In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I agree but the problem with that also extends to Tedford.
Similar to Lane, Tedford is a pretty stoic guy emotionally and lacks personality. Not exactly the best solution to yield your aforementioned mental/ physical/ emotional readiness. These are normally accomplished by having a rah rah guy like Pete.
And Kiffin couldn't move the ball what, 3-4 yards against ND in 4 minutes?
What many of you are forgetting is that Tedford will have much better talent to work with, IF he comes to 'SC. He almost beat tOSU at the 'Shoe last season too, so he has shown some ability to hang with the big boys. He also beat UCLA.
This post was edited by oldtrojan 93 17 months ago
Something to keep an eye on...
I think they shouldn't, learn a new system is not a one year plan
So? Kiffin looked great in the game vs oregon. Granted, we still lost, but we lit up oregon's defense, as compared to what cal did against oregon.
The whole "he'll have better talent to work with" argument doesnt work. If it did, why arent we going undefeated or having 1-2 losses every year? We have some of the best talent in the nation. Just having better talent to work with doesnt guarantee that his playcalling will produce better results.
We didn't go undefeated or have 1-2 losses this year because the play calling (on both sides of the ball) was haphazard at best. Hence the need for new people and consideration of Tedford. And productivity as a coach /= productivity as a play caller. If Tedford's only responsibility was as an OC, we might see improved results
What we DO know is that a Kiffin calling the plays (on either side of the ball) isn't enough and other people will have to be considered.
In any event, we will all know how this experiment works at the conclusion of next season.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by oldtrojan 93 17 months ago
So far the Lane Kiffin Experiment is yielding decidedly mixed results.
Join the fight for YOUR liberty!
I think you're right in part about preparation being the big problem (though I do believe play calling was a major problem on it's own).
But if that's the case, what changed between the high flying offense of 2011 and the stagnation of 2012? Defensively, for me, it was obviously the lack of tackling in practice. But offensively I have no explanation besides Kiffin over thinking everything.
We average 34 points a game this past year on offense. Thats our 3rd highest average since the end of the 2005 season. We averaged 451 yards a game this year on offense. That was only 5 yards behind last season's average and only 2 yards behind the 2008 season.
If Tedford was as good of a playcaller as what people think he is, he should have been able to get more out of the offense, regardless of the talent that was out there. You said that if OC was Tedford's only responsibility, we might see improved results. The same argument can be said for Kiffin. Heck, if all Kiffin had to focus on was calling plays, we might have averaged 600 yards a game. We just dont know though. But when you compare both coaches side by side, they both had the same roles as HC and playcaller, but Kiffin's offensive production was way better.
We ranked 29th in the country last year with 452 yards per game. Why should we settle for Tedford, when we could go out and find another OC playcaller who had the same or slightly lesser talent than us, runs a similar offense, yet put up more yards than what we did this year, like Oklahoma's OC, or Clemson's OC, or Georgia's OC, or Florida State's OC. Whatever fascination you have with Tedford, I just dont see it.
Perhaps because those OC's are not available, or more importantly, are not interested?
LMAO. That's great. CLK would pull out the menu when exchanging insurance info.
The menu would tell him to give his insurance information to Marquise.
I don't necessarily think you need a rah rah guy on offense. Norm Chow seems to have zero personality and was probably USC's best OC in the last 15 years.
Whoever it is, I'd like it to be someone a little older who has instant credibility. Not someone who will be ok with being OC in name only.
Scheme and play calling are the two biggest issues with the offense. It has nothing to do with talent or the OL. It is 99% coaching, preparation and attitude (avoiding mistakes and playing not to lose).
Your premise that 2011 was a high flying offense would be incorrect too.
If you want a good reason for stagnation in 2012, how about more film on LKs play calling and tendencies. Basically after every game, we heard that the defense took away something USC wanted to do and USC struggled to make even minor adjustments in the 2nd half.
I would like for USC to hire an OC and I want that OC to be Jeff Tedford for the very reasons I have mentioned over the last 6 weeks.
Clemson s offense requires a running QB . Oklahomas offense would work better with a running qb
What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome.--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports