What are your takeaways from the Stanford-USC game? Is Stanford that good or USC that bad?
Andy Burnett: McCaffrey.
Taylor Henry: Stanford is a good, solid football team. They're sound, won't beat themselves with penalties, and they have one of the best players in the country. As for USC, they have all these playmakers on the outside, and they're scared to get them the ball. They don't throw it deep, and don't force defenses to play the deep ball. It seems to me that Browne is too scared to make mistakes and lose the job, when he needs to just let it rip. Until USC finds offensive consistency, since they've scored 1 TD in 2 games against Power 5 teams, they're in serious trouble.
Gabey Lucas: And for everything USC has in talent, they seem to lack that solid execution that Stanford has.
Jose Bouquett: I don't think USC is going to be good for the next couple of years. What makes a kid want to go to USC because they're just going to keep losing again and again. Their history is great but who cares about what you did in the past. It's a "what have you done for me recently" kind of world. Also, Stanford is good at football.
Nico: I'm super late to the party, I'm cheating to say that USC is that bad and Stanford is that good imo. all it takes for USC to be good again is one competent coach, and the run of Kiffin --> Sark/Orgeron --> Clay Helton has been stunningly inept. Contrast that with Stanford, a program with less talent compared to USC, that just keeps on chugging along.
Stanford is the most well-coached team in the conference, and I don't think it's all that close. So to see it contrasted against what USC is bringing out on the sidelines is laughable.
If USC were able to hire Bob Stoops or Les Miles they would become a death machine again.
Avinash: USC had their chance at Herman. Chose Helton. He understands tradition.
Nico: It's honestly stunning what has become of USC though, In 4 years at UCLA, Jim Mora has coached against 4 different USC coaches, and I don't think it's crazy that it could be 5 come November (although I put Clay getting fired at like a 15% chance).
Ryan Larson: There's no question a coach is as important as it gets in college but sometimes other advantages make a difference which is why USC has always had an edge on Oregon until recently.
Nico: I don't think it's a matter of tradition, just that it's become clear that Carroll and his tree of assistants wasn't as good as the USC powers that be think they are.
Contrast that with Stanford hiring a Harbaugh assistant and things are working out just fine.
(Clarification: Carroll was obviously good, but his assistants without Carroll aren't as good as the Harbaugh assistants are without Harbaugh.)
Ryan: People thought Carroll was a great coach because he had Bush and Leinart at the same time, any of us could look like a great coach with those dudes running the offense.
Hot take: Carroll is a mediocre coach at best, good recruiter decent manager of talent overall mediocre coach.
Jose: Ryan... come on... if USC had Carroll now he'd make them a contender again. #MakeUSCGreatAgain
Nico: I think what makes Carroll so good is his ability to adapt. Carroll in the NFL before USC and after USC are night and day different coaches. There's something to be said for coaches continuing to learn and adapt and get better, and Carroll is a prime example of that.
Ryan: The difference between Carroll at New England and Carroll at Seattle was Seattle had loads of talent, look at what Seattle is doing now that they're starting to lose talent they just lost a game 9-3