 10 win seasons? Another 3 or 4 times where McKay's teams lost 3 games. Nearly half the seasons under McKay, SC was a very mediocre team.


Pete Carroll's teams were practically always top 5 finishers. Again the results don't support your conclusions.

Originally Posted by trajan

When I talk about taking USC to the next level I really mean catching up to the game of college football as it is being played today. Will we run some wildcat or spread offense?

As long as we win. You know I realize that McKay is deserving of credit for the I formation. But it's not as if his offenses were hugely imaginative. This is a place where it's fair to say that it's tough to compare different eras. I don't care what offense Lane decides to run if he's successful at it. But I don't believe that it has to include the spread in order for it to succeed.

Originally Posted by trajan

Will Monte Kiffin's "bend but don't break defense" be able to stop the spread if we are not facing it all the time in practice? What is coach Kiffin's signature offensive style? Will he be able to develop the quarterback positions on the level that we saw with Norm Chow or even Steve Sarkissian?

Just win baby!

Originally Posted by trajan

We fell flat when we were not able to develop quarterbacks on the level as before.

PAC 10 titles, dominance over OOC teams, top 5 finishes, dominance over the Big 10, dominance over UCLA and Notre Dame, Rose Bowl victories, 2 national titles. If that's falling flat then you're in for a rude awakening in the years ahead my young friend.

Originally Posted by trajan

Coach Kiffin will need to show some excellence in some part of the offensive game in order for USC to succeed. The innovating(next level) part is when we start to do that something on offense better than everyone else.

We need to EXECUTE our offense with precision and excellence more than we need to concern ourselves with INNOVATING IMO.

[1OlRugr]

Last year we did lack intensity at times - too often - on both sides of the line. But what about 1:1 player skill match-ups?

We used to recruit ALL of the best (or nearly so) players, both sides of the line, leaving the next-best for the other schools. Now, the number of schools and players have increased, and so have their skills due at least in part to better coaches and coaching. We can no longer bag all the best players (even if there were no scholarship limitations), and considering academics and geographic preferences, an increasing number of the best players go elsewhere.

My point - and I'm guessing at this - we can no longer blow people away (offense and defense) based on fielding better players than the other guys in all positions, some yes, but not all, because the other guys recruited some 4- and 5-stars also. We just don't dominate on player ability like we used to.

So now, is there more of a premium on better coaches and coaching, and well-planned game strategies? We could formerly count on running the same schemes, the same sets, essentially the same assignments game-after-game, season-after-season, simply because we could and get away with it. Not only have the other schools figured us out, but they also have some damn good players (last year's example; Stanford's OL!).

My question really is; don't we really have to change away from the "same old thing" in order to now win consistently?

[yah2002]

In McKay's defense, the ruin and domer teams that CPC faced were pitifully mediocre. No comparison. None of the 2000-2009 domer teams belonged in the same area code as some of those that CJMc faced as SC's coach. Waaay more difficult task for McKay in his era, than PC.

Loved what CPC did bringing the program back from life support...but it's impossible to try and compare eras in any sport.

[SColdtimer]

You never want players or a program thinking the same old thing. McKay had some tough years. USC had some very good players in '70 and '71 and just didn't live up to expectations. I'm not just talking about the fans or writiers expectation but John McKay's. He always said winning is harder than losing. It's very hard to keep on winning.

Fresh starts are not staring over. It's just keep things fresh. Sometime you have to wash and air things out.

Also, it's hard to compare eras. In 1963 USC played Colorado, #3 Oklahoma, Michigan St, ND and Ohio St to open the season and then they had to go to Seattle and play a very strong Washington team.

It was more of the same in '64-67. USC played a brutal schedule in the 60's and rivals ND and UCLA were national powers.

USC, under Carroll, played a tough OOC, but not as tough as under McKay. USC's rivals were much stronger when McKay coached and Washington was a powerhouse. The Pac 10 today has probably been weaker than the Pac 8 was in the 60's and early 70's.

[Tamatoa916]

Our team is stacked with 4 and 5 star players. While the rest of the PAC is adding a few more here and there, they still are far behind.

I do not think that Kiffin needs to change the pro-style offense. He has already, wih Coach O and the rest of the staff, started to change the mindset of these creme of the crop ball players. I think that is the biggest area where our players need the kick in the Arse. They need to be mentally tough, and play tough, fast, physical football for 4 quarters.

I believe that this refreshed approach will lead us to the PAC 10 title this upcoming year. With full effort from the squad, Kiffin could probably run the exact same offense from his previous stint, and DOMINATE. We have that kind of talent where if they play with the mindset that Coach O and crew are instilling for 4 full quarters, there isn't a team that can handle us.

just my 2 cents

[mrcommodore18]

Originally Posted by Tamatoa916

I believe that this refreshed approach will lead us to the PAC 10 title this upcoming year. With full effort from the squad, Kiffin could probably run the exact same offense from his previous stint, and DOMINATE. We have that kind of talent where if they play with the mindset that Coach O and crew are instilling for 4 full quarters, there isn't a team that can handle us.

just my 2 cents

I tend to believe this as well. Last year's squad lacked experience at many key positions, but most importantly, had absolutely no sense of discipline when it was needed the most. A hard worth ethic, and renewed competition and vigor within the team will do wonders.

[1OlRugr]

Originally Posted by Tamatoa916

Our team is stacked with 4 and 5 star players. While the rest of the PAC is adding a few more here and there, they still are far behind.

I do not think that Kiffin needs to change the pro-style offense. He has already, wih Coach O and the rest of the staff, started to change the mindset of these creme of the crop ball players. I think that is the biggest area where our players need the kick in the Arse. They need to be mentally tough, and play tough, fast, physical football for 4 quarters.

I believe that this refreshed approach will lead us to the PAC 10 title this upcoming year. With full effort from the squad, Kiffin could probably run the exact same offense from his previous stint, and DOMINATE. We have that kind of talent where if they play with the mindset that Coach O and crew are instilling for 4 full quarters, there isn't a team that can handle us.

just my 2 cents

I'll throw in my 2 cents with yours . . . and hope like hell. This could indeed be exciting!
Fighting On!