I’ve had several e-mails the past couple of days with some compliments and follow up questions about the USC offense in particular. Since I assume the offense is the topic of most interest to people I’ll summarize the questions and the responses I gave for anyone else to read.

The Basic Questions

• Will USC open up the offense this year under Steve Sarkisian?
• Will USC throw the ball more down field this year like it did in the Rose Bowl?
• Will we finally see some big plays?
• Will the play calling finally improve now the Lane Kiffin is gone?
• Will the offense sputter again or score more points?

There were a couple questions worded differently but this was the gist of the contents. The following is based upon comments I took down from Steve Sarkisian during the Q & A session after his presentation at the USC / Nike coaching clinic and some of my own analysis and thoughts on the matter.

Let’s start with the “play calling” angle and offensive output.

I actually tangentially covered this in some gory detail in a February post entitled, “How USC Scores”. You might be shocked if you look at the contents but it shows that there were not as many things wrong with the USC offense in 2006 as you might think. I know that is hard to believe but hear me out. For starters most fans including myself were completely spoiled by the Trojan offense in 2005. That was an off the charts performance in terms of USC or NCAA football history and may not be duplicated again. Our “reasonable expectations” went completely out the window as a result. For reference in comparison we need to look back more at 2003 and 2004 more carefully and I attempted to do this in the February post - I'll put a link here if you want to go directly back to it.

How USC Scores

None the less putting statistics aside, most fans I speak with are still convinced that the “play calling” was the main problem in 2006. Somehow if better plays had been called then the offense magically would have improved. There are a couple of problems with this line of thinking however. First off neither Pete Carroll nor the rest of the USC coaching staff thinks there was anything all that wrong with the play calling in 2006. Sure they’d call a few things differently here and there but to them that is just “second guessing” and something that will always go on in football. The game is more about execution to coaches than it is play calling.

Secondly as I point out above I checked some interesting statistics. The most important one is that the 2003 and 2004 offense only scored 22-23 points per game when forced to start outside of the opponent’s 40 yard line during those two years. Yes they had “big play” potential but in reality they did not score a lot when starting on their own side of the field and forced to march the entire distance. How did the under-performing 2006 squad do in this dimension? It turns out they also put up 22 points per game as well when forced to start outside the opponent 40 yard line.

So how did the 2003 and 2004 squads score so many more points? After all they averaged 37-41 points per game as most will recall. Well it turns out there are a couple of statistical reasons why. First the game was 10% shorter last year due to the NCAA clock rule changes according to different published reports and my own analysis as well. This difference cost USC about 7-8 plays per game and one drive. Strictly using an average that effect is about 2-3 points per game. Second the 2003 and to a lesser extent the 2004 defense actually scored some points on fumble recoveries and interceptions returned for touchdowns. That was another 3 points per game that the 2006 squad did not have. The remaining factor was field position after turnovers. The 2003-2004 squads forced about 40 turnovers per year. The 2006 squad forced only half that number. The average starting field position after a turnover in 2003-2004 was just inside the 40 yard line of the opponent. From that starting field position USC is about 80% likely to score. That added another couple of points to the equation.

So there were a lot of reasons it turns out why there were fewer points in 2006 and not all of them had much to do with “play calling” to be honest when you stop and look at it. That is what the coaching staff is seeing I am pretty sure when they look at the data and why they are not worried about play calling as much as fans are. Points come from different sources including defense and special teams and not just the offense.

For a sanity check I also checked a few other dimensions in 2006. It turns out that 3^rd and 4^th down conversion percentages were among the highest in recent history. In fact it beat both the 2003 and 2004 squads and only trailed 2005. The average drive distance in 2006 was a yard longer and the average scoring drive was also a few yards longer as well. For an offense that struggled it matched the 2003-2004 squads in a couple of interesting ways. Total points was just not one of them. In fairness though the 2006 team simply did not have either the same skill level (yet), field position, or number of turnovers benefiting it that the earlier squads did in comparison…

Okay, but will Steve Sarkisian open up the offense and throw more down field?

Maybe. But I would not bet on it based upon comments he has made in the media or at the coaching clinic. For starters remember that Sark actually was in on the play calling last year. Somehow in the eyes of some fans Lane Kiffin become the whipping boy for all the perceived problems on offense. However in reality all season long Pete Carroll and Steve Sarkisian were in on the play calling. More importantly they were all in on the overall game planning and preparation process as well. By Pete Carroll’s own admission it was he that had to be convinced at half time to stop running the football and throw the ball more against Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Sark accepted Kiffin’s calls on the field during the games last year and hand signaled them into the quarterback. He also over-ruled them at times and changed the play.

