(no message)
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc5MPrEC_2g
(no message)
Some argue that we may have been less conservative with our offensive decisions (Brindza's 3 field goals) had U.S.C. been with their starting Q.B. and scoring points instead of stalling out with Wittek. I suppose that's possible.
But I'd argue we played offensively the same way we had most of the year, regardless of the opponent. We weren't good in the red zone, Golson was inconsistent, and we lacked a stud receiver outside of Eifert. That showed itself verbatim in L.A. that night. The difference to me is that I believe U.S.C. would have scored way more points, as Barkley wouldn't have missed those downfield throws to Marqise Lee.
(no message)
beating them.
Before Harbaugh's Stanford team beat him up in 2009, the last time anyone beat Carroll's U.S.C. squad by double digits was Bob Davie's 2001 N.D. squad.
We fired Davie, and then Carroll enjoyed a nice 7-year stretch against some hapless Willingham and Weis teams. U.S.C. doesn't consider all of those wins as deserving of asterisks (even the victory that was a direct result of an illegal play by an ineligible player). So, I don't put any qualifiers our stretch with Kelly vs. those guys.
Funny how quickly things change.
It's the Jimmy's and Joe's, not the X's and O's.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)