What's The Rush?
Pete Carroll on the close outcome: ``We're not getting any sacks. We are not getting any turnovers. Those are major changes and we need them and we're just not doing it. Until we make those things happen, games are going to be close.''

Comments
NEWS FLASH: The 2006 USC Trojans suck!
Posted by: eftzoons | October 7, 2006 05:42 PM
Maybe a change in practice routine is necessary. Sack Monday, Turnover Tuesday, Sack Wednesday, Turnover Thursday, Sack Friday. PAC-10 teams know what makes SC click and have game-planned appropriately. When things aren't working, smart people make changes. Show us you're smart.
Posted by: roger | October 7, 2006 05:48 PM
Well I think that guys like Stanbeck are tough to sack, I mean give the guy some credit (Stanback) but Brink on the other hand, I can't understand how we didn't get to him in 47 attempts
As for the turnovers, if we are not getting any, at least we shouldn't be giving them any
Posted by: TrojanHorse | October 7, 2006 05:57 PM
eftzoons I can't tell if you are joking or not but anyone that thought USC would just roll over teams after losing 90% of their O is delusional. The fact is we are struggling but still undefeated. There are experienced teams that don't have half of USCs issues that have lost games already I thought we would lose 2 games this season with all those losses and it seems true. I'll take 12 - 6 pt wins if that means we're 12-0 at seasons end
Posted by: tyler | October 7, 2006 06:57 PM
Very bad Holt!!! Very bad!!! That was descracefull defense!!!
Posted by: Rob | October 7, 2006 11:31 PM
Key point to remember...On three separate Wash. possessions we had a defender have an easily catchable ball for an interception that was dropped.
Posted by: PH55 | October 7, 2006 11:55 PM
Yeah PH, but by the same account, how many of Booty's balls should have been picked? And how many fumbles did SC have that they recovered or went OB?
Posted by: roger | October 8, 2006 12:52 AM
The team is young and inexperienced, yet undefeated. That's fine with me. So they seem a little more human, winning games the way they're won throughout the rest of the country. Name 2 or 3 teams besides Ohio St. that have impressed you the way SC and Texas did last season. You can't. College football changes from year to year and that's why I love it. Who cares if we're winning by 1 point or 30 points. The fact still remains that we're on our way to an undefeated season still and until we can't say that, things are good. It takes time for people to step up when there are so many positions being filled, but there are positive things to note from the last couple of weeks that show this is happening:
-Mauluaga's monster game against AZ
-Steve Smith's career day at WSU
-Patrick Turner had 12 receptions and a TD yesterday!
-Booty has consistently done a good job driving us down the field when we need it most
-Chauncey is running like he's finally healthy
One day, hopefully soon, all these pieces will come together and we'll have the game everyone is hoping for, but until then, I don't care how we win, as long as we keep doing it.
Fight On!
Posted by: RR22 | October 8, 2006 08:59 AM
PH:
Let's also not forget that SC should have had at least 3 picks in the second half but dropped them all. We need to work on our INT drills this week to get over the latest 2 week trend of dropping balls.
Posted by: PCB | October 8, 2006 09:42 AM
I think this is a serious concern - no sacks. What's the famous defensive motto - "the best pass defense is a pass rush". Normally one of two things have happened, when your defense has not gotten to the QB: 1. We are not rushing enough men. 2. Our defensive alignments/packages have become too predictable.
I think USC has done both of these things, which have neutralized our defense's effectiveness. How else is average QBs Alex Brink & Isaiah Stanback going to shred our defense - come on now. This proves you cannot become a great defense by just having great athletes. You need to plan appropriate schemes and gameplans to maximize their athleticism. That's the edge that good coaching provides. Therefore, the defensive coordinator needs to mix up the defensive packages, in order to confuse the opponent's offensive coordinators and O-linemen. I would be interested in knowing how many times USC has called blitz packages, what downs, who blitzed besides LBs (i.e. FS, SS, & CB). Does coach Holt really have a clue? Get rid of the conservative approach coach and lets take chances - let these guys fly around and make plays. That's why VY killed us in the Rose Bowl, because we sat back and watched him instead of attacking his ass and playing balls-to-the-wall defense. Why can't we play a 46 style defense? Don't we have the athletes to pull it off?
Posted by: LL Cool Lee | October 8, 2006 10:19 AM
I gotta agree. The defense this year is just as bad as last year. The other teams just march down the field at will. I really thought bringing in Holt and getting some of the guys back (T. Thomas, etc.) would make a change. Since the offense isn't going to out score everyone like last year, it's just a matter of time until they lose.
Posted by: Patrick | October 8, 2006 11:22 AM
Dear Roger: It's spelled "disgraceful."
I agree on the Holt criticism. Supposedly this D is so fast - PC says the fastest he's had. So what - our schemes are not fooling anyone. This sounds like a coaching problem. New D coordinator? Maybe PC needs to supervise more - and get involved at halftime and anytime when it looks like we're not accomplishing anything defensively - like all day yesterday.
Posted by: SoCalMAb | October 8, 2006 08:58 PM