So will Sark give Booty the green light to throw more down field? You have to remember that Sark came out of the BYU offense and Lavelle Edwards school of football. So did Norm Chow for that matter. Norm goes to great lengths to point this out when he speaks at clinics. The BYU offense was predicated upon the concept of short quick throws in lieu of the power running game by necessity. Then when the situation provided an opportunity (e.g. the defense was cheating forward or putting 8 men in the box) they would take shots down field utilizing rollouts and play action passes. Sark emphasized this at the coaching clinic when he pointed out that the difference between a 55% passer with interceptions and a 68% passer with TD’s was the ability to hit the check down receiver. In particular he did not want to see the QB forcing the ball down field. He stated clearly that forcing the ball down field was not the goal of the offense at all…If the pass is there take it. If not check down to the shorter receiver. It comes down a lot to the QB's ability to make the proper reads and his decision making skills.

So what is the coaching staff working on then?

Based upon coach and player comments and some analysis I honestly suspect it is more the running game than the passing game. The USC offense despite its perceived woes did average 263 yards per game passing and was ranked 14^th in the NCAA last season in this category. What did not go well was the running game. The squad finished up only ranked 68^th in the nation and it was getting worse every week of the year. After averaging 178 yards per game the first three games the bottom fell out and averaged around 100 yards per game the rest of the way. The final result was 128 yards per game and 4.0 yards per carry average. In reality the last two games averaged something more like 55 yards and a mere 2.5 yards per carry against Michigan and UCLA. Inability to convert third down and short with the rushing offense was a large problem last season. That stat annoys the coaching staff most of all and is something they are working on hard to fix in practice. If the problem was youth at tailback and injuries at fullback then the situation will probably self correct. If the problem was more in the offensive line then I am still concerned and looking forward to seeing how they perform in the Spring Huddle for example.

So are we headed for 3 yards and a cloud of dust?

Not at all. Per Sark’s comments at the coaching clinic he and Pete Carroll pride themselves on being a balanced offense. They want to be able to run and throw against any team as the situation requires. Sark specifically mentioned they did not want to get into game situations like Oregon State, Michigan, or UCLA where they had to throw nearly every down in the second half by necessity. Those were viewed as problematic games in hindsight by the coaches. In the three games where USC opened it up the most in the passing attack the squad only went 1W – 2L’s. In order to avoid that again they want to be able to make the short passing game and the run plays work as required to keep the defense honest and the chains moving.

In reality when this happens something will occur that all fans including myself will get excited about. After all the short passes, throws to the tight end and running plays gaining a consistent 4 to 5 yards the defenses will be forced to adjust. They’ll move the linebackers a step closer and bring up a safety to put 8 men in the box to stop the run. That is when you will see USC throw the ball down field and with more success. Sark believes you have to run well in order to throw the ball well. Conversely you should also throw the ball well in order to run well. Since the running game was relatively more broken than the passing game last year that is what the coaches are working on.

Will we see big plays this year?

Yes. Not to alarm you by all the convoluted talk on the matter. Even without Dwayne Jarrett and Steve Smith I think the offense will do just fine in 2007. The number one reason why is John David Booty. Quarterbacks always improve in college after another year in the system. JDB will complete more throws down field based upon poise, confidence, and increased ability. I would be shocked if that were not the case.

Secondly the return of a fullback will pay bigger dividends than most fans realize. Stanley Havili runs an excellent pattern out of the backfield and has very good hands. He may only carry the ball a few times per game but he will still have big impact in the total offensive scheme of things.

Third I believe the running game will get back on track in 2007. There is just too much talent back there for someone to not step up this season. The bigger question I have is with the offensive line at this point in time. There will be a new center possibly in Nick Howell, and specifically there is the health of Jeff Byers and the eligibility of Matt Spanos to worry about. Drew Radovich is also shifting from left guard to right tackle it appears as of today. If all these players are healthy, capable, and can adjust then I’m reasonably optimistic with the running game. If not then I fear somewhat of a repeat of last year at times on offense.

Lastly the defense in 2007 should help out the offense more. Pete Carroll was not happy about only forcing 22 turnovers last year or half the total of previous years. Every turnover the defense forces takes away a possession from the opposition and gives another one to the USC offense. Give the 2006 squad 20 more drives starting inside the opponents 40 yard line and they’d have 100+ more points as well too last year! (Note: I’m hedging my bet on special teams play. Every year I keep hoping it will improve but in reality each year it is just average. I’ll table my expectations this year and see if that helps the situation.)