Behind The USC Trojan Scoring Decline: Part II

As you can see, each season has a different pattern and strength. None of course live up to the standard set by the 2005 Trojan offense; few teams ever will in my opinion. The number one year in terms of big runs for USC was the 2005 season by a wide margin. The 2007 season comes in second just edging the 2004 squad. The top year for big passes is a close race between the 2002, 2003, and 2005 Trojan offense.

It would take 18 individual charts to show each season since 2002 for big runs, big passes, and total offense. If you are that curious here is a link to a page that contains all charts by category and by year (click here). Conversely if averages are more your cup of tea then this file is of more use (click here).

Looking at the table above highlights that the 2006 Trojan offense was quite deficient in terms of big run plays generating only 27 plays of greater than twelve yards. Conversely the number of big pass plays was significantly down in 2007 to the lowest level since 2001. Of course the loss of starting QB John David Booty for three games no doubt affected this total. Still however it was trending for a slightly down year in the passing department even before his injury.

Pete Carroll and the USC Trojan coaching staff did an excellent job improving the running game in 2007. I suspect that the onus now moves mostly back to the passing side of the equation in 2008. A new more mobile starting QB in Mark Sanchez and a more experienced WR corps in 2008 may be poised for a break out year in that respect. Conversely a relatively new offensive line may drive some caution and a higher percentage of three step passes for the early part of the year until the offense settles in and finds a rhythm.

Keep in mind also however that opponent defensive coordinators are not sitting idly by twiddling their thumbs. They spend their off season studying opponent film and figuring out ways to stop attacks. Either in the form of different fire zone blitzes or slightly different secondary schemes, etc. they will have something new in store in 2008 as always.  From casual observation and reading recent off season coaching clinic material it appears that more teams in the Pac-10 seem to be favoring a Cover 4 secondary scheme (aka quarters coverage) on defense than in the past.

Cover 4 Sample Alignment

 

This scheme is normally tough to throw deep against as it defends deeper vertical passing routes very well. Instead it gives up the flats area forcing a more lateral style passing attack. With down hill safety play it can also be quite effective versus the running game.

This scheme and other similar flavors such as the popular hybrid 1/4, 1/4, 1/2 style coverage schemes versus 3 WR Trips sets may be why YPC is down by 15% over the past half a dozen years in the Pac-10. Click here for a summary of Pac-10 offense trends to locate the YPC trend. Or perhaps it could be the influx of more defensively minded coaches into the league or other reasons such as player ability. That effect is tough to sort out and is good for debate. Of course that does not get the USC Trojans off the hook for the decline in big plays. The high standard of the past few seasons has created annually high expectations.

Regardless 2008 should be an interesting season to watch unfold overall in the Pac-10 and for USC in particular. I'll update the USC Trojan big play trends toward the end of the season to see how the results look in this regard. For USC to have a season that matches 2004 in terms of a national championship a sustained and balanced level of "big plays" in both the rushing and passing department will be required. Mark Sanchez, Stafon Johnson, Joe McKnight, Vidal Hazelton and other skill players get their chance to make big plays for the Trojans in 2008. I doubt however that a USC offense matching the 2005 squad will be been seen again for quite some time.

Note: The data for the histograms was calculated from unofficial play by play stats off of various websites. The charts are accurate to the extent that base data is correct which I can not confirm. Sampling a couple games versus the NCAA data base however did not show any significant deviation.

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?