Just watching them finish off BC in a game in which they didn't play very well(I know, I know, conditions didn't help), this obviously wasn't the USC everybody is used to seeing but I think they've been exposed and a gameplan has been developed(in my opinion you can run down hill between the tackles and beat them) that people will use in the years to come; for the longest time they looked absolutely unbeatable.

Thoughts?

Young talented QB.
Overrated FS.
RBs that ride in style.

edit- Still the best use of sweaters in the nation.

^^^^

Pretty intersting assessment

I think they are a bit down after the depressing season they had. They didn't seem excited to play in this game, and it's clear they aren't used to playing in a mediocre bowl game. After they beat OSU they were quite excited, but once they lost to Washington, they lost it. The thing with Johnson didn't help either, I'm sure.

I'm sure getting curbstomped by Toby Gerhart and in Eugene didn't help either

darbypitcher22 wrote: I'm sure getting curbstomped by Toby Gerhart and in Eugene didn't help either

Not many teams didn't get curbstomped by Gerhart, though.

Losing to a below average team on the road is a killer, especially when they saw it coming for the 4th time in 4 years.

Carrol kind of mortgaged this year for the future. I think Barkley will be a great QB in the future, but you can't help but wonder what their record would have been had Corp been the QB.

All in all the team was kind of in transition, and really wasn't as talented as they have been in years past.

I really like Allen Bradford though. Makes me wonder why McKnight gets all the attention

Makes you wonder why any back @ USC gets all the credit.

He replaces 5 star with 5 star and there's no drop off.

BC made Havili look like all world tonight

jordo212000 wrote: Carrol kind of mortgaged this year for the future. I think Barkley will be a great QB in the future, but you can't help but wonder what their record would have been had Corp been the QB.

All in all the team was kind of in transition, and really wasn't as talented as they have been in years past.

I really like Allen Bradford though. Makes me wonder why McKnight gets all the attention

I think the bigger question wasn't Barkley, but the linebackers.

Their front seven was very disappointing this season, and because of that, the average play of Taylor Mays was exposed deep.

DaBrowns41 wrote:
I think the bigger question wasn't Barkley, but the linebackers.

Their front seven was very disappointing this season, and because of that, the average play of Taylor Mays was exposed deep.

You're stalking me!!!! haha just kidding. Yeah, not gonna lie, didn't get to watch more than 3-4 SC games this year, so you may have something with the LBs. I did notice Barkley holding them back at times during the games I did get to see.

Consider that he ended the year with 15 TDs and 14 picks. Nothing spectacular there.

yeah, SC's front seven was pretty weak...

jordo212000 wrote:

DaBrowns41 wrote:
I think the bigger question wasn't Barkley, but the linebackers.

Their front seven was very disappointing this season, and because of that, the average play of Taylor Mays was exposed deep.

You're stalking me!!!! haha just kidding. Yeah, not gonna lie, didn't get to watch more than 3-4 SC games this year, so you may have something with the LBs. I did notice Barkley holding them back at times during the games I did get to see.

Consider that he ended the year with 15 TDs and 14 picks. Nothing spectacular there.

But remember, Corp was the first losing QB for USC. Corp was the QB who threw an INT and zero TD's against a weak Washington defense.

In their blowout loss to Oregon, the defense gave up 47 points because of that tricky zone read. Barkely wasn't great, but wasn't bad either throwing 2 TD's and 1 INT against a talented defense.

Looking back on the Stanford game, there was a big problem with Barkley (3 INT's), and the fact that Gerhart ran right through the middle of the defense.

The Arizona game was mutual for both.

I think you have a point with Barkley's mediocre play, but I would still give slightly more blame to a weak front 7.

DaBrowns41 wrote: But remember, Corp was the first losing QB for USC. Corp was the QB who threw an INT and zero TD's against a weak Washington defense.

True, but there are a few variables that may have changed if things went differently. He hadn't been taking any 1st team reps for quite some time. Is it unreasonable to think his play might have been better with more reps?

Also, remember that Carrol was doing his best Mangini impression of QB roulette. He wouldn't commit to either (was hinting that Barkley could play), and really kept Corp on edge until the last minute

jordo212000 wrote:

DaBrowns41 wrote: But remember, Corp was the first losing QB for USC. Corp was the QB who threw an INT and zero TD's against a weak Washington defense.

True, but there are a few variables that may have changed if things went differently. He hadn't been taking any 1st team reps for quite some time. Is it unreasonable to think his play might have been better with more reps?

Also, remember that Carrol was doing his best Mangini impression of QB roulette. He wouldn't commit to either (was hinting that Barkley could play), and really kept Corp on edge until the last minute

I was getting ready to mention that. Corp did get a lot of reps with the first, team, until the last minute when Barkley was named the starter.

I don't know if Corp would have made a huge difference or not with how the defense played throughout the year

I personally think Corp would have had the same amount of success as Barkley. The only difference is that Corp is a bit safer with the football, but he also doesn't have the play making ability that Barkley has. I'd say it'd be a wash. IMO.

I have no feelings about them whatsoever. I know this sounds petty and juvenile, but as long as they are struggling, I am overjoyed. I simply do not like the USC Program, their Coach, or their players. They seem like a spoiled bunch of babies who are fine when they're winning every game, but throw a loss or two in there and they fold like the proverbial cheap suit. I just wish they had folded the week of the Ohio State Game.

^^^^^

I think a majority of college football fans feel this way

I think the Media and voters had overhyped a team that had just lost their defensive leadership from the 4 previous seasons, and they finished about where they should have. Nobody could have picked Oregon or Stanford to be better teams than USC, not saying that at all, but they should never have been preseason top 5. This kind of thing has to happen at some point to every franchise. Its happened here to OSU, it happens practically everywhere. I'm willing to bet that USC will be back as a power next season, however.

Swamp Fox wrote: I have no feelings about them whatsoever. I know this sounds petty and juvenile, but as long as they are struggling, I am overjoyed. I simply do not like the USC Program, their Coach, or their players. They seem like a spoiled bunch of babies who are fine when they're winning every game, but throw a loss or two in there and they fold like the proverbial cheap suit. I just wish they had folded the week of the Ohio State Game.

This needed to be said again.

If USC would go back into obscurity for another 20 years, I'd be just fine with that.

USC will be back. You know you're a great program when 9-4 is a down year. I think all the coaching changes finally caught up to them a bit. It hurt worse because of all the new faces on defense. There didn't seem to be a great chemistry between the coaching staff and defensive players. That happens though when you're trying to find out who you are. They'll be better next year. I think injuries hurt them a bit more this year. Every team has them, but USC has some real good players miss actiong this year. I think the biggest thing for their lack of great success this year was the QB position. For the first time in a long time, Pete's recruits didn't live up to the hype. He was forced to go with the true FR. That will hurt any program. You recruit a QB thinking he'll be your guy in 2-3 years, but when he doesn't become that guy, you are left searching for answers.

Not sure how they beat the Buckeyes in the Shoe. Complete coaching letdown in that game.

^^^^

this is pretty much a general consensus among everyone here

2 decisive calls in that game and the review booth blew both of them--both calls going in favor of USC.The "mystique" of USC,like Notre Dame is gone,gone,gone.Over-marketed,over-bearing and a whole lot of nostalgia--whooopie

Sonofanump wrote: Young talented QB.
Overrated FS.
RBs that ride in style.

edit- Still the best use of sweaters in the nation.

+1..end of story