I'll say up front, I am a USC fan. That being said, I don't understand why Coach Dorrell keeps bringing in guys who take such pride in the complexity of the offense. I think what has made USC's offense so effective over the years is its simplicity, there are only around 25 base plays or so. Though an SC fan I watch nearly all of UCLA's games and I think UCLA has much more offensive talent than is being utilized due to the complexity of the offense.

I strongly suggest that all Pac-10 offenses take the simplicity route that USC has chosen.

Brian - I know its a domino thing (i.e., Ben has to be sharp, the OL has to protect, the receivers have to get open, etc.) but in addition to Ben looking sharper, what can you say about the receivers getting open? I was told last year there was a problem getting off the LOS. Does that look improved to you in practice?

Here's another aspect that I hope he does better on than last year. I think he needs to do a better job of not telegraphing who his primary target will be, both just before the snap and before throwing the ball. I think defenses were able to read him, and the offense, much better than they should.

To the imposter of DeWayne Walker:

You have to admit though that your offense never has performed to the level it should have, right?
I came on here to make a simple comment about UCLA's offense, which I believe is a valid point. I guess if you want to be smart though, I guess we'll find out Dec. 1 huh?

To PH55.

UCLA's offense was just fine in 2005.

And to be frank, UCLA's offense did just fine in 2004 as well (look up Drew Olson's numbers for both 2004 and 2005).

In 2006 Ben Olson did fine 'till he was injured.

Frankly, your comment is not supported by facts (QB efficiency ratio, points per game vs. conference opponents.).

"I like simple offenses, like the one used by USC" - sincerely signed - Coach Walker

USC simplicity = 9 points